HomeMy WebLinkAbout03112015 - packet CITY OF UKIAH
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
March 11, 2015
6:00 P.M.
1. CALL TO ORDER 6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
UKIAH CIVIC CENTER, 300 SEMINARY AVENUE
2. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS WATT, HILLIKER,
CHRISTENSEN, PRUDEN, CHAIR WHETZEL
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes from the following meeting are included for review and approval:
A. February 25, 2015
5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
The Planning Commission welcomes input from the audience. In order for everyone to
be heard, please limit your comments to three (3) minutes per person and not more
than ten (10) minutes per subject. The Brown Act regulations do not allow action to be
taken on audience comments.
6. APPEAL PROCESS
All determinations of the Planning Commission regarding major discretionary planning
permits are final unless a written appeal, stating the reasons for the appeal, is filed with
the City Clerk within ten (10) days of the date the decision was made. An interested
parry may appeal only if he or she appeared and stated his or her position during the
hearing on the decision from which the appeal is taken. For items on this agenda, the
appeal must be received by March 23, 2015 at 5:00 p.m.
7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION
8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE
9. PUBLIC HEARING
A. AT&T Wireless Communications Cell Tower Site Development Permit and
Use Permit, 300 Seminary Avenue (File No. 266). Consideration and possible
action on a request for approval of a Site Development Permit and Use Permit to
allow the construction and operation of a wireless communications cell tower (two
alternatives/options) on the Ukiah Civic Center property, 300 Seminary Avenue,
Ukiah.
Americans with Disabilities Act Accommodations.Please be advised that the City needs to be notified 72 hours in advance of a
meeting if any specific accommodations or interpreter services are needed in order for you to attend.The City complies with
ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities upon request. Please call (707)
463-6752 or(707)463-6207 to arrange accommodations.
11. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
12. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
13. ADJOURNMENT
Americans with Disabilities Act Accommodations.Please be advised that the City needs to be notified 72 hours in advance of a
meeting if any specific accommodations or interpreter services are needed in order for you to attend.The City complies with
ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities upon request. Please call (707)
463-6752 or(707)463-6207 to arrange accommodations.
1 UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 February 25, 2015
3 Minutes
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
6 Mike Whetzel, Chair
7 Christopher Watt
8 Mark Hilliker
9 Judy Pruden
10 Laura Christensen
11
12 STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
13 Charley Stump, Planning Director 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 November 12, 2014 meeting are included for
26 review and approval.
27
28 M/S Pruden/Christensen to approve November 12, 2014 minutes, as submitted. Motion carried with
29 Commissioner Watt and Commissioner Hilliker abstaining.
30
31 5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
32
33 6. APPEAL PROCESS — Chair Whetzel read the appeal process. For matters heard at this
34 meeting, the final date to appeal is March 9, 2015.
35
36 7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION - Confirmed by Commission.
37
38 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE - Confirmed by staff.
39
40 9. PUBLIC HEARING
41 9A. Grace Hudson Museum Nature Education Center Use Permit and Site Development Permit,
42 431 South Main Street (File No.569). Consideration and possible action on a request for
43 approval of a Use Permit and Site Development Permit to allow major outdoor site improvements
44 to create an outdoor nature education center and to permit a portion of a fence to reach a height
45 of 8-feet on the Grace Hudson Museum/Sun House Property at 431 South Main Street.
46
47 Planning Director Stump:
48 • Is please to present the proposed Project and provided information related to background and the
49 project description as addressed on pages 1 -4 and attachment 4 of the staff report.
50 • Introduced Ann Baker, Landscape Architect for the Project.
51
52 Ann Baker, Project Landscape Architect:
53 • Gave a project presentation as specifically provided for and as exhibited in the site and civil
54 model plans related to the renovation/improvement components of the Project that include:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 25, 2015
Page 1
1 Renovated and enlarged parking lot - adding 11 new spaces and installing a bio-swale with bio-
2 treatment area and new trees and shrubs; Creating a Ts'Wish storm water treatment wetland
3 area east of the parking lot; Installing a nature based education landscape, pathways and
4 boardwalk that moves through a variety of habitat gardens; Creating an outdoor classroom space;
5 Installation of a brush arbor and open walled outdoor classroom with storage pods in rear;
6 Enhancing existing swale with riparian habitat area north of the parking lot; Installation of a 6' tall
7 perimeter fence and block wall feature along on the north and northwest property lines;
8 Installation of a living willow fence in front of the existing chain link fence along the northeast
9 property line; Installation of an 8' tall cement board fence along a portion of the east property line;
10 Installation of native plants throughout the site; Installation of a Pomo plant and gray water
11 garden; Site identification signs, exhibit signs, plant identification signs, etc.; Installation of low
12 level decorative lighting; and Installation of a variety of interpretive displays and explained how
13 these components/processes, i.e., interpretative/educational gardens, educational trails, wild
14 gardens, exhibit areas, storm water management systems, outdoor classrooms, perimeter
15 fence/wall for security will interface cohesively/successfully between nature and culture.
16 Planning Director Stump commented on other related elements that concern the Project:
17 • Approximately 40 trees are targeted for removal because they are in decline, diseased and/or
18 exist in the parking lot area where significant improvements are proposed. To counter balance the
19 removal, 46 new trees are proposed for planting. All existing trees on the site are being evaluated
20 to make certain they are sustainable, healthy and a good fit as a resource for the diverse, rich
21 and complex landscaping improvements proposed for the Museum outdoor campus.
22 • Careful consideration was given to what the proposed Project might do to the historic nature of
23 the Sun House where the intent was to make certain the improvements/renovations would not
24 adversely compromise the historic significance of the Sun House Museum. Precautionary
25 measures were taken to insure protection such that a historic evaluation with regard to
26 appropriate treatment of a historic property concluded the proposed project would not have an
27 adverse effect on the Sun House Museum (see attachment 6 of the staff report).
28 • Related to the eight-foot fence, the proposed use permit is to allow relief from the six-foot
29 maximum height requirement to allow a section of the fence to be eight feet tall as illustrated in
30 the site plans for security and aesthetic reasons. Staff is supportive of the eight-foot height and all
31 fencing, as proposed. He further commented on the location of the fencing with regard to property
32 lines on adjacent City Streets, i.e., Main Street and Clay Street.
33 • The DRB reviewed the Project and was highly supportive thereof, but did have a lengthy
34 discussion about the fencing with no consensus about whether or not to push portions of the
35 fencing back some.
36 • The parking lot will be expanded with the addition of 11 new parking spaces. There was initial
37 concern about this expansion, but this is no longer the case. The parking lot will feature
38 permeable surfacing with the end product being of quality. Even with the 11 new parking spaces,
39 the parking lot will continue to receive a tremendous amount of shade. Having ample parking for
40 the Museum is important and is designed to be highly sensitive to what is environmentally
41 occurring on the site.
42 • There are some landscaping modifications being sought related to the parking. City Code
43 requires one tree be planted for every four parking spaces. The Museum Project is unable to
44 meet this standard. However, the Project with the perimeter plantings and mature trees 60%
45 shade coverage will be provided for the parking lot and this is exceeds the 50% City standard so
46 the issue of having to plant one tree for every four parking spaces is essentially irrelevant in this
47 regard. Staff is supportive of this landscaping modification.
48 • City Code requires pedestrian access through the center of the parking lot to assist people from
49 their vehicles to the front entryway. This would compromise the drainage swale/bio-swale from
50 the center of the parking lot and finds this aspect to be more important than having a pedestrian
51 crossing. There is pedestrian access all around the parking lot. In actuality the parking lot is small
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 25, 2015
Page 2
1 with a short distance to the front entrance of the Museum. Staff is also supportive of this
2 landscaping modification.
3 • The technical studies indicate the new wetland area designated for drainage will work. Finds this
4 to be a very valuable asset to the proposed Project that sets `the bar high' for future projects,
5 particularly with how the Project will be conducive to the treatment of storm water.
6 • Addressed the PEP senior affordable housing project that is proposed adjacent to the south of
7 the Museum/Sun House Museum property and how architecturally complementary this project is
8 to the historical Museum property. The proposed project is particularly sensitive to the issues of
9 access and fencing between the two sites. The Museum and PEP project leaders/decision
10 makers are working closely together to make certain both projects are of quality and value to the
11 community.
12 • The proposed Museum Project is consistent with the Ukiah General Plan goals and policies,
13 particularly with regard to the policy the Project supports a strong local economy. The Project is
14 consistent with the corresponding zoning ordinance requirements with the exception of the two
15 proposed landscaping modifications concerning the parking lot of providing 50% shade coverage
16 in 10 years (City of Ukiah standard) and the requirement of one tree planted for every four
17 parking spaces.
18 • Is of the opinion the proposed Project will make the Museum a `world class museum' that will take
19 the existing Museum to a much higher level and likely draw tourism to Ukiah.
20 • Related to environmental review, staff determined the Project is categorically exempt from CEQA
21 review. Since the Project pertains primarily to landscaping where the elements of the Project are
22 intended to enhance and improve the environment is of the opinion the Project should be
23 categorically exempt.
24 • Supports Project approval.
25
26 Commissioner Hilliker:
27 • Understands the Project focuses a great deal on storm water drainage/harvesting and treatment
28 and inquired whether or not there is an alternate plan to supply/manage the pond area in the
29 rear of the lot and/or is this part of the Project plan/design.
30 • Asked about the origin of the gray water area.
31 • Asked about the eight-foot tall fence and issues associated with access through the fence,
32 particularly with regard to emergency situations.
33 • Asked about the location of the fire hydrant that appears to be in the middle of the driveway.
34
35 Chair Whetzel:
36 • Asked about the fence on the south property line and whether it will be replaced.
37 Asked about Oracle Oak trees in the front of the property in the planter areas and questioned
38 whether they would thrive in this location. It is possible their root system would be destructive to
39 the concrete in the future.
40
41 Ann Baker:
42 • Referred to the site plans/drawings and explained the location and how the storm water line is
43 fed/comes in and is treated on the north and south sides of the property. Acknowledged there is
44 water that exists on the property year round and explained how the drainage ditch effectively
45 functions in this regard. Maintaining water quality is a priority because fish exist in the pond.
46 Further explained how water is transported/treated as it runs through the storm water garden.
47 • Referred to the site plans and explained the gray water system has been upgraded/simplified
48 and essentially consists of a small sink in the storage area of the classroom that drains directly
49 into the landscaping and into a functioning storm water basin thereof.
50 • Referred to the site plans and talked about access opportunities/location on the site as well as
51 changes being made to the existing access that will allow for more workable situations.
52 • The fire hydrant will be relocated and the location is shown on the civil plans.
53 • The southerly fence pertains to the adjacent PEP affordable senior housing project. There will
54 be a shared path between the two projects that extends along the property line. Explained in
55 more detail how the fencing will work in this area.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 25, 2015
Page 3
1 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:38 p.m.
2
3 Sherrie Smith-Ferri, Museum Director:
4 • Is pleased to be working on the Project and the associated professionals connected with the
5 Project.
6
7 Paige Poulos, President of the Grace Hudson Museum/Sun House Guild:
8 • Thanked the persons working on the Project and for bringing it to fruition.
9 • Finds it astonishing what has been accomplished within budget and in a timely manner to create
10 an exciting new public resource in Ukiah.
11
12 Commissioner Pruden:
13 • Acknowledged there have been a lot of public discussion/opinions expressed about what should
14 occur on the Museum property with the grant funding appropriations.
15 • The Tree Advisory Committee established by the City has expressed concern about the tree
16 removal for the Project.
17 • The landscaping proposed for the Project is extensive and commented 1) the American
18 Persimmon grove in the rear of the property was designated as a City landmark tree. Extra
19 sensitivity will have to be given in this regard and with regard to `group trees.' An extra level of
20 review might be necessary. 2) The Oracle Oak is an odd choice for a front driveway and is a
21 difficult species of tree to find for purchase. The Oracle Oak will uplift the sidewalk. Oracle Oak is
22 a hybrid between a Live Oak and Black Oak. They occur mostly in the Sierra foothills and are
23 very specialized. Oak trees need ample room to grow and mature. They would not thrive in three
24 small planter wells. Unless having a native tree species is a requirement in the front location,
25 would suggest a smaller non-native tree such as a Washington Hawthorne. The Scarlet Oak is a
26 good street tree.
27 • Referred to page 14, attachment 1, condition of approval 8 reads, `the project will add new
28 landscaping and enhance the existing landscaping on the site. The project will not destroy any
29 natural land features or creeks because none exist on the site. Some trees must be removed,
30 but it is largely due to their declining or dead condition, and questions the language that states
31 `natural land features or creeks because none exist on the site.' The Museum site has
32 approximately two springs that run nearly year round. It is good, clean water and should be
33 recognized as a natural feature and not referred to as a `drainage ditch.'
34 • Asked if the State of California Parks system has been notified as a courtesy about the Project
35 since the Museum is a landmark property. Sees no comments from the State Parks system
36 concerning the Project.
37 • Expressed concern about the eight-foot fence although she understands the purpose is for
38 safety/security. Finds that with the fence, `we are almost putting the Museum and Sun House in
39 jail' and asked if it were possible to take a `more open' approach. Is not particularly fond with the
40 basket design feature on certain portions of the fencing. Is of the opinion some of view-scape is
41 blocked.
42 • Asked why the `Roman'font was selected for signage as opposed to an art craftsman style font.
43
44 Sherri Smith-Ferri:
45 • Was not aware the State Parks system needed to be notified, but will do if necessary.
46 • A formal decision has not been made as to the font type for signage.
47
48 Planning Director Stump:
49 • There is no condition of approval that requires the signage be a particular font. There is, however,
50 a condition that says the plans submitted for a building permit must be in substantial conformance
51 with what the Planning Commission approves. Would not to be obligated to bring back something
52 like font type to the Planning Commission for further review.
53
54 Commissioner Watt:
55 • Asked about the proposed watershed block and how it is colored. Is this integral to the material?
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 25, 2015
Page 4
1 • Will the block units be grouted together? Is the grout to be exposed?
2 • Related to the water feature, how is water in this facility treated?
3 • Are photos of the cable fence available?Was this on the materials list?
4 • Related to the bio-swale should there be a concern about it being a potential tripping hazard
5 having this wet creek-like feature in between parking spaces that does not appear to have curbs?
6 • Is there a concern about vectors in the pond?
7 • Related to the spring that runs/flows in the area, should there be a concern about securing water
8 rights in this regard because of the pond and any diversion that may be constructed due to the
9 flow line of the pond and/or any potential retention thereof?
10
11 Commissioner Hilliker:
12 • Related to the back north east corner of the property asked about the fate of the three Eucalyptus
13 trees? Does not see them on the site plan?
14
15 Commissioner Christensen:
16 • Related to the potential for the presence of vectors, requested clarification the water on the site
17 will be moving.
18 • Asked for clarification: `the permeable parking areas will be interpretive for visitors.'
19
20 Chair Whetzel:
21 • Will there be real fish in the Salmon Habitat?
22
23 Ann Baker:
24 • The appearance of the watershed block is intended to look like a natural aggregate color. Worked
25 with a graphic designer to make certain the modular block units represent the basket design and
26 this would be from an environmental aesthetic viewpoint. The choice of material was also
27 intended to be resilient in terms of maintenance. All the materials used for the Project are natural
28 where the intent is to stay consistent with the color palate throughout the entire project.
29 • Confirmed the block units will be grouted together and explained the technique. Basically the
30 bocks are CMU blocks made of natural material. Little to no grout or 1/4" grout can be used
31 where a determination will be made in this regard.
32 • Confirmed a water treatment system will be installed and elaborated on the system type and how
33 it functions.
34 • Does not specifically have photos of the cable fence, but the fencing type is similar to cable rail
35 fencing that people have in their yards. Confirmed the cable fence was not on the materials list.
36 • Related to the bio-swale confirmed there are no curbs, but rather buffer strips. The design
37 concept is to use low shrubs along the perimeter that will more appropriately/clearly define the
38 bio-swale area. The bio-swale in this area does not just drop off into a ditch-like condition.
39 • Explained the treatment that will be used in the pond so that it does not become stagnate as
40 shown in the detail plans concerning bio-swales and the pond.
41 • Addressed the flow line of the pond and how it would effectively work in the area without any
42 need for concern.
43 • The local tree arborist looked at the trees. The intent is to remove two of the smaller Eucalyptus
44 trees that are on the west side and leave the taller tree until which time other large trees can be
45 identified for this location. Likes Cottonwoods. At present, we are in the evaluating stage and
46 `trying to be adaptive.'
47 • Confirmed water will be moving on the site and explained how flow and drainage systems will
48 function related to the basin/storm water line/treatment in the wetland area/meadow. Avoided
49 implementing retention ponds so as not to have stagnant water. There will be no storage of water
50 on the site and talked about diversion systems.
51 • Not all the area in the parking lot is intended to have an `interpretive' design as this relates to the
52 exhibit areas that will be developed. Preference is to have interpretive paths in the parking lot that
53 provide education information about environmental topics, such as urban drainage, urban stream
54 systems, etc., and how they work. Related to this concept, the interpretative signage that will be
55 used has not yet been determined.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 25, 2015
Page 5
1 • The Salmon Habitat will not contain live fish and explained the replacement concept.
2
3 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:02 p.m.
4
5 Commissioner Pruden:
6 • Would like to see the language in Finding 8 of attachment 1 modified. A natural water feature
7 does exist on the site and is of the opinion the Finding is an incorrect statement. Recommends
8 the Finding read, `The project will add new landscaping and enhance the existing landscaping on
9 the site. The project will not destroy natural features or creeks.' There is a lot of water on the
10 Museum site. While may be no known creeks exist, the question is how is a creek formed? Does
11 a spring feed enough water to substantiate a creek at some location.
12
13 Commissioner Watt:
14 • A creek typically has a bed, bank or channel. Does this scenario exist on the site?
15
16 Commissioner Pruden:
17 • Confirmed the aforementioned conditions referenced by Commissioner Watt exist on the site.
18 While not certain of the property lines noted there is a very large drainage swale running on the
19 south side of the property. The community garden that will become part of the Museum project a
20 channelized bank does exist. There is a body of water that flows through the property. Is of the
21 opinion without this body of water, it would likely be difficult to sustain the bio-swale that exists in
22 the area.
23 • Asked about the Ts'Wish that will be created to address storm water treatment for the wetland
24 area east of the parking lot.
25 • Related to modification to the landscaping requirements, asked if the 50% shade coverage
26 requirement in 15 using the City of Davis landscaping standard language needs to be included in
27 the Project Findings in attachment 1.
28 • Asked about the proposed landscaping modification of requiring one parking lot tree for every four
29 parking spaces.
30 • Related to back fencing preference would be to have a 10-foot high fence on the eastern
31 boundary because of the problems that occur in this area. The Planning Commission will have to
32 approve the eight-foot height as part of the Use Permit.
33 • Does not support the basket design on the fencing as shown on the site plans and finds the front
34 elevation with decorative fence design to be distractive.
35
36 Chair Whetzel:
37 • Asked if security patrol in the evenings is a consideration? The site with the extensive
38 landscaping would provide for many places for people to hide.
39 • Could look at the decorative fence as being a good advertising tool for the Museum.
40
41 Commissioner Christensen:
42 • Is not particularly supportive of the decorative fencing and this is a personal opinion. Her concern
43 is potential graffiti and how does the fence get repaired? It appears the material is durable
44 enough that the fence can be adequately cleaned.
45
46 Planning Commission Consensus:
47 • Finding 8 revised to read, `The project will add new landscaping and enhance the existing
48 landscaping on the site. The project will not destroy natural land features or creeks. Some trees
49 must be removed, but it is largely due to their declining or dead condition.'
50 • The font issue for the sign can be worked out and has no problem in this regard.
51 • Is fine with not requiring the Museum to comply with the City landscaping requirement of planting
52 one parking lot tree for every four spaces because the Project will be extensively landscaped and
53 there are a lot of trees on the parking lot side of the property.
54 • Is okay with the eight-foot tall fence.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 25, 2015
Page 6
1 • Is generally okay with the decorative design on the fencing. Fencing/wall will have landscaping
2 plants in and around including the many trees on the site will help mitigate the audacious/bold
3 appearance/experience one might feel about the fence/wall.
4 • The Project represents a real compliment to Ukiah.
5
6 Planning Director Stump:
7 • Language related to 50% shade coverage in 15 years using the City Davis landscaping standard
8 does not need to be included because the Project meets the shade coverage requirement.
9 • Related to the issue of compliance with the City landscaping requirement of planting one tree for
10 every four parking spaces, the Project already exceeds the shade coverage requirement.
11 Compliance with the one tree for every four parking spaces would `cramp' the parking lot because
12 there are already so many existing trees in the area. To address/substantial relief from this City
13 landscaping requirement, Finding 9 in attachment 1 states, `the proposed parking lot design does
14 not provide the required one tree for every four parking spaces because the Museum would like
15 to emphasize storm-water treatment by including a continuous bio-swale down the center of the
16 parking lot rather than dedicating this space to total tree plantings. The City finds that this design
17 is acceptable because the parking lot has substantial shade from existing trees, and together with
18 the trees proposed the lot will attain 50% shading in less than 10 years.'
19 • Just a section of the fence will have an eight-foot height.
20
21 ➢ There was discussion concerning lighting. It was noted the railroad area is lit.
22 ➢ There was discussion concerning the ramada shade feature near the meeting room.
23 ➢ There was discussion regard the existing split rail fence.
24
25 Ann Baker:
26 • Confirmed the location of the eight-foot fence, including access areas.
27 • The site will feature security cameras and motion detectors.
28 • Explained how the fence can be cleaned.
29 • Confirmed the design on fence was taken from a Pomo basket in the Museum collection.
30 • Noted the meeting room will be going away.
31 • The split rail fence will be repaired and will remain in existence.
32
33 Commissioner Hilliker:
34 • The City Police Department has been known to patrol/walk the east side of the Museum property.
35
36 Ann Baker:
37 • Related to the issue of security/safety having the PEP affordable senior housing project next door
38 will present yet another`set of eyes.'
39 • Really no formal security precautionary measures other than the fencing, the PEP project, hours
40 of operation, night meetings are planned at this point.
41
42 There was discussion regarding the Museum hours of operation as to how the Museum/Sun House will
43 function.
44
45 M/S Pruden/Hilliker to approve Grace Hudson Museum Nature Education Center Use Permit and Site
46 Development Permit, File No.: 569 with Findings in attachment 1 and Conditions of Approval in
47 attachment 2 with modification to Finding 8 on attachment 1, as discussed above. Motion carried
48 unanimously(5-0).
49
50 SITE DEVELOPMENT AND USE PERMIT FINDINGS
51 TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN OUTDOOR NATURE EDUCATION CENTER AT THE
52 GRACE HUDSON MUSEUM/SUN HOUSE PROPERTY
53 431 SOUTH MAIN STREET, UKIAH
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 25, 2015
Page 7
1 The following findings are supported by and based on information contained in this staff report, the
2 application materials and documentation, and the public record.
3
4 1. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the goals and policies of the General
5 Plan as described in Table 1 of the staff report.
6
7 2. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance as described in
8 Table 2 of the staff report.
9
10 3. The location, size and intensity of the project would not create hazards to vehicular or pedestrian
11 traffic because no work would be performed in the public right-of-way, the parking lot would be
12 enlarged, and pedestrian access would be enhanced as a result of the project.
13
14 4. The existing parking area and the proposed enlarged parking area are located away from Main
15 Street and surrounding land uses and would not create hazardous or inconvenient conditions.
16
17 5. The primary component of the project is adding appropriate landscaping throughout the site to
18 separate, screen, and highlight buildings and important components of the museum site.
19 Additionally, significant new landscaping would be introduced to the parking lot area.
20
21 6. The proposed small structures, fences, walls and other features would not cut out light and air on
22 the property, or on the property in the neighborhood; nor will it hinder the development or use of
23 buildings in the neighborhood, or impair the value thereof, because they are located in a large
24 parcel over 100-feet from neighboring development.
25
26 7. The proposed project is located in a mixed commercial/heavy commercial area that also has
27 some residential lands uses. The project will enhance these developments and land uses
28 because it will upgrade and beautify the subject property.
29
30 8. The project will add new landscaping and enhance the existing landscaping on the site. The
31 project will not destroy and natural land features or creeks because none exist on the site. Some
32 trees must be removed, but it is largely due to their declining or dead condition.
33
34 9. The proposed parking lot redesign does not provide the required 1 tree for every 4 parking
35 spaces because the Museum would like to emphasize storm-water treatment by including a
36 continuous bio-swale down the center of the parking lot rather than dedicating this space to total
37 tree plantings. The City finds that this design is acceptable because the parking lot has
38 substantial shade from existing trees, and together with the trees proposed, the lot will attain 60%
39 shading in less than 10 years.
40
41 While the proposed parking lot redesign does have pedestrian paths of travel on the north and
42 south boarders of the lot, it does not have one in the central bio-swale area. The applicants are
43 seeking a modification to this requirement. The City finds the design acceptable because the bio-
44 swale would provide a tremendous amount of benefit in terms of storm-water runoff and the
45 parking lot is small and setback an ample distance from the South Main Street. Additionally, the
46 city finds that the lack of a central walkway in the parking lot will not create a safety issue
47 because the lot is small, cars move slowly, pedestrian walkways will existing on the north and
48 south potions of the lot, and the lot is setback a significant distance from the South Main Street
49 public right-of-way.
50
51 10. The proposed Nature Education Center will provide creative and interesting features on the
52 grounds and the small structures will provide unique and unusual buildings that will not be box-
53 like.
54
55 11. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses and would not be detrimental to the public's
56 health, safety and general welfare because as a result of the project, the grounds of the Grace
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 25, 2015
Page 8
1 Hudson Museum/Sun House would be significantly enhanced with landscaping and educational
2 components. The improvements, including the parking lot expansion, would not be located within
3 any public right-of-way or generate excessive noise or odors or create other impacts to
4 surrounding properties or the public in general.
5
6 12. The project has been reviewed by all City Departments including the Police, Fire and Public
7 Works Departments, and none of these Departments have identified any potential impacts to the
8 public's health, safety or general welfare.
9
10 13. The proposed 8-foot tall fence is reasonable and appropriate to provide needed security, would
11 not impact the adjacent property or the general public, and would not be highly viable because it
12 would not front on Clay Street and the site is heavily wooded and screened from view.
13
14 14. The proposed project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
15 (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15301, Class 1; 15303, Class 3; 15304, Class 4; 15307, Class 7;
16 and 15308, Class 8: Construction of a number of small structures, installation of new
17 landscaping, repair and enhancement of existing facilities, and creation of environmental
18 resources to protect and enhance the environment. This determination is supported by the
19 following technical information:
20
21 ➢ Technical Letter regarding historic resource compatibility, McCandless & Associates
22 Architects, Inc., dated January 20, 2015
23
24 ➢ Technical letters regarding site improvements, Ann Baker Landscape Architecture, dated
25 December 19, 2014 and January 2, 2015.
26
27 ➢ Arborist Report, John M. Phillips, dated October 20, 2014
28
29 ➢ Preliminary Hydrologic Assessment Report, SHN Consulting Engineers & Geologists,
30 Inc., dated August 22, 2014.
31
32 ➢ Preliminary Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan, SHN Consulting Engineers &
33 Geologists, Inc., dated December, 2014.
34
35 ➢ Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan, SHN Consulting Engineers & Geologists, Inc.,
36 dated December, 2014.
37
38 ➢ TS'Wish Wetland Plan, Ann Baker Landscape Architecture, dated December 19, 2014.
39
40 ➢ Tree Removal and Protection Plan, Ann Baker Landscape Architecture, dated December
41 19, 2014.
42
43
44 SITE DEVELOPMENT AND USE PERMIT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
45 TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN OUTDOOR EDUCATION CENTER AT THE GRACE
46 HUDSON MUSEUM/SUN HOUSE PROEPRTY
47 431 SOUTH MAIN STREET, UKIAH
48
49 1. Approval is granted to allow construction of a new nature education component to the Grace
50 Hudson Museum property as shown on the plans date stamped December 19, 2014 and as
51 described in the project description submitted to the Planning and Community Development
52 Department and date stamped November 3, 2014.
53
54 2. Plans submitted for building permit shall be in substantial conformance with the plans
55 conditionally approved by the Planning Commission.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 25, 2015
Page 9
1
2 3. Signs require application for and approval of a Sign Permit from the Planning and Community
3 Development Department.
4
5 4. Construction hours 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 4:00
6 p.m., unless specifically approved by the Public Works Director. Construction is prohibited on
7 Sundays and holidays recognized by the City of Ukiah, unless approved by the Public Works
8 Director. Interior construction is exempt from these hours provided that construction noise is not
9 audible at the project property lines.
10
11 5. On plans submitted for building permit these conditions of approval shall be included as notes on
12 the first sheet.
13
14 From the Building Official
15
16 6. Building permit is required for any structures or other improvements subject to the requirements
17 of the California Building Code.
18
19 From the Fire Marshal
20
21 7. No new roadways shall be constructed with smaller/tighter turning radius than is currently on the
22 site. The minimum radius shall be 18-20 feet.
23
24 8. Roadways with an 18-20 foot width will require posting of"No Parking" signs on each side of the
25 roadway. Roadways with a width of twenty-six (26) feet will require the posting of"No Parking"
26 signs on one side of the roadway.
27
28 9. Vegetation, specifically low hanging branches on trees shall be kept trimmed to a minimum height
29 of thirteen feet six inches (13' 6")for clear space above the roadways.
30
31 10. Roadway construction must be designed and built to support fully equipped fire apparatus.
32
33 11. The new gates located on Main Street and Clay Street shall be keyed "alike" so that only one (1)
34 key is needed for any emergency access. A gate master key shall be placed into the required
35 Knox Box.
36
37 From the Public Works Department
38
39 12. Prior to construction of site improvements, a final grading and drainage plan, and an erosion and
40 sediment control plan, prepared by a Civil Engineer, shall be submitted for review and approval
41 by the Department of Public Works. The plan shall include the detailed design of the proposed
42 storm water best management practices (BMPs). Drainage improvements shall be in compliance
43 with the City of Ukiah's Phase I Storm Water Permit and the Low Impact Development Technical
44 Design Manual (LID Manual). A final drainage report and Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation
45 Plan (SUSMP)shall be provided to support the design of the proposed drainage system.
46
47 13. The project engineer shall provide direct oversight and inspection during project construction, with
48 special attention to implementation of best management practices for sediment and erosion
49 control, and the proper grading, installation, and landscaping of the stormwater BMPs. Upon
50 completion of the work, a report shall be submitted by the project engineer to the Department of
51 Public Works stating that the improvements have been completed in accordance with the
52 approved plans and conditions of approval, shall function as intended, and all areas have been
53 permanently stabilized to prevent sediment and erosion.
54 14. Since the project area disturbs greater than one acre, the applicant must obtain a Storm Water
55 Permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, prior to construction. The Storm Water
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 25, 2015
Page 10
1 Pollution Prevention Plan shall be prepared by a Qualified SWPPP Developer, and implemented
2 by a Qualified SWPPP Practitioner. Also, an Air Quality Permit from the Mendocino County Air
3 Quality Management District will be required.
4 15. Sidewalk and driveway improvements within the street right-of-way shall meet accessibility requirements.
5 Prior to construction,improvement plans shall be prepared by a Civil Engineer and approved by the
6 Department of Public Works for all improvements within the street rights-of-way.
7 16. Any existing curb,gutter and sidewalk in disrepair adjacent to the subject property shall be repaired.
8 Abandoned driveway approaches and curb openings shall be removed. All work shall be done in
9 conformance with the City of Ukiah Standard Drawings 101 and 102 or as directed by the City Engineer.
10 17. All work within the public right-of-way shall be performed by a licensed and properly insured
11 contractor. The contractor shall obtain an encroachment permit for work within this area or
12 otherwise affecting this area. Encroachment permit fee shall be$45 plus 3% of estimated
13 construction costs.
14 18. All areas of circulation shall be paved with a minimum of 2"of AC on 6" of Base or other suitable
15 all-weather surface approved by the City Engineer. This includes the proposed driveways and parking
16 areas. If heavy truck traffic is anticipated from the solid waste company, delivery trucks, or other
17 heavy vehicles, the pavement section shall be calculated appropriately to ensure that it can
18 withstand the loading.
19 19. Existing sewer laterals planned to be utilized as part of this project shall be cleaned and tested,
20 and repaired or replaced if required. Sewer connection fees shall be paid at the time of building
21 permit issuance.
22 20. Capital Improvement fees for water service are based on the water meter size. A fee schedule
23 for water meter sizes is available upon request. Additionally, there is a cost for City crews to
24 construct the water main taps for the proposed water services to serve the project.
25 21. Irrigation services shall have approved backflow devices.
26 From the Electric Utility
27
28 22. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the applicants shall indicate the total number of
29 secondary conduits that will be feeding out of the new transformer location, and provide all
30 information requested by the City Electric Utility.
31
32 Standard Conditions
33
34 23. No permit or entitlement shall be deemed effective unless and until all fees and charges
35 applicable to this application and these conditions of approval have been paid in full.
36
37 24. The property owner shall obtain and maintain any permit or approval required by law,
38 regulation, specification or ordinance of the City of Ukiah and other Local, State, or Federal
39 agencies as applicable. All construction shall comply with all fire, building, electric, plumbing,
40 occupancy, and structural laws, regulations, and ordinances in effect at the time the Building
41 Permit is approved and issued.
42
43 25. A copy of all conditions applicable to the Site Development Permit and Use Permit shall be
44 provided to and be binding upon any future purchaser, tenant, or other party of interest.
45
46 26. All conditions of approval that do not contain specific completion periods shall be completed prior
47 to building permit final.
48
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 25, 2015
Page 11
1 27. This Site Development Permit and Use Permit may be revoked through the City's revocation
2 process if the approved project related to this Permit is not being conducted in compliance with
3 these stipulations and conditions of approval; or if the project is not established within two years
4 of the effective date of this approval; or if the established use for which the permits were granted
5 has ceased or has been suspended for 24 consecutive months.
6
7 28. Except as otherwise specifically noted, the Site Development Permit and Use Permit shall be
8 granted only for the specific purposes stated in the action approving the Site Development Permit
9 and Use Permit and shall not be construed as eliminating or modifying any building, use, or zone
10 requirements except to such specific purposes.
11
12
13 29. All required landscaping shall be properly maintained to insure the long-term health and vitality of
14 the plants, shrubs and trees. Proper maintenance means, but is not limited to the following:
15
16 A. Regular slow, deep watering when feasible. The amount of water used shall fluctuate
17 according to the season, i. e., more water in summer, less in the winter.
18
19 B. Additional watering shall occur during long periods of severe heat and drying winds, and
20 reduced watering shall be used during extended periods of cool rainy weather.
21
22 C. Fertilizer shall only being used on trees during planting. Shrubs may receive periodic fertilizer
23 according to the recommendations of a landscaping professional.
24
25 D. Weed killers shall not be used on or near trees.
26
27 E. The tree ties and stakes shall be checked every six months to ensure they do not constrict
28 the trunks and damage the trees.
29
30 F. Tree ties and stakes shall be removed after 1 to 3 years to ensure they do not damage the
31 trunk of the tree and its overall growth.
32
33 G. Any tree that dies or is unhealthy due to pests, disease or other factors, including vandalism,
34 shall be replaced with the same or similar tree species, or an alternative species approved by
35 the department of Planning and Community Development.
36
37 H. All trees shall be properly pruned as appropriate. No topping cuts shall be made. All pruning
38 shall follow standard industry methods and techniques to ensure the health and vitality of the
39 tree.
40
41 Failure to comply with the requirements listed above could result in revocation of the Use
42 PermiUSite Development Permit.
43
44 30. The project shall comply with the following requirements to reduce air quality impacts related to
45 project construction:
46
47 A. All grading shall comply with Mendocino County Air Quality Management District Rule 1-430,
48 Fugitive Dust Emissions.
49
50 B. All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, road construction, and
51 building construction institute a practice of routinely watering exposed soil to control dust,
52 particularly during windy days.
53
54 C. All inactive soil piles on the project site shall be completely covered at all times to control
55 fugitive dust.
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 25, 2015
Page 12
1 D. All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, and actual construction
2 shall include a program of washing off trucks leaving the construction site to control the
3 transport of mud and dust onto public streets.
4
5 E. Low emission mobile construction equipment, such as tractors, scrapers, and bulldozers shall
6 be used for earth moving operations.
7
8 F. All earth moving and grading activities shall be suspended if wind speeds (as instantaneous
9 gusts)exceed 25 miles per hour.
10
11 G. Adjacent roadways exposed to dust, dirt, or other soil particles by vehicles tires, poorly
12 covered truck loads, or other construction activities shall be cleaned each day prior to the end
13 of construction activities using methods approved by the Director of Public Works/City
14 Engineer.
15
16 31. Any future lighting for the property is subject to Planning Department review and approval as part
17 of the building permit required for the lighting. Any lighting shall comply with the following
18 requirements:
19
20 ➢ International Dark Sky Association approved fixture or equivalent;
21 ➢ Design compatible with the structures on the site.
22 ➢ Downcast, full cutoff fixture(s);
23 ➢ Pole height similar to any existing poles.
24 ➢ No light impacts or spill-over to adjacent properties.
25
26 32. This approval is contingent upon agreement of the applicant and property owner and their agents,
27 successors and heirs to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its agents,
28 officers, attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from any claim, action or proceeding
29 brought against any of the foregoing individuals or entities, the purpose of which is to attack, set
30 aside, void or annul the approval of this application. This indemnification shall include, but not be
31 limited to, damages, costs, expenses, attorney fees or expert witness fees that may be asserted
32 by any person or entity, including the applicant, arising out of or in connection with the City's
33 action on this application, whether or not there is concurrent passive or active negligence on the
34 part of the City. If, for any reason any portion of this indemnification agreement is held to be void
35 or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the agreement shall
36 remain in full force and effect.
37
38 Recess: 7:23 p.m.
39
40 Reconvene: 7:30 p.m.
41
42 9B. Ukiah Valley Medical Center Mitigated Negative Declaration, Site Development Permit and
43 Use Permit, and Recommendation to the City Council on a Resolution, 275 Hospital Drive
44 (File 46). Consideration and possible action on a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a request
45 for approval of a Site Development Permit and Use Permit to expand the hospital, relocate the
46 emergency departmenUintensive care unit and helipad, improve a number of parking lots,
47 relocate emergency vehicle access, and other improvements on the Ukiah Valley Medical Center
48 property at 275 Hospital Drive. The application also includes the review of a draft City Council
49 Resolution pertaining to the relocation of the helipad and the formulation of a recommendation to
50 the City Council.
51
52 Commissioner Christensen recused herself.
53
54 Planning Director Stump:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 25, 2015
Page 13
1 • Gave a project introduction related to background information, project description as provided for
2 in the staff report/accompanying attachments in the staff report and staff's recommendation to
3 the Planning Commission.
4
5 Charles Ackerely, UVMC Project Architect:
6 • Gave a project presentation as provided for on the site plans.
7
8 Planning Director Stump commented on Project issues:
9 • The task of establishing the flight path for the helipad was accomplished. Helicopter flights will
10 come in from the southeast and depart northeast.
11 • The revised flight path is more appropriate than the previously approved one for the first
12 emergency room (ED)expansion project.
13 • Caltrans Division of Aeronautics will have final approval regarding location of the helipad. A
14 formal recommendation by the Planning Commission to City Council is necessary to adopt a
15 Resolution approving the relocation of the permanent heliport.
16 • Parking for the hospital campus will increase since there is a demand for parking at the hospital.
17 The proposed parking plan complies with City Code requirements with the exception of the shade
18 coverage requirement that always has to be modified for projects each time using the City of
19 Davis shade coverage standard of requiring 50% shade percentage be achieved in 15 years as
20 opposed to the City's 10-year standard.
21 • Parking lot trees will come from the City Master Tree list.
22 • 24 trees will be removed with 74 new trees planted.
23 • Concern has been expressed about the ambulance access from E. Perkins Street from a safety
24 perspective. A technical memorandum related to traffic was prepared by traffic engineers for
25 review by the City the Police and Fire Department that contains mitigation measures as
26 articulated in the staff report/Environmental document that would make ambulance access safer.
27 • Referenced a memorandum from the City Fire Marshal dated April 16, 2014 that contains
28 comments about ambulance access that was not included in the staff report and is incorporated
29 in the minutes as attachment 1.
30 • The Project will provide for bio-retention facilities on the site so storm water management will be
31 improved.
32 • The architectural design for the ED/ICU expansion project will provide for a more cohesive
33 looking hospital campus.
34 • The staff report indicates the Project does not comply with the bicycle parking requirements and
35 noted this is an error. The Project plans provide for 32 bicycle parking spaces such that the
36 Project does meet City Code requirements. Requests the Planning Commission strike Finding 7
37 since the Project meets the bicycle requirements.
38 • The Sign Program was approved for the former ED expansion project and no changes have been
39 proposed for the revised ED expansion project at this time. The hospital is contemplating some
40 changes to signage but this is not a part of the Project at this time.
41 • The new ED/ICU expansion project was reviewed by the DRB.
42 • Project is consistent with the Ukiah General Plan goals and policies and corresponding Zoning
43 ordinance as provided for in staff's analysis in the staff report other than the shade coverage
44 percentage exception.
45 • Is pleased with the proposed Project and that the Hospital leaders are moving forward with this
46 particular project phase. Is hopeful more phases will come in the future.
47 • Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
48 UVMC ED/ICU Expansion Project, approve the Site Development Permit and Use Permit for the
49 UVMC Project and make a formal recommendation to the City Council to adopt a Resolution
50 approving the relocation of the permanent heliport.
51
52 Commissioner Hilliker:
53 • Related to the Hospital campus plans and access for emergency vehicles asked if
54 access/parking will be clearly delineated to avoid confusion.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 25, 2015
Page 14
1 Chair Whetzel:
2 • Related to the access road for emergency vehicles will this area by the eastern fence remain staff
3 parking?
4 • Will staff continue to park behind the Pavilion Building?
5 • Asked about lighting facilities on E. Perkins Street related to emergency ingress or will
6 emergency vehicles just have to turn with the traffic? Will there be any warning lights that can be
7 activated by emergency vehicles?
8 • Has a safety concern that people may not be watching carefully enough for emergency vehicles
9 using the access road designated for use by emergency vehicles from E. Perkins Street if there is
10 not some sort of lighting/warning to alert drivers. It may be the use of signage is a possible
11 solution to address safety.
12 • Requested clarification emergency vehicles would use the access roadway from E. Perkins Street
13 for ingress into the Hospital campus and exit the hospital campus on Hamilton Drive.
14 • Cited an example in Sacramento that has a fire station in the neighborhood where the roadway is
15 delineated and/or there is a demarcation and precautionary signage that gives drivers a warning.
16 • Would like to see the emergency entrance better marked for safety purposes.
17
18 Commissioner Watt:
19 • Requested clarification there was a traffic engineering report that is available to review
20 concerning emergency vehicle access.
21
22 Steve Ackerely:
23 • Referred to the site plans and explained how access for emergency vehicles will work coming
24 from E. Perkins Street noting the roadway emergency vehicles will use is very wide.
25 • Confirmed staff will continue to park along the eastern fence and explained the benefit thereof in
26 terms of effective campus circulation.
27 • Confirmed staff parking will continue to park behind the Pavilion Building.
28 • The intent of the design concept related to parking/circulation is for the public to park in the front
29 portions of the hospital on the west side and for staff to park on the east side of the hospital in the
30 rear of the buildings.
31 • Confirmed emergency vehicles would be leaving the Hospital in a non-emergency fashion on
32 Hamilton Drive.
33 • No signal or lighting has been proposed for the access roadway for emergency vehicles turning
34 from E. Perkins Street.
35 • Acknowledged some cities have control lights for emergency vehicles so they can go against
36 traffic if necessary.
37
38 Planning Director Stump:
39 • No lighting on E. Perkins Street has been proposed and is not part of the Project plans.
40 • Should the emergency access roadway become problematic in terms of safety, the Hospital
41 would likely contact the City Public Works Department/Public Safety to discuss and resolve.
42 • Clarified the traffic engineering report was a `technical memorandum' where the
43 recommendations thereof have been incorporated in the Project conditions of approval.
44
45 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 7:53 p.m.
46
47 Laura Christensen:
48 • Parks daily at the Hospital. Related to Hospital parking sees 48 parking spaces will be added on
49 Lot 7 for a total of 401 parking spaces required for the Project. Her concern is that the parking is
50 designated for the hospital campus and/or hospital proper without taking into consideration there
51 is a large medical building across the street from the Hospital that is really full of people, patients
52 and staff. Most of the people who park in Lot 7 are staff inembers probably working in the large
53 medical facility across the street from the hospital on Hospital Drive. Has counted as many as
54 approximately 110 cars in this undeveloped lot on a daily basis. The large number of cars may be
55 the result of staff being displaced with the construction going on at the Hospital.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 25, 2015
Page 15
1 • Her concern is if an effort is being made to build a parking lot, important to make certain it is
2 adequate for the people who are already parking there. Is therefore, concerned 48 parking
3 spaces is not enough.
4
5 Commissioner Pruden:
6 • Is pleased to see the Project.
7 • Acknowledged parking is a problem on Hospital Drive.
8 • Inquired whether having designated parking would help with traffic congestion/problems on
9 Hospital Drive so that employees park in one area and the public parks in another.
10 • On the north side of the Pavilion Building there is a very nice landscaping strip that appears will
11 be removed and asked about the hardy Palm trees in this area. Since Palms transplant well
12 asked whether they can be saved and relocated to one of the garden areas. Will need
13 confirmation the landscaping will be removed in this area.
14 • The Hospital probably has the best urban forest in town since the site is located on old river-
15 bottom soil.
16 • Is fine with the Liquid Amber along the fence line. Liquid Amber is a screening tree and not much
17 of a shade tree.
18 • Likes that a shrub tree will be used in and around the heliport such as Redbud, that will keep the
19 vegetative height at a low level without interference or danger to the heliport and/or associated
20 equipment.
21 • The London Plane is an excellent choice for the parking lots. Is looking forward to seeing the front
22 of the Hospital landscaped. The London Plane in front of the cafe are closer to the parking lot
23 than to the cafe and asked whether a few more trees should be planted in front of the cafe or
24 move the London Plane over another six to eight feet. Doing the latter would then provide shade
25 to the cafe and the parking lot. Shade is necessary because the western sun can be brutal in the
26 summer. All the major facades at the Hospital are facing to the west. Is of the opinion adding
27 more trees in cafe area may not be necessary, but is suggesting they be positioned to provide
28 better shade opportunities.
29 • Related to parking, it appears the parking for Lot 2 will be reduced by about one-half with the
30 proposed design. Parking would then be directed to the north. The mobile CT unit will have to be
31 relocated to the rear of the area and finds this to be a better solution.
32 • Likes the new design and that the ER facilities will be moved more to the rear of the site allowing
33 for more privacy and sensitivity. Also, likes the new location for the heliport.
34
35 Commissioner Hilliker:
36 • Is very familiar with emergency vehicle protocol and procedures and is concerned with the
37 proposed emergency access from E. Perkins Street in terms of safety for pedestrian/motorists
38 and emergency fire and ambulance providers.
39 • Supports looking at the access issue more closely for possible solutions for safety purposes.
40
41 Commissioner Watt:
42 • His comments are directed towards the storm water mitigation measures for the Project.
43 • Acknowledged the City recently adopted the City of Santa Rosa and County of Sonoma Low
44 Impact Development Technical Design Manual for storm water treatment in June 2014, and
45 questions whether UVMC Project would apply because the application for the expansion project
46 was submitted prior to adoption of this manual.
47 • Asked what the total area of ground disturbance is for the proposed project as this relates to the
48 building/parking lot size. Understands a construction general permit from the State that has a
49 one-acre threshold is required and questioned how the Hospital project got to this point?
50 • Which post-construction standard was applied to the Project?
51 • Is the UVMC Project subject to the State Construction General Permit?
52 • Requested clarification the LID standard being applied is the State Construction General Permit?
53 • Did the geo-tech report contemplate infiltration rates?
54
55 Richard Souza, CSW Stuber Stroeh Engineering, Civil Engineer for the Project:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 25, 2015
Page 16
1 • Approach was to look at the total area that was disturbed on the site (all the hardscaped area on
2 the site) and determined the amount disturbed would be over an acre where a permit would be
3 required. Then looked at the post construction improvements taking into consideration the storm
4 water treatments areas/bio-swale retention areas and determined/explained from a technical
5 aspect how much of this area would proportionately be hardscape improvements.
6 • To make a post-construction determination as to the appropriate standard looked at the storm
7 water treatment factor since there was really no requirement for storm water retention so the end
8 result was to use 4% of the hardscape standard and explained in more detail how this works and
9 was applied. Related to the bio-retention areas, noted there was a lot of hardscape area
10 including that which is existing to factor in to make an appropriate determination in order to apply
11 the appropriate post-construction standard.
12 • The intent is to use the State Construction General Permit standard and to accomplish this is not
13 to include over 50% of the hardscaped area on the site only the areas being improved.
14 • Confirmed the Project is using the State Construction General Permit standard and Municipal
15 Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4 Permit)the City uses/applies for projects.
16 • Looked at internet data related to the geo-tech report and infiltration rates to see the potential for
17 and understand the amount of groundwater that exists in the area.
18
19 Commission Hilliker:
20 • The Project will greatly improve the efficiency and performance of the emergency room at the
21 Hospital and make it a lot easier for the emergency responders to do their jobs.
22 • His questions pertain to entrance and existing of the emergency vehicles.
23 • Finds E. Perkins Street functions more like a racetrack than a public street.
24 • Not all people coming to the hospital are familiar with the area in terms of hospital access, etc.,
25 and has concern about safety. Wants to be sure there is no conflict with emergency vehicles
26 coming and going. The public needs to be informed how access with regard to emergency
27 vehicles is to occur whether they are advised with a flashing light or signage or some type of
28 marked designation. Is particularly concerned with emergency vehicles accessing UVMC with the
29 proposed access roadway from E. Perkins Street.
30 • Supports consideration be given to lighting, signage for concerning emergency vehicles traveling
31 on E. Perkins Street and accessing the hospital.
32
33 Commissioner Pruden:
34 • Acknowledged there is a lot of reckless driving on E. Perkins Street, but is of the opinion to
35 identify the issue(s) and find a workable solution we have to understand exactly what the problem
36 is or seems to be relative to emergency vehicles accessing the hospital from E. Perkins Street.
37 Some fire departments have their own stop light that can be activated when they are ready to
38 drive out of the fire department. There are flashing devices that can be used to alert drivers of
39 emergency vehicles in the area. It would likely be very expensive to install signalization on E.
40 Perkins Street of some type. Supports waiting to see if there are problems.
41
42 Planning Director Stump:
43 • The access issue is complicated. Would not want the Commission to condition the Project for
44 something that has not yet been recognized as a problem with regard to access for emergency
45 vehicles from E. Perkins Street. It is likely the Hospital team should look into this matter, consult
46 with the ambulance providers and/or the City Public Works departmenUPublic Safety and other
47 agencies to see if there are some things that can be done.
48 • The environmental document does address access with mitigation measures. Also, A Traffic
49 Circulation Assessment Report prepared revealed a number of potential issues associated with
50 the ambulance access off of East Perkins Street and with potential pedestrian/motorist conflicts in
51 parking Lots 3 and 9 where a number of mitigation measures were recommended and have been
52 included as conditions of approval.
53
54 Commissioner Watt:
55 • Has concern related to the access issue from E. Perkins Street.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 25, 2015
Page 17
1 • Noted the City has a number of City professionals that reviewed the access issue and concluded
2 traffic safety would be improved with the emergency vehicle access proposed and that there was
3 no impact, but yet one of the mitigation measures is to turn on lights and sirens. The lights and
4 sirens should already be on. There may be a problem there, but is unsure what this may be.
5 • Is familiar with how E. Perkins Street functions particularly during peak hours when the street
6 backs up. It could be that traffic becomes backed up where the access entrance is blocked.
7
8 Chair Whetzel:
9 • It could happen that the close proximity of the signal light at Hospital Drive could back up and
10 emergency vehicles could have their lights on proceeding west to east where people would stop
11 and pull over with the understanding that the entryway/access must be left open.
12 • Would like to see a `keep clear' area where emergency vehicles heading east or west can just
13 turn into the driveway should Perkins Street back up.
14 • It may be the Project should be conditioned such that if the emergency access roadway becomes
15 a problem, the Hospital leaders/City Public Works and Public Safety can revisit the situation.
16 Preference would be to condition the project before it becomes a problem. It may be all that is
17 necessary as a precautionary measure is use signage on the roadway designating a `keep clear'
18 area.
19 • Parking Lot 1 is taken up with a lot of construction equipment so this will likely open back up and
20 provide parking for people.
21 • Asked about the function of Parking Lot 7 and Lot 8.
22 • Finds relocation of the helipad to be a better location. Asked who the fabricator/manufacturer is
23 for the helipad/heliport. Requested clarification the heliport meets all the necessary
24 requirements?
25
26 Planning Director Stump:
27 • Has observed cities that have striping on the roadway that warn motorisUpedestrians to `keep
28 clear, emergency zone.'
29 • Does not support conditioning the `Project to do something we are not sure of' without consulting
30 with City Public Works/Public Safety. However, could condition the Project for applicants to
31 explore options for creating a safety zone or safer ingress/access in the emergency section
32 where the ambulance comes through prior to issuance of a building permit subject to approval by
33 the Director of Public Works.
34
35 Commissioner Pruden:
36 • The sidewalk may have to be striped as well because there is a lot of pedestrian traffic on E.
37 Perkins Street.
38 • Would like to see a directory installed on the Hospital campus to assist people coming to the
39 hospital.
40 • Asked about parking Lot 2 on the north side of the Pavilion Building. The site plans indicate
41 parking would only be available to the north in this area.
42
43 Commissioner Hilliker:
44 • Ambulance/emergency responders should also be involved in the process of exploring safety
45 options.
46
47 Mark Luoto, UVMC Emergency Room Doctor:
48 • Supports implementing the `keep clear' signage concept.
49 • Most of the emergency transport vehicles are not entering the Hospital with sirens. As such, does
50 not see access from E. Perkins Street to be problematic. Again, 95% of the emergency transport
51 vehicles are not racing to the Hospital.
52
53 David Weiss, UVMC, Associate Vice-President of Operations:
54 • Related to Commissioner Pruden's inquiry about having designated parking. The Hospital does
55 have designated parking and explained the various locations.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 25, 2015
Page 18
1 • Acknowledge it is likely more designated parking could be done.
2 • Talked about traffic and pedestrian circulation at the Hospital where one objective of the
3 proposed Project is to improve the situation for safety and efficiency reasons.
4 • Confirmed Lot 1 will re-open up to the public; Lot 7 will provide for 48 parking spaces. This lot has
5 been used for temporary parking in the past and will be developed into a permanent parking lot.
6 The other spillover parking spaces populating this area are essentially from Lot 1 that is currently
7 not in use.
8 • Hospital leaders recognize the need to continue to look at the issue of parking and parking lots as
9 the hospital expands and the need to make improvements in this regard.
10 • Confirmed Lot 8 would be utilized for future development at this point.
11 • Confirmed how the parking would work for Lot 2.
12 • Development on the hospital campus will be completed in phases as will improvements to the
13 parking lots and further explains how this would work for the various parking lots.
14
15 Commissioner Pruden:
16 • Does not support conditioning the Project that London Plane be planted in the cafe area. The
17 Hospital will have to determine what works best for the irrigation system and existing
18 infrastructure in the area where the London Plane could potentially be moved.
19
20 Brad Zinsky, Mead & Hunt:
21 • The manufacturer of the helipad is FEC out of St. Louis Missouri. Confirmed the helipad meets all
22 necessary requirements in connection with FAA standards. Caltrans Division of Aeronautics will
23 make the final inspection on the structure.
24
25 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 8:25 p.m.
26
27 M/S Pruden/Hilliker to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration Findings in attachment 1 for the Ukiah
28 Valley Medical Center project. Motion carried (5-0).
29
30 M/S Pruden/Watt to approve the Use Permit and Site Development Permit for the Ukiah Valley Medical
31 Center project with amended Findings striking Finding 7 in attachment 2 and Conditions of Approval in
32 attachment 3. Motion carried (5-0).
33
34 M/S Pruden/Hilliker to recommend City Council adopt a Resolution approving the relocation of the
35 permanent heliport. Motion carried (5-0).
36
37 FINDINGS FOR ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE UKIAH VALLEY
38 MEDICAL CENTER EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT AND ICU EXPANSION, RELOCATED HELIPORT
39 AND EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS, AND PERMANENT PARKING LOT/LANDSCAPING
40 IMPROVEMENTS
41 PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
42 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ("CEQA")
43
44 1. The City of Ukiah as lead agency has prepared an Initial Environmental Study and a Mitigated
45 Negative Declaration dated January 9, 2015 to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the
46 Ukiah Valley Medical Center Emergency DepartmenUlCU expansion, heliport and emergency vehicle
47 access relocation, and Permanent Parking Lot and landscaping improvements ("ProjecY'); and
48
49 2. The Project will approve a Use Permit and Site Development to allow the construction of an
50 expansion of the emergency department/ICU , relocation of the permanent heliport at 275 Hospital
51 Drive; ancillary improvements to the Campus; the construction of a permanent parking lot at the
52 northwest corner of Hospital Drive/Hamilton Street; and the establishment of a new route for
53 ambulance vehicles.
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 25, 2015
Page 19
1 3. On September 8, 2014, the Mendocino County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) reviewed the
2 Project, including the helipad relocation and voted unanimously to find the Project consistent with the
3 Mendocino County Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (ACLUP), provided that the owner/operator
4 complies fully with the conditions required by the FAA, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and the
5 operational parameters submitted to the ALUC and the City of Ukiah; and
6
7 4. The Initial Environmental Study found that the Project has the potential to have a significant impact on
8 aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, noise, and
9 traffic/circulation and that the impacts identified could be reduced to a less than significant level with
10 the incorporation of mitigation measures as identified in the Initial Environmental Study and the
11 project proponent has agreed to the mitigation measures; and
12
13 5. The Initial Environmental Study was prepared and demonstrated that there is no substantial evidence
14 that supports a fair argument that the Project, as mitigated, would have a significant effect on the
15 environment; and
16
17 6. The Initial Environmental Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were sent to the State
18 Clearinghouse for State Agency review and comment and publicly noticed and made available for
19 public review and written comment from January 12, 2015 through February 10, 2015. No comments
20 were received during the review and comment period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and
21
22 7. Notice of Intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration was made available in the following
23 manner: sent to the State Clearinghouse on January 12, 2015; posted at the Mendocino County Clerk
24 on January 12, 2015; mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the parcels included in the Project
25 on January 12, 2015; and published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on January 13, 2015. No comments
26 were received.
27
28 8. A Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared to ensure compliance with the adopted mitigation
29 measures; and
30
31 9. The Initial Environmental Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and record of proceedings of the
32 decision on the Project are available for public review at the City of Ukiah Planning Department,
33 Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA.
34
35 Based on the above,the Planning Commission finds as follows:
36
37 1. Based upon the analysis, findings, and conclusions contained in the Initial Environmental Study, the
38 Project, as mitigated, does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the local or regional
39 environment;
40
41 2. Based upon the analysis, findings, and conclusions contained in the Initial Environmental Study, the
42 Project, as mitigated, will not result in short-term impacts that will create a disadvantage to long-term
43 environmental goals;
44
45 3. Based upon the analysis, findings, and conclusions contained in the Initial Environmental Study, the
46 Project, as mitigated, will not result in impacts that are individually limited, but cumulative
47 considerable; and
48
49 4. Based upon the analysis, findings, and conclusions contained in the Initial Environmental Study, the
50 Project, as mitigated, will not result in impacts that will cause substantial adverse effects on human
51 beings, either directly or indirectly.
52
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 25, 2015
Page 20
1 5. The Initial Environmental Study examined areas of potential impacts that may result from the
2 implementation of the Project. Based on the conclusions reached in the Initial Environmental Study, it
3 has been determined that the proposed Project has the potential to have significant environmental
4 impacts on aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, noise, and
5 traffic/circulation without the implementation of mitigation measures. The analysis and conclusion
6 reached in the Initial Environmental Study identified mitigation measures that would reduce the
7 potential impacts on aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils,
8 noise, and traffic/circulation to less than significant levels based on the following:
9
10 Aesthetics
11
12 Potential Impact: The Project could result in impacts related to new sources of light or glare.
13
14 Mitiqation Measure:
15
16 1. All outdoor light fixtures shall be located, aimed, and shielded so as to minimize light trespassing
17 over property lines and avoid directing light towards motorists and pedestrians. Fixtures shall be
18 full cutoff and nighttime friendly and shall be International Dark Sky Association (IDA) approved or
19 equivalent.
20
21 2. Prior to installation of the exterior lighting, the applicant shall prepare a photometric plan for
22 review and approval by the Planning Department that demonstrates that the lighting will not
23 spillover onto adjacent properties and that all lighting is shielded and downcast.
24
25 The inclusion of mitigation measure above will reduce any potential impacts to aesthetics to less
26 than significant levels.
27 Air Quality
28
29 Potential Impact: Construction activities could expose sensitive receptors short-term production of
30 particulate matter(PM-10).
31
32 Mitiqation Measures:
33
34 1. Construction activities shall be conducted with adequate dust suppression methods, including
35 watering during grading and construction activities to limit the generation of fugitive dust or other
36 methods approved by the Mendocino County Air Quality Management District. Prior to initiating
37 soil removing activities for construction purposes, the applicant shall pre-wet affected areas with
38 at least 0.5 gallons of water per square yard of ground area to control dust.
39
40 2. The burning of construction debris is prohibited. Any disposal of vegetation removed as a result
41 of site preparation shall be lawfully disposed of, preferably by chipping and composting, or as
42 authorized by the Mendocino County Air Quality Management District.
43
44 3. During construction activities, the applicanUowner/contractor shall remove daily accumulation of
45 mud and dirt on paved access lanes that serve the project site.
46
47 4. Any stationary on-site internal combustion engines over 50 horsepower(i.e. generators) may
48 require a permit from the MCAQMD depending upon fuel source and level of operation. It is the
49 responsibility of the City to contact the District regarding this matter and to secure any required
50 permits prior to site preparation and construction activities.
51
52 5. All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, and construction of the Project shall
53 institute a practice of routinely watering exposed soil to control dust, particularly during windy
54 days.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 25, 2015
Page 21
1
2 6. All inactive soil piles on the project site shall be completely covered at all times to control
3 fugitive dust.
4
5 7. All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, and actual construction shall
6 include a program of washing off trucks leaving the construction site to control the transport of
7 mud and dust onto public streets.
8
9 8. Low emission mobile construction equipment, such as tractors, scrapers, and bulldozers shall
10 be used for earth moving operations.
11
12 The inclusion of these mitigation measures will reduce any potential impacts to air quality to less than
13 significant levels.
14
15 Bioloqical Resources
16
17 Potential Impact: Tree removal and/or pruning could result in the disturbance of migratory birds
18 nesting birds in proximity to the trees to be removed/pruned.
19
20 Mitiqation Measure:
21
22 1. If site preparation and tree removal/trimming include the spring bird nesting season (February
23 through July), a preconstruction survey shall be conducted by a qualified professional within two
24 weeks prior to removing/trimming any trees. If active nests (with eggs or living young)are found, no
25 activity shall be permitted that might disturb or remove the active nests until the young birds are
26 able to leave the nest and forage on their own. Empty nests may be removed. If eggs or young are
27 present, the nests shall be left until the young birds leave. Setback buffers for the nests will vary
28 depending on the species affected and the location of the nest. Buffer zones shall be determined on
29 a case by case basis in consultation with a California Department of Fish and Game biologist.
30
31 The Project will not substantially degrade biological resources with the inclusion of the mitigation
32 measure that require:
33
34 The inclusion of this mitigation measure will reduce any potential impacts to biological resource to
35 less than significant levels.
36
37 Cultural Resources
38
39 Potential Impact: Construction activities could result in the discovery and disturbance of previously
40 unknown archeological resources. Future construction activities could disturb prehistoric or historic
41 resources.
42
43 Mitiqation Measure:
44
45 1. If, during site preparation or construction activities, any historic or prehistoric cultural resources
46 are unearthed and discovered, all work shall immediately be halted, and the City shall be notified
47 of the discovery. The applicant shall be required to fund the hiring of a qualified professional
48 archaeologist to perform a field reconnaissance and to develop a precise mitigation program if
49 deemed necessary.
50
51 Potential Impact: Construction activities could result in the discovery and disturbance of human
52 remains
53
54 Mitiqation Measure:
55 2. If human remains are encountered during construction excavation and grading activities, State
56 Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 25, 2015
Page 22
1 County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition pursuant to
2 PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24
3 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC will then identify
4 the person(s) thought to be the Most Likely Descendent, who will help determine what course of
5 action should be taken in dealing with the remains.
6
7 The Project will not substantially degrade cultural resources with the inclusion of the mitigation
8 measures above.
9
10 The inclusion of these mitigation measures will reduce any potential impacts to cultural resource to
11 less than significant levels.
12 Geoloqy/Soils
13
14 Potential Impact: The Project could be located on expansive soil resulting in substantial risks to
15 property or life.
16
17 Mitiqation Measures:
18
19 1. In order to avoid moisture accumulation or watering adjacent to foundations, no landscaping is
20 allowed against the structure unless moisture accumulation is considered. Only drought tolerant
21 species are allowed proximate to the foundation of the Emergency Department expansion. If
22 landscaping is allowed adjacent to the structure, landscaping and irrigation plans for this
23 landscaping shall be designed to direct water away from the foundation.
24
25 2. Planning Commission review of the landscaping plan for the Project shall include review of the
26 species adjacent to the Emergency Department expansion and recommendations for appropriate
27 drought tolerant species and/or the removal of landscaping in this area based on the
28 recommendation included in the geotechnical report.
29
30 3. The landscaping plan and irrigation plan submitted as part of the building permit plans are subject
31 to staff review and approval and shall demonstrate compliance with the landscaping plan
32 approved by Planning Commission. The landscaping plan and irrigation plans shall clearly
33 demonstrate the water will be directed away from the foundation.
34
35 4. The recommendations contained in the December 2013 geotechnical Report prepared by
36 Chandler Koehn Consulting beginning on page 9 shall be implemented with the project.
37
38 The inclusion of this mitigation measure will reduce any potential impacts to geology/soils to less than
39 significant levels.
40
41 Noise
42
43 Potential Impact: Construction of the Project could result in the short-term exposure of persons to
44 groundborne vibration or groundborne noise and a substantial periodic increase in ambient noise
45 levels in the vicinity of the Project over levels existing without the Project. .
46
47 Mitiqation Measures:
48
49 1. Construction hours are limited to Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and from
50 9:00 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Saturday Construction hours are prohibited on Sunday and all holidays
51 recognized by the City of Ukiah. Interior work that generates negligible or no noise at the
52 property line is allowed outside of the construction hours noted above.
53
54 Approval of additional construction hours may be requested in writing from the Community
55 Development Director and Public Works Director for extenuating circumstances. The written
56 request must be submitted a minimum of 14 days prior to the date for which the change in
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 25, 2015
Page 23
1 construction hours/days is being requested and shall explain the need for the extended
2 construction hours, describe the extenuating circumstances, and identify the additional
3 construction hours requested, including the duration.
4
5 2. Signs shall be posted at the Project site prior to commencement of construction of the proposed
6 Project for the purpose of informing all contractors/subcontractors, their employees, agents,
7 material haulers, and all other persons at the construction site(s) of the basic requirements of
8 mitigation measures for Noise.
9
10 3. Signs shall be posted at the construction sites that include the permitted construction days and
11 hours, day and evening contact number for the job site, and a contact number in the event of
12 problems.
13
14 4. An onsite complaint and enforcement manager shall respond to and track complaints and
15 questions related to noise.
16
17 5. Equipment and trucks used for proposed Project construction shall use the best available noise
18 control techniques (e.g. improved mufflers, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and
19 acoustically-attenuated shields or shrouds, wherever feasible).
20
21 6. Impact tools (e.g.jack hammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills) used for Project
22 construction shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise
23 associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools.
24
25 7. Stationary construction noise sources shall be located as far from sensitive receptors as possible
26 and they shall be muffled.
27
28 8. No outside amplified sources (e.g. stereo"boom boxes")shall be used on site during Project
29 construction.
30
31 The inclusion of these mitigation measures will reduce any potential impacts to noise to less than
32 significant levels.
33
34
35 Traffic
36
37 Potential Impact: Ambulance access from East Perkins Street could create conflicts with Parking and
38 Traffic.
39
40 Mitiqation Measures:
41
42 1. Remove the four parking spaces in Lot 9 closets to East Perkins Street.
43
44 2. The easternmost parking spaces facing the east property line in Lots 3 and 9 shall be designated
45 for"Employee Parking."
46
47 3. Ambulance drivers shall be instructed to turn on lights and sirens when entering the East Perkins
48 Street driveway.
49
50 The inclusion of this mitigation measure will reduce any potential impacts to traffic/circulation to less
51 than significant levels.
52
53 3. The revisions made to the Project before the adoption of the mitigated negative declaration and initial
54 environmental study would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no
55 significant effect on the environment would occur.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 25, 2015
Page 24
1
2 4. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City of Ukiah that the Project,
3 as mitigated, would have a significant effect on the environment.
4
5 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF THE
6 USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THE
7 UKIAH VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT EXPANSION, NEW EMERGENCY
8 VEHCILE ACCESS, RELOCATED HELIPORT, AND PARKING LOT AND LANDSCAPING
9 IMPROVEMENTS
10
11 The following findings are supported by and based on information contained in this staff report, the
12 application materials and documentation, and the public record.
13
14 1. The proposed Project, as conditioned, is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan as
15 described in Table 1 of the staff report.
16
17 2. The proposed Project, as conditioned is consistent with the applicable requirements of the Zoning
18 Ordinance as described in Table 3 of the staff report.
19
20 3. The proposed Project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Airport Compatibility requirements as
21 described in Table 2 of the staff report.
22
23 4. The proposed Project, as conditioned, is consistent with the findings required for approval of a Use
24 Permit based on the analysis included in Table 4 of the staff report.
25
26 5. The proposed Project, as conditioned, is consistent with the findings required for approval of a Site
27 Development Permit based on the analysis included in Table 5 of the staff report.
28
29 6. The granting of the Modification to the Landscaping Requirement to provide 50% shade coverage of
30 all paved areas within 10 years of planting is based on the following:
31
32 A. Lot 4, 5 and 7
33 ■ The Zoning Ordinance requires a shade percentage to be achieved at 10 years, however the
34 code does not indicate how the shade coverage should be calculated, provide the canopy
35 size of various tree species at 10 years, or define the parking area that is subject to this
36 requirement.
37 ■ Based on staff research, communities that have a shade ordinance most commonly use a 15
38 year tree canopy when calculating shade coverage.
39 ■ Tree canopy size can double between 10 and 15 years. Staff was unable to find another
40 community that used a 10 year canopy for the purpose of calculating shade coverage and
41 City staff directed the applicant to calculate shade coverage using the City of Davis method.
42
43 B. Lot 5
44 ■ Due to the location of the heliport, the location and size of trees are restricted in order to
45 comply with FAA requirements implemented for safety reasons. This limits the ability to plant
46 enough trees and trees of adequate size to comply with this requirement.
47 ■ The Project includes the planting of street trees and the retrofitting of parking lots 4 and with
48 tree wells and parking lot trees to provide more shade.
49
50 7. The location of the new Helipad is reasonable and appropriate, and would be safer than the existing
51 location because it would be away from the front entrance to the hospital, away from the general
52 circulation of people and vehicles, elevated above the ground, in a location that would not cause
53 significant noise impacts to residential land uses, and in a location that would result in safer flight
54 paths, as determined by the Mendocino County Airport Land Use Commission.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 25, 2015
Page 25
1 8. An Initial Environmental Study (IS) was prepared for the Project which identified potential impacts to
2 aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, noise, and
3 traffic/circulation. Mitigation measures were identified that would reduce the impacts to less than
4 significant levels. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared for the Project
5 and the applicant has agreed to the mitigation measures. Accordingly, it is concluded that a Mitigated
6 Negative declaration is appropriate for the project.
7
8 9. Notice of the proposed Project was provided in the following manner:
9
10 ■ mailed to property owners within 300 feet on January 12, 2015 (with the NOI); and February 12,
11 2015.
12 ■ published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on January 13, 2015 (with the NOI) ; and February 12, 2015
13 ■ posted on the project parcels on January 12, 2015.
14
15 PLANNING COMMISSION IMPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
16
17 UKIAH VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT EXPANSION, NEW EMERGENCY
18 VEHCILE ACCESS, RELOCATED HELIPORT, AND PARKING LOT AND LANDSCAPING
19 IMPROVEMENTS
20 275 HOSPITAL DRIVE,
21 File No.: Munis 46-UP-SDP-PC-CC
22
23 1. Approval is granted to allow the construction of the Emergency DepartmenUlCU Expansion,
24 relocation of the permanent heliport and emergency vehicle access, and construction of parking lot 7
25 and associated site and landscaping improvements at 275 Hospital Drive as shown on the plans
26 submitted to the Planning Department date stamped January 13, 2015, the Project Description
27 submitted to the Planning Department via email on and dated January 6, 2015.
28
29 2. Prior to building permit final for the site improvements at 275 Hospital Drive, a deed notice shall be
30 recorded to advise persons that the property is located in proximity to the Ukiah Municipal Airport in
31 the B2 (extended approach/departure) infill compatibility zone, is subject to occasional aircraft
32 overflight, and may be subject to aircraft noise or related disturbances. Prior to recordation of the
33 deed notice, the draft language for the notice shall be provided to the Planning Department for review
34 and approval.
35
36 3. Protective tree fencing shall be installed around trees to remain that are in proximity of construction
37 activities. The location of the protective tree fencing shall be shown on plans submitted for building
38 permit. Tree fencing shall be metal, a minimum of 5-feet in height and secured with in-ground posts.
39 Tree fencing is subject to Planning staff review and approval. The approved tree fencing shall be
40 installed prior to construction/grading activities and shall remain in place until construction has been
41 completed.
42
43 4. Plans submitted for building permit for the site improvements (including landscaping and irrigation) at
44 275 Hospital Drive and Lot 7 shall demonstrate compliance with the State Water Efficiency
45 Landscape Ordinance.
46
47 5. Prior to building permit final, a maintenance plan shall be established for the permanent employee
48 parking lot located at the northwest corner of Hospital Drive/Hamilton Street to ensure that the site
49 kept clean and free of debris and trash. The plan may include the installation of trash and recycling
50 receptacles, litter control, frequency of site cleanup and trash/recycling collection, etc. and is subject
51 to Planning Department staff review and approval.
52
53 6. Signs require application for and approval of a Sign Permit from the Planning and Community
54 Development Department.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 25, 2015
Page 26
1 7. Any future lighting for the permanent parking lot is subject to Planning Department review and
2 approval as part of the building permit required for the lighting. Any lighting shall comply with the
3 following requirements:
4
5 A. International Dark Sky Association approved fixture or equivalent;
6 B. Design compatible with the parking lot lighting on the UVMC campus at 275 Hospital
7 Drive;
8 C. Downcast, full cutoff fixture(s);
9 D. Pole height similar to the height of other parking lot poles on the campus.
10 E. Photometric plan that demonstrates minimal or no spillover of light; and
11 F. No light impacts to residents on Clara Avenue.
12
13 8. The permanent relocated heliport is subject to City Council review approval. The permanent
14 relocated heliport is not approved unless and until the City Council adopts a resolution approving the
15 permanent relocated heliport. Upon approval of the permanent relocated heliport by the City Council,
16 this Use Permit and Site Development Permit shall be considered revised to include the permanent
17 heliport use and design as approved by City Council, including any and all conditions of approval
18 and/or mitigation measures applied to the permanent heliport by the City Council.
19
20 9. All mitigation measures included in the mitigated negative declaration are hereby included by
21 reference as conditions of approval.
22
23 10. On plans submitted for building permit, these conditions of approval and as well as all mitigation
24 measures shall be included as notes on the first sheet.
25
26 11. On plans submitted for building permit, the northwest corner of Hospital Drive/Hamilton Street (Lot 7)
27 shall demonstrate a minimum of approximately 48 parking spaces.
28
29 From the Public Works Department
30
31 12. Since the site (275 Hospital Drive and Lot 7) to be disturbed are more than one acre, the
32 applicanUproject proponent is required to obtain a Storm Water Permit from the Regional Water
33 Quality Control Board prior to construction. Under the new Construction General Permit regulations,
34 the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared by a Qualified SWPPP
35 Developer and implemented by a Qualified SWPPP Practitioner.
36
37 13. Prior to construction of the site improvements for the parking lot at the northwest corner of Hospital
38 Drive/Hamilton Street (Lot 7), a final grading and drainage plan and an erosion and sediment control
39 plan, prepared by a Civil Engineer, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Department of
40 Public Works. A final drainage report shall be provided for to support the design of the proposed
41 drainage system.
42
43 From the Public Works Department—Standard Reauirements
44
45 14. The applicant/project proponent shall upgrade the existing sidewalk along Hospital Drive to meet ADA
46 requirements, including at the existing driveway approaches and at the curb ramp at the crosswalk.
47 Public sidewalk improvements outside of the street right-of-way require a sidewalk easement
48 dedicated to the City. The required easement shall be reviewed by the Public Works Department and
49 shall be recorded prior to building permit final.
50
51 15. Any existing curb, gutter or sidewalk in disrepair that is adjacent to the subject property shall be
52 repaired. All work shall be done in conformance with the City of Ukiah Standard Drawings 101 and
53 102 or as directed by the City Engineer.
54
55 16. Storm drain inlet filters shall be installed and maintained in all on-site storm drain inlets within paved
56 areas.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 25, 2015
Page 27
1
2 17. Existing sewer laterals planned to be utilized as part of this Project shall be cleaned and tested in
3 accordance with City of Ukiah Ordinance No. 1105, and repaired or replaced if required. If an
4 existing lateral is to be abandoned, it shall be abandoned at the main to the satisfaction of the Public
5 Works Department.
6
7 18. All irrigation and fire services shall have approved backflow devices.
8
9 19. All work within the public right-of-way shall be performed by a licensed and properly insured
10 contractor. The contractor shall obtain an encroachment permit for work within this area or otherwise
11 affecting this area. The encroachment permit fee shall be $45 plus 3% of estimated construction
12 costs.
13
14 20. All applicable City of Ukiah sewer connection fees shall be paid at the time of building permit
15 issuance.
16
17 21. Capital Improvement fees for water service are based on the water meter size. A fee schedule for
18 water service meter sizes is available upon request. Additionally, there is a cost for City crews to
19 construct the water main tap for the proposed water service to serve the Project.
20
21 From the Buildinq Official
22
23 22. Permits are required for the following:
24
25 ■ grading and site improvements at 275 Hospital Drive;
26 ■ grading and site improvements for the permanent parking lot(No. 7)
27 ■ any monument signs;
28 ■ all electrical associated with the monument signs, parking lot lighting, and any other
29 equipment of fixtures outside of the building footprint;
30
31 From the Electric Utilitv Department—Standard Reauirements
32
33 23. There shall be no remote meter.
34
35 24. The contractor/developer shall be responsible for the purchasing of conduit and installation per City of
36 Ukiah specifications.
37
38 25. The contractor/developer shall be responsible for the installation of one (1)Junction Pedestal per City
39 of Ukiah specifications. The City will provide the Junction Pedestal.
40
41 26. The contractor/developer shall purchase and install one (1) Primary Pull Box per City of Ukiah
42 specifications, if required.
43
44 27. The contractor/developer shall provide/install Transformer Pad (preformed or pour in place) per City
45 of Ukiah specifications.
46
47 28. Easements are required for all electric distribution facilities and shall cover the entire length of the
48 primary and secondary conductors/conduits and transformer equipmenUpad locations. The required
49 easements shall be recorded prior to building permit final.
50
51 From the Mendocino Countv Air Qualitv Manaqement District
52
53 29. The Project is subject to District Regulation 1-430, Fugitive Dust Emission.
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 25, 2015
Page 28
1 30. The Project is subject to the Asbestos NEHSAP (40CFR subpart 61). A full and complete asbestos
2 survey shall be completed and any asbestos abated prior to construction. The asbestos survey shall
3 be submitted to the Air District for review prior to commencement of construction.
4 31. Any new emergency generators require approval of a permit from the Air District prior to installation.
5
6 From Caltrans Division of Aeronautics
7
8 32. The Permanent (relocated) Heliport requires approval of a permit from the Caltrans Division of
9 Aeronautics.
10
11 33. The permanent (relocated) Heliport shall be designed in accordance with all applicable State
12 standards including, but not limited to (IAW) FAA AC 150/5390-2B, Heliport Design, Chapter 4,
13 Section 402 (c).
14
15 34. IAW FAA Part 77.23 operations must ensure no vehicles are in the approach/departure, primary, or
16 transitional surface and remain clear of the defined safety area during helicopter landing and
17 departure operations.
18
19 From the Reqional Water Qualitv Control Board --Standard Requirements
20
21 35. The Regional Water Quality Control Board requires the use of Low Impact Development (LID) and
22 best management practices (BMPs) that treat and retain (infiltrate, capture, evapotranspirate and
23 store)storm water runoff on the project site.
24
25 36. LID BMPs need to be sized to meet the storm water runoff from all pervious surfaces using the
26 following sizing criteria:
27
28 ■ The volume of runoff produced from the 85t" percentile of 24-hour rainfall event as
29 determined from the local historical rainfall record; or
30
31 ■ The volume of runoff produced by the 85t" percentile 24-hour rainfall event, determined
32 using the maximized capture storm water volume for the area, from the formula
33 recommended in Urban Runoff Quality Management, WEF Manual of Practice No.
34 23/ASCE Manual of Practice No. 87, p. 179-178 (1998); or
35
36 ■ The volume of annual runoff based on unit basin storage water quality volume, to achieve
37 80 percent or more volume treatment by the method recommended in California Water
38 Best Management Practices Handbook-Industrial Commercial (1993).
39
40 From the City Fire Marshal
41
42 37. Work with the City Fire Marshal to assess the current gates and fences at the Perkins Street
43 emergency vehicle access-way. Consider placing a right turn only sign to requiring exiting traffic
44 to turn right only.
45
46 38. A sign shall be placed at a point between parking lots 3 and 9 stating "emergency entrance only."
47
48 39. Work with the City Fire Marshal on the final design of the "drive around" at the entrance to the
49 new Emergency Department to ensure that full size fire engines can access this point.
50
51 40. Work with the City Fire Marshal to relocate fire hydrant(s)as required.
52
53 41. The soffit height of the Helipad shall not be less than 14-feet.
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 25, 2015
Page 29
1 42. One lane pacing under the Helipad shall not be less than 20-feet unless approved by the City Fire
2 Marshal.
3
4 43. An appropriately sized standpipe, with 2 '/2" outlets shall be installed on the east facing exterior
5 wall of the "penthouse" location along with one additional, 80-B:C rated fire extinguisher
6 (extinguisher in cabinet).
7
8 44. Due to the size of the facility, one "knox Box" shall be located on each side of the facility, with
9 keys and/or magnetic pass cards to allow emergency personnel access to all portions of the
10 facility. The Fire Marshall will assist the contractor with accurate locations as necessary, which
11 may include the main entrance at Hospital Drive, the entry at the OB on Hospital Drive, the north
12 side of the new addition, at the rear— ambulance vestibule or doors directly to the north, and the
13 corridor doors west of the walk in Emergency Department entrance.
14
15 Standard Conditions of Approval
16
17 45. Business operations shall not commence until all permits required for the approved use, including but
18 not limited to business license, tenant improvement building permit, sign permit, has been applied for
19 and issued/finaled.
20
21 46. No permit or entitlement shall be deemed effective unless and until all fees and charges applicable to
22 this application and these conditions of approval have been paid in full.
23
24 47. The property owner shall obtain and maintain any permit or approval required by law, regulation,
25 specification, or ordinance of the City of Ukiah and other Local, State, or Federal agency as
26 applicable.
27
28 48. All construction activities shall comply with all fire, building, electric, plumbing, occupancy, and
29 structural laws, regulations, and ordinances in effect at the time the Building Permit is approved and
30 issued.
31
32 49. A copy of this Permit and all conditions of approval shall be provided and be binding upon any future
33 purchaser, tenant, or other party of interest.
34
35 50. All conditions of approval that do not contain specific completion periods shall be completed prior to
36 building permit final.
37
38 51. This Permit may be revoked through the City's revocation process if the approved project related to
39 this Permit is not being conducted in compliance with these stipulations and conditions of approval; or
40 if the project is not established within two years of the effective date of this approval; or if the
41 established use for which the permit was granted has ceased or has been suspended for 24
42 consecutive months.
43
44 52. Except as otherwise specifically noted, this Permit shall be granted only for the specific purposes
45 stated in the action approving the Permit and shall not be construed as eliminating or modifying any
46 building, use, or zone requirements except to such specific purposes.
47
48 53. All required landscaping shall be properly maintained to insure the long-term health and vitality of the
49 plants, shrubs and trees. Proper maintenance means, but is not limited to the following:
50
51 A. Regular slow, deep watering when feasible. The amount of water used shall fluctuate
52 according to the season, i. e., more water in summer, less in the winter.
53
54 B. Additional watering shall occur during long periods of severe heat and drying winds, and
55 reduced watering shall be used during extended periods of cool rainy weather.
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 25, 2015
Page 30
1 C. Fertilizer shall only being used on trees during planting. Shrubs may receive periodic
2 fertilizer according to the recommendations of a landscaping professional.
3
4 D. Weed killers shall not be used on or near trees.
5
6 E. The tree ties and stakes shall be checked every six months to ensure they do not
7 constrict the trunks and damage the trees.
8
9 F. Tree ties and stakes shall be removed after 1 to 3 years to ensure they do not damage
10 the trunk of the tree and its overall growth.
11
12 G. Any tree that dies or is unhealthy due to pests, disease or other factors, including
13 vandalism, shall be replaced with the same or similar tree species, or an alternative
14 species approved by the department of Planning and Community Development.
15
16 H. All trees shall be properly pruned as appropriate. No topping cuts shall be made. All
17 pruning shall follow standard industry methods and techniques to ensure the health and
18 vitality of the tree.
19
20 54. Failure to comply with the requirements listed above could result in revocation of the Use Permit/Site
21 Development Permit.
22
23 55. The project shall comply with the following requirements to reduce air quality impacts related to
24 project construction:
25
26 A. All grading shall comply with Mendocino County Air Quality Management District Rule 1-
27 430, Fugitive Dust Emissions.
28
29 B. All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, road construction, and
30 building construction institute a practice of routinely watering exposed soil to control dust,
31 particularly during windy days.
32
33 C. All inactive soil piles on the project site shall be completely covered at all times to control
34 fugitive dust.
35 D. All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, and actual construction
36 shall include a program of washing off trucks leaving the construction site to control the
37 transport of mud and dust onto public streets.
38
39 E. Low emission mobile construction equipment, such as tractors, scrapers, and bulldozers
40 shall be used for earth moving operations.
41
42 F. All earth moving and grading activities shall be suspended if wind speeds (as
43 instantaneous gusts)exceed 25 miles per hour.
44
45 G. Adjacent roadways exposed to dust, dirt, or other soil particles by vehicles tires, poorly
46 covered truck loads, or other construction activities shall be cleaned each day prior to the
47 end of construction activities using methods approved by the Director of Public
48 Works/City Engineer.
49
50 56. This approval is contingent upon agreement of the applicant and property owner and their agents,
51 successors and heirs to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers,
52 attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from any claim, action or proceeding brought against
53 any of the foregoing individuals or entities, the purpose of which is to attack, set aside, void or annul
54 the approval of this application. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages,
55 costs, expenses, attorney fees or expert witness fees that may be asserted by any person or entity,
56 including the applicant, arising out of or in connection with the City's action on this application,
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 25, 2015
Page 31
1 whether or not there is concurrent passive or active negligence on the part of the City. If, for any
2 reason any portion of this indemnification agreement is held to be void or unenforceable by a court of
3 competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
4
5 Break: 8:27 p.m.
6
7 Reconvene: 8:35 p.m.
8
9 10. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
10 Planning Director Stump;
11 • Gave an update on upcoming planning projects.
12 • Gave an update on Zoning Administrator projects that have been approved since the last regular
13 Planning Commission meeting.
14 • Gave an update on General Plan Housing Element, Sphere of Influence Amendment Project,
15 Climate Action Plan, Costco Project, Detachment Application with LAFCO having to do with the
16 Ukiah Valley Sanitation District customers within the City Limits and Talmage Road/US 101
17 Realignment Project.
18 • Talked about 2015-16 Budget
19 • Asked Planning Commissioners to complete 1099s to receive stipends.
20
21 Commissioner Watt:
22 • Asked about future annexation projects in the works.
23 • Asked about status of tax sharing agreement with the County.
24
25 Commissioner Hilliker:
26 • Asked about the PEP Affordable Senior Housing Project and how much of this subject property
27 belongs to the City?
28
29 Planning Director Stump:
30 • There are things that have to occur before annexation of any kind can be done, such as tax
31 sharing with the County, etc.
32 • Related to the tax sharing agreement, talks are continuing with some positive intakes.
33 • Related to the PEP project all the properties the Project will use belong to the City. The DRB will
34 be review this Project again next week.
35
36 11. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
37 Commissioner Pruden:
38 • Will be absent from Planning Commission meetings of March 25 and April 8.
39 • Reported on two City events that will take place Saturday, February 28.
40
41 12. ADJOURNMENT
42 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:47 p.m.
43
44
45 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
46
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 25, 2015
Page 32
�+�����('i'l�tir i" �
��: -----._.
:N A
Q
4
City of Ukiah
UKIAH FIRE DEPARTMENT �
PROJECT REVIEW COMMENTS
PROJECT : Ukiah Valley Medical Center - ED & ICU Expansion
�I APP NO. :
�
� LOCATION: 275 Hospital Dr.
' DATE : 4-16-2014
i
REVIEWED BY: Kevin P. Jennings Division Chief / Fire Marshall
�
�'
Fire Depa�tment P�^oject Review Comments a�^e best �ecommendations based upon
� the infoNmation submitted, and do not constitute binding conditions, or app�oval of
any aspect of the project. Specific conditions, �equi�ements and app�ovals a�e
conducted only upon �eceipt of plans in conjunction with an Application fo� Building
Permit. Comments such as location of st�eet numbe�s, door & exit sagns, fiNe
extinguishe�s, fire lanes & no pa�king a�^eas, elect�ical shut off access, secure lock
box, fi�e alaNms, smoke detecto�s and othe� �outine �equirements will be annotated
when construction plans are reviewed fo� a peNmit. Locations shown a�e fo� concept
only. Actual locations will be field identified by the Fi�^e P�evention BuNeau.
Suggestions Regarding Plans Submitted.
,
Perkins St. .entrance & exit. (Lot 9 at Physical Therapy)
m Remove existing gates l fences . Place a Right Turn Only lane , Left Turn Only
lane and Entrance at this location . This will require the removal of the
� existing 8 or 9 parking spaces adjacent to the easterly property fence . The
curb at this location shall be painted red . (plot plan attached)
�
; • Clients / Patients leaving the Physical Therapy facility should be instructed
� via signage to exit to Perkins St. Signage should be posted at the division
; between lots 3 and 9 stating something such as "employees only" , or
', "emergency entrance only" . It is anticipated that some parking that currently
�� exists will remain , and departures would be through / under the proposed
' elevated helipad , and should be directed via signage which potential lane to
' use , as one will be for emergency vehicles only.
Walk in Emerqencv Entrance.
' • The proposed plan is to have a circular driveway f�r the public to utilize as a
drop off point for walk in patients. This approach does not allow for
emergency access of fire apparatus to the rear of the main facility. The
recommendation action would be to widen the cut out in the "drive-around " to
26' — 28' with removable ballads . . This. increase would allow for a full size fire
engine to access this point in the event of an emergency. The fire department
is aware of the entrance off of Perkins St. , but this additional space allows for
greater flexibility during an emergency.
r
. ° . '
k �.
• it appears that at least one fire hydrant will need to be moved to
accommodate the "drive-around " . It shall be required to be kept as close to
the drive-around as possible as there is only one additional hydrant located
on hospital property in this back driveway area , currently 285' to the North .
Moving the hydrant to accommodate the drive-around would push that
distance to 300' (+ / -) . There are two additional hydrants located on the
opposite side of the fence , on the Pear Tree Center property. Neither of which
� would be first choice for emergencies located on the hospital site .
Building Comments (not OSPHD)
• Helipad Heiqhts.
It appears that on the plans submitted , the finished soffit height of the Helipad
is 14' feet. This height must be maintained as to allow full size fire apparatus
to pass under at all times . One lane must also be no less than 20' feet in -
width .
• Additional Standpipes & Suppression Equipment.
An appropriately sized standpipe , with 2 %" outlets shall be installed on East
facing exterior wall of the "penthouse" location along with one additional , 80-
B : C rated fire extinguisher (extinguisher in cabinet) .
• Emerqencv Access / Know Boxes .
Due to the size of the facility one " Knox Box" to be located on each side of the
facility as noted , with keys and or magnetic pass cards to allow emergency
personnel access to all portions of the facility, through any door that may be
locked or needing to be utilized during an emergency. Fire Marshall will assist
contractor with accurate location as necessary.
1 . Main entrance at Hospital Dr.
2 . Entry at OB , Hospital Dr.
3 . North side af new addition .
4 . Rear, at ambulance vestibule or doors directly to the north .
5 . Corridor doors west of the walk in Emergency Room entrance .
- ,
1 ITEM NO. 9A
2
Planning and Community Development Department
e�ty � ukah 300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
planninq(a�citvofukiah.com
(707) 463-6203
3
4 DATE: March 11, 2015
5
6 TO: Planning Commission
7
8 FROM: Charley Stump, Director of Planning and Community Development
9
10 SUBJECT: Request for Approval of a Site Development Permit and Use Permit to allow the
11 construction and operation of a new cell tower on the Ukiah Civic Center property
12 located at 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah -APN 002-255-03
13 File Number: Munis File#266-SDP/UP-PC
14
15
16 INTRODUCTION
17
18 AT&T has proposed to construct and operate a new wireless cell tower on the Ukiah Civic
19 Center property next to the existing cell tower. Two alternatives are provided for consideration:
20 1) 100-foot tall mono-pole; and 2) 105-foot tall mono-pine/"faux" tree (see attachment 8 — Plans
21 and Photo Simulations). The existing cell tower is used primarily for public safety, but AT&T
22 does lease space on the tower for cell service. The purpose of the project is to remove the
23 commercial equipment from the existing tower, which would leave only the City's public safety
24 equipment on the existing tower. The existing tower would then be designated to public safety
25 equipment with room for expansion. The new tower would be for a commercial wireless
26 telecommunications facility (WTF) for AT&T and US Cellular. The equipment for the proposed
27 tower would be located in the same shed as the equipment for the existing tower. A structural
28 evaluation of the existing tower was performed and indicated that the tower could not support
29 additional equipment.
30
31 RECOMMENDATION
32
33 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Mono-Pine "Faux" Tree
34 alternative of the proposed project based on the draft findings included in attachment 1 and
35 subject to the draft conditions of approval included in attachment 2.
36
37 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
38
39 The applicant is requesting Planning Commission approval of a Use Permit and Site Development
40 Permit to allow the construction and operation of a new wireless communications cell tower at the
41 Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue. The tower would be approximately 100-105 feet in height,
AT&T Cell Tower Project
Major Site Development Permit and Use Permit
Ukiah Civic Center Site
PC March 11,2015
1
1 have 12 antennas, and be located next to the existing cell tower on the property. The proposed
2 tower would be located a minimum of 150-feet from any property line. The applicants are
3 proposing two alterative type towers. One is a 100-foot tall mono-pole, and the other is a 105-foot
4 tall mono-pine ("faux" tree). The "faux" tree-pole would be 105-feet tall and appear as an
5 evergreen tree (See attachment 8 for initial and revised Project Descriptions, as well as Photo
6 Simulations).
7
8 BACKGROUND
9
10 The Ukiah Police Department currently collocates public safety communication equipment on
11 the existing Cellular Tower at the Ukiah Civic Center. This collocation is with AT&T (formally
12 named New Singular Wireless LLC) who has a license agreement with the City of Ukiah for the
13 Cellular Tower and the fenced site at the base that contains the equipment shelter for the tower.
14 AT&T subleases, pursuant to the provisions of the License Agreement, ground space at the
15 base of the tower and space on the tower to U.S.Cellular.
16
17 The existing tower, fencing of the ground space and the equipment shelter were approved by
18 the Planning Commission and City Council and originally constructed in 2001 by Edge wireless
19 who was eventually acquired by AT&T. Upgrades and improvements have been made over the
20 years and management of this site by the City has been increasingly difficult as technology
21 improvements over time have required constant work to be done by the Cellular Companies.
22 The management and monitoring of work being done by the Cellular companies have been
23 difficult and time consuming and at times have interfered with the Public Safety
24 Communications equipment collocated on the tower and in the base shelter. Strict access
25 protocol has been put in place and the License Agreement with AT&T has been updated and
26 modified several times, most recently in 2013 that included the expansion to the license
27 agreement for underground fiber brought to the tower site from Dora Street across the Civic
28 Center Property.
29
3o The existing cellular tower structures capacity appears to be "maxed out" at this time which
31 negates the ability of the Cellular Companies or Public Safety to place additional equipment on
32 the tower should expansion be necessary in the future.
33
34 The Police Department has been managing the agreements related to the site and access to
35 the site with the Cellular Companies related to this tower for the last 8 years. Additionally, the
36 City IT Department has equipment related to the City's network communications placed on the
37 tower now.
38
39 SETTING
40
41 The project site is densely urban, yet contains a significant number of mature trees and
42 expansive landscaping. The Civic Center is located at the end of Seminary Avenue and is
43 surrounded by the following uses:
44
45 ■ North: Commercial uses zoned Community Commercial (C1) and residential uses
46 zoned Single-Family Residential (R1) and Medium Density Residential (R2) and a park
47 zoned Public Facilities (PF)
AT&T Cell Tower Project
Major Site Development Permit and Use Permit
Ukiah Civic Center Site
PC March 11,2015
2
1 ■ East: Commercial uses zoned Urban Center (UC), General Urban (GU), and
2 Community Commercial and residential uses zoned Medium Density Residential (R2)
3 ■ South: Residential uses zoned Single-Family Residential and commercial and
4 residential uses zoned Neighborhood Commercial (CN)
5 ■ West: Residential uses zoned Single-Family Residential and commercial and residential
6 uses zoned Neighborhood Commercial (CN). An alternative High School is situated on
7 the subject property west of the Civic Center complex.
8
9 The rear of the Civic Center where the new tower is proposed is developed with parking lots, an
10 existing tower/equipment shed, large fire training apparatus, and other equipment and small
11 structures typical of Civic Center complexes.
12
13 STAFF ANALYSIS
14
15 Approvals Required: Based on the Project Description and Project Plans, and Section 9017 of
16 the Ukiah City Code, a Major Site Development Permit is required to construct large structures.
17 Additionally, a Use Permit is required by the City Code to permit the operation of uses/structures
18 which are incidental to permitted uses in the Public Facilities Zoning District.
19
20 General Plan Consistency. The General Plan land use designation of the parcel is "P"
21 (Public). This land use designation identifies lands where public facility uses may locate.
22
23
Table 1: General Plan Analysis
General Plan Goal, Policy Implementation Staff Analysis
Section IV.3 Safety: Provide the highest possible Either alternative design will help fulfill this
level of service to the community; ensure the safety statement in the General Plan. Absent the
of those who live and visit here; protect the lives proposed project, the Police Department will not
and property entrusted to our care; help create and have the tower capacity to expand communications
preserve a safe and secure environment as technology advances in the future.
Goal HA-3: Maintain, protect, and enhance the Mono-Pole and Mon-Pine: The cultural resources
area's heritage, including and not limited to its investigation submitted for the project concludes
cultural, historical, spiritual, social, economic, that neither alternative would adversely impact the
architectural, agricultural, archaeological, and historic fabric of the Ukiah Civic Center. Staff
scenic heritage. believes that the Mono-Pine alternative would
better protect the scenic heritage as opposed to the
Non-Pole alternative.
Goal HA-4: Conserve the character and Staff is able to conclude that the Mono-Pine
architecture of neighborhoods. alternative would conserve the character of the
Civic Center"neighborhood" better than the Mono-
Pole alternative because it would resemble a tree
rather than appear as a metal pole, and would
blend in with existing trees.
Goal GP-25: Ensure aesthetic qualities in the It is Staff's opinion that the Mono-Pine alternative
design and construction of the community. fulfills this goal because it would blend in with
surrounding existing trees and would be more
aesthetically pleasing that the Mono-Pole
alternative.
AT&T Cell Tower Project
Major Site Development Permit and Use Permit
Ukiah Civic Center Site
PC March 11,2015
3
1 Staff is able to conclude that the proposed project is consistent with the Goals, Policies, and
2 intent of the Ukiah General Plan.
3
4
5 Zoning Consistency. The subject property is zoned Public Facilities (PF). The PF zone is fo
6 be applied to properties which are used for or are proposed to be used for public or quasi-public
7 purposes or for specified public utility purposes. Previously, a site development permit and use
8 permit were approved in order to allow the installation and operation of the existing tower on the
9 site. The use permit has been modified over time to allow additional antennas and/or to
10 replace/modify existing antennas and equipment.
11
12 Table 2 below includes the applicable zoning requirements for the Project along with staff
13 analysis.
14
Table 2: Zoning Consistency Analysis
P-F (Public Facilities)Zoning District Staff Analysis
Allowed/Permitted Uses The proposed cell tower is regarded as an "incidental" land
uses to the Civic Center use on the site and therefore a use
permit is required pursuant to the requirements of the Ukiah
City Code.
Building Height Limits Mono-Pole and Mon-Pine: Both alternative towers would be
consistent with the P-F (Public Facilities), because electrical
and other towers do not have a height limit.
Required Yard Setbacks There are no yard setbacks for projects in the P-F zone, but
the Code states that"the yard setbacks shall be equal to or
greater than those of adjacent zoning districts." The
proposed tower would be located a minimum of 150-feet from
any property line which exceeds the distances required for
adjacent zoning districts.
Required Parking Vehicle Parkina: The installation of a new tower would
not increase the demand for parking with the exception of
construction and maintenance of the facility. There is
adequate parking at the Civic Center to provide parking
during construction and maintenance of the facility.
Bike Parkinq: Since the Project is not required to provide
vehicle parking, no bike parking would be required.
There is bike parking available at the Civic Center which
is not fully utilized.
Landscaping Landscapinq: No landscaping has been proposed as part of
the Project. Due to the nature of the Project and location of
the Project, landscaping may or may not be appropriate. The
Use Permit for the existing tower did require landscape
screening.
A small amount of landscaping (shrubs)would be removed as
a result of the project, but staff concludes that it would be off-
set b the Mono-Pine"tree."
AT&T Cell Tower Project
Major Site Development Permit and Use Permit
Ukiah Civic Center Site
PC March 11,2015
4
1 Staff is able to conclude that the proposed project is consistent with the P-F (Public Facilities)
2 zoning district standards.
3
4 Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan: This project site is located in the D (Other Airport
5 Environs) zone. This zone allows all uses except hazards to flight. Due to the height of the
6 Mono-Pole/Mono-Pine, the applicant has filed form 7460 with the Federal Aviation
7 Administration (FAA) requesting approval of the facility. The City requires the filing of this form
8 and approval from the FAA for all wireless telecommunications towers located within the
9 boundaries of the Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan. In a letter dated December 15, 2014
10 (Attachment 5), the FAA formally determined that no hazard to air navigation would result from
11 the project.
12
13 Federal Communications Act - Radio Frequency — Electromagnetic Energy: The Federal
14 Telecommunications Act (FTA) limits the review authority that local agencies have over wireless
15 communications facilities. Below in regular type are the limitations placed on local authorities by
16 the FTA and staff's response is provided in italic type.
17
18 1. Local authorities cannot discriminate against "functionally equivalent" service providers.
19
20 The City already has an existing tower at 300 Seminary Avenue. Additionally, the City
21 has approved similar facilities in various locations around the City, including just north of
22 the Civic Center at 280 North Pine Street. The Pine Street site is similar to the Civic
23 Center site in that they are both surrounded by residential, commercial, and public
24 facilities.
25
26 2. Local authorities cannot reject wireless communications facility completely by enacting
27 excessively restrictive zoning ordinances.
28
29 The City's zoning ordinance does not specifically identify or define wireless
3o communications facilities or other telecommunications facilities uses, but does identify
31 electrical poles/towers/facilities, which is very similar. In the past, the Planning
32 Commission and City Council has determined the wireless communications facilities are
33 tantamount to electrical poles/towers/facilities, and are therefore a permitted use in the
34 P-F(Public Facilities) zoning district.
35
36 3. Local authorities are required to act on the request for approval of a WCF in a
37 reasonable period of time.
38
39 The proposed project is subject to the requirements of the Permit Streamlining Act
40 (PSA). The PSA requires that a decision be made on the project within 60 days of the
41 application being deemed complete. This application was submitted to the Community
42 Development and Planning Department in 2014 and was deemed complete on February
43 10, 2015. As such, a decision must be made on the project no later than April 10, 2015.
44
45 4. Any rejection of a wireless facility must be in writing and supported by substantial
46 evidence in the record.
47
AT&T Cell Tower Project
Major Site Development Permit and Use Permit
Ukiah Civic Center Site
PC March 11,2015
5
1 Staff is recommending approval of the site development permit and use permit for the
2 proposed Mono-Pine tower. Should Planning Commission be in a position to deny the
3 permits, findings for denial that meet this requirement would need to be provided by the
4 Planning Commission at the meeting as part of a motion for denial of the site
5 development and use permits.
6
7 5. Local authorities cannot deny the wireless facility based on health concerns when the
8 facility meets the Federal Communication Commission's regulations concerning radio
9 frequency emissions. The local authority can require that information demonstrating
10 compliance with the FCC's requirements be provided.
11
12 The applicant has provided an RF evaluafion (see attachment 7, Radio Frequency —
13 Electromagnetic Energy Compliance Report, EBI Consulting, January 14, 2015). This
14 report indicates that the proposed facility is meets the FCC requirements for RF
15 emissions, and does not pose a threat to the public's health, safety, or general welfare.
16
17 Historic and Architectural Inventory: The new tower would be located on the site of the Ukiah
18 Civic Center, which is identified on the Ukiah Historical and Architectural Survey Update
19 (September 1999) as appearing to be eligible for both the California Register of Historic
20 Properties and the National Register. As part of the application materials, the applicant provided
21 a cultural resource investigation prepared by Archaeological Resources Technology, dated
22 January 7, 2015 (see attachment 6). The cultural resource investigation determined that the
23 Ukiah Civic Center property continues to appear eligible for listing on both the California
24 Register of Historic Properties and the National Register.
25
26 Since the Ukiah Civic Center has been determined to be eligible for listing on the California and
27 National Registers, the report evaluates any potential impacts the proposed project may have
28 on the historic resource. The study concluded that neither alternative tower of the proposed
29 project has the potential for adverse effect. This conclusion was based on the following:
30
31 ➢ Neither alternative will cause any physical destruction of or damage to the Civic Center
32 Building;
33
34 ➢ Neither alternative will remove the building or property from its historic location;
35
36 ➢ Neither alternative will change the character of the property's use or cause neglect of the
37 property;
38
39 ➢ Neither alternative will result in the lease, transfer, or sale of the property.
40
41 ➢ Neither alternative would be attached to the Civic Center building and both could be
42 removed in the future without causing damage to the building;
43
44 ➢ While either alternative would reduce the building's "integrity" of setting, they would not
45 reduce it to a degree that the building can no longer convey its significance.
46
AT&T Cell Tower Project
Major Site Development Permit and Use Permit
Ukiah Civic Center Site
PC March 11,2015
6
1 Staff is able to conclude that neither project alternative would have an adverse impact on the
2 historic Civic Center property.
3
4 Design Guidelines. The Project is located within the boundaries of the Downtown Design
5 District; therefore, the Project would be reviewed for compliance with the Downtown Design
6 District Guidelines; however, it was unclear how the Design Guidelines apply to a cell tower.
7 Staff requested that the DRB review the Project and make a recommendation to the Planning
8 Commission.
9
10 Design Review Board: On December 11, 2014, the Design Review Board reviewed and
11 discussed the proposal. After a short discussion, the DRB voted unanimously to recommend
12 approval of the mono-pole alternative rather than the "faux" tree mono-pine alternative. The
13 Board felt that the mono-pine design did not adequately resemble a tree, and that the
14 "utilitarian" mono-pole alternative would work better visually with the existing lattice tower and
15 on the Civic Center site. The DTRB minutes are included as attachment 4.
16
17 Site and Neighborhood Compatibility: There is already a 100-foot tall lattice communications
18 tower on the Civic Center site, which is common for local government buildings. The tower is
19 accepted as an integral component of local government and a crucial tool for public safety. As
20 such, the tower does not appear "out of place" in its location. However, in Staff's opinion,
21 adding an additional steel tower (see attachment 8), would increase the "industrial" look on the
22 Civic Center property, which is replete with tall trees that provide a natural looking backdrop to
23 the buildings on the site. While this increased "industrial" look may not technically impact the
24 historic character of the property, it would, in Staff's opinion, tip the scale in terms of site
25 compatibility and visual quality. Accordingly, Staff favors the "faux" tree mono-pine alternative,
26 which up close may not look exactly like a tree, but from a distance would provide a blending
27 with the natural environment. Moreover, the "faux" tree alternative would soften the visual
28 quality of the existing tower and the rear Civic Center, which as noted above, is developed with
29 an existing tower/equipment shed, large fire training apparatus, and other equipment. Staff
3o recommends the "faux" tree mono-pine alternative.
31
32 Comments from Reviewing Departments. City Departments submitted the following
33 comments regarding the project.
34
Table 3: City Department Comments Received
Electric Utility 1. The Electric Utility indicated that they
must know what size service panel is
being proposed and that the applicant will
be required to fund the new service panel.
Public Works 1. The Department of Public Works indicated
that an Encroachment Permit would be
required prior to the commencement of
work.
Building Official 1. The Building Official commented that a
Building Permit is required for the proposed
cell tower prior to construction.
Fire Department 1. There is an existing GFI receptacle in the
planter strip, on a steel post in the general
AT&T Cell Tower Project
Major Site Development Permit and Use Permit
Ukiah Civic Center Site
PC March 11,2015
7
proximity of this new tower. This outlet
location must be maintained, moved if
necessary, but maintained. It is used to
keep vehicles that have to be parked
outside, charged. It is currently directly
north of the apparatus apron to the North.
2. If it becomes necessary to provide access
for construction equipment during the
installation, to the back of the apparatus
bay, notification must be given well in
advance to Division Chief Kevin Jennings,
463-6271. Both west facing bay doors have
"first ouY' equipment parked behind them.
Moving this equipment prior to work is not
difficult, but this equipment cannot be
blocked in.
Police Department
1. If AT&T is allowed to erect another tower near
the existing equipment shelter and ground
space below the existing tower, our public
safety communication equipment on the
existing tower will no longer be collocated with
the cellular companies and room on the
existing tower will then exist for public safety
expansion of equipment on the tower if
necessary. Additionally, security issues for the
public safety equipment will be less as the
cellular companies will no longer be working
around our critical public safety equipment on
the existing tower. The City would also benefit
by having the ability to place additional IT
network equipment on the existing tower if the
City is granted exclusive use and ownership of
the existing tower.
2. The Police Department expects, by way of
modification to the City's agreements with the
Cellular Companies, that we will take
possession of the existing tower exclusively for
use for Public Safety Communications
equipment foreseeably into the future. This
scenario would be fiscally important to the City
as it is predictably cost prohibitive to erect a
new tower for Public Safety now or in the
future.
3. New License Agreements and modifications to
the Existing License Agreements will have to
be completed if approval of this project is
AT&T Cell Tower Project
Major Site Development Permit and Use Permit
Ukiah Civic Center Site
PC March 11,2015
8
granted. The Police Department will work with
the City Attorney to accomplish this if it
becomes necessary.
1
2 Site Development Permit and Use Permit. The Ukiah City Code requires approval of a Site
3 Development Permit to construct large structures. The Code also requires a Use Permit for the
4 operation of uses/structures which are incidental to permitted uses in the Public Facilities
5 Zoning District.
6
7 The findings required for approval of a Site Development Permit and Use Permit along with staff
8 analysis is included in Table 4 below.
9
Table 4: Site Development Permit Analysis
The proposed project is consistent the goals and See Table 1 above
policies of the City General Plan.
The proposed project is consistent with the See Table 2 above
provisions of the City Zoning Code.
The location, size, and intensity of the proposed The location, size and intensity of the project would
project will not create a hazardous or inconvenient not create hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic
vehicular or pedestrian traffic pattern. because no work would be performed in the public
right-of-way and the tower would not be located in
a way that conflicts with vehicular or pedestrian
movements.
The accessibility of off-street parking areas and the Neither tower alternative would create hazardous
relation of parking areas with respect to traffic on or inconvenient traffic condition to adjacent or
adjacent streets will not create a hazardous or surrounding uses, because the only traffic they
inconvenient condition to adjacent or surrounding would generate would be an occasional
uses maintenance trucks.
Sufficient landscaped areas have been reserved for The project would not result in new expanses of
purposes of separating or screening the proposed paved areas. The Mono-Pine alternative would
structure(s) from the street and adjoining building provide a "tree"that would screen the existing
sites, and breaking up and screening large tower from Dora Street, whereas the Mono-Pole
ex anses of aved areas. would not involve an landsca in .
The proposed project will not restrict or cut out light Neither alternative towers would cut out light or air
and air on the property, or on the property in the on neighboring properties or hinder development
neighborhood; nor will it hinder the development or on adjacent parcels because they would be located
use of buildings in the neighborhood, or impair the a minimum of 150 feet from any property line and
value thereof. would be screened by existing matures trees
located on the sub'ect propert .
The improvement of any commercial or industrial Neither tower alternative would have a substantial
structure will not have a substantial detrimental detrimental impact on the character or value of an
impact on the character or value of an adjacent adjacent residential zoning district, because they
residential zoning district. would be located over 150 feet from any property
line, would not be highly visible, and would be
located on local government property, which is
common location for such devices.
The proposed development will not excessively Neither alternative would excessively damage or
AT&T Cell Tower Project
Major Site Development Permit and Use Permit
Ukiah Civic Center Site
PC March 11,2015
9
damage or destroy natural features, including trees, destroy natural features, including trees, shrubs,
shrubs, creeks, and the natural grade of the site. creeks, and the natural grade of the site, because
no trees would be removed, the natural grade is
level, and there are no creeks or other natural
features on the site.
There is sufficient variety, creativity, and Mono-Pole: Staff is able to conclude that the
articulation to the architecture and design of the Mono-Pole design does not provide sufficient
structure(s)and grounds to avoid monotony and/or variety, creativity, and articulation to the
a box-like uninteresting external appearance. architecture and design, because it would just be a
metal pole with visible antennas.
Mono-Pine: Staff is able to conclude that the
Mono-Pine alternative would provide sufficient
variety, creativity, and articulation to the
architecture and design, because it would resemble
a tree, rather than a standard metal pole, and
would not appear"box-like."
1
2
Table 6: Use Permit Analysis
The proposed land use is consistent with the See Tables 1 and 2 above.
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance as well as the
goals and policies of the City General Plan.
The proposed land use is compatible with Staff is able to conclude that both alternatives
surrounding land uses and shall not be detrimental would not be detrimental to the public's health,
to the public's health, safety and general welfare. safety and general welfare, because the technical
information submitted for the project and cited in
this Staff Report reveals the radio frequency
emissions would be negligible.
Staff is also able to conclude that the Mono-Pine
alternative is more compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood than the Mono-Pole alternative
because it would blend in with the existing mature
trees on the Civic Center site, and would help
screen the existing tower from Dora Street.
3
4
5 ENVIRONMENTAL (CEQA) REVIEW
6
7 Based on the discussion below, the proposed project would not have a significant impact on the
8 environment and is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
9 (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, Class 3 — New Construction of small
10 structures, and 15300.2 (f) Exceptions/Historical Resources.
11
12 Historic Significance: As discussed above, and based on the findings contained in the
13 submitted cultural resources investigation, staff has concluded that neither proposed alternative
14 would adversely impact the historic Civic Center property. Section 15300.2 of the CEQA
15 Guidelines allows projects that involve historical resources to be exempted from the provisions
16 of the California Environmental Quality Act when it can be determined that the project would not
AT&T Cell Tower Project
Major Site Development Permit and Use Permit
Ukiah Civic Center Site
PC March 11,2015
10
1 cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of the historical resource. Based on the
2 cultural resource investigation provided, staff believes that the proposed project would not result
3 in a substantial adverse change in the historical resource.
4
5 Radio Frequency (RF) Emissions: Local authorities cannot deny the wireless facility based on
6 health concerns when the facility meets the Federal Communication Commission's regulations
7 concerning radio frequency emissions. The applicant has provided an RF evaluation - Radio
8 Frequency — Electromagnetic Energy Compliance Report, EBI Consulting, January 14, 2015
9 (attachment 7). The report indicates that the radio frequency electromagnetic field that would
10 be generated is far less than the maximum standard established by the FCC. As such, the FCC
11 has determined that there is no environmental impact related to RF emissions and the local
12 authority (City) is preempted from using RF emissions in their evaluation of the project and the
13 associated environmental review.
14
15 Ground Disturbance and Setting: The proposed tower (either alternative) would be placed in
16 an existing small landscape planter adjacent to the existing tower behind the Civic Center,
17 which is property that has been substantially paved and built upon. The project would not
18 disturb or impact and watercourses, trees, natural features or sensitive habitats.
19
20 CONCLUSION
21
22 AT&T is proposing to erect a new wireless communications cell tower adjacent to the existing
23 tower on the Civic Center property. The new tower would allow AT&T to remove all of its
24 existing equipment/antennas off of the existing tower and free the existing tower up for exclusive
25 public safety purposes. The City Police and Fire Departments are highly supportive of the
26 proposal because it will assist them in providing a high level of public safety, particularly in the
27 future if modifications of the public safety tower/equipment become necessary.
28
29 Initially, AT&T proposed a Mono-Pole design, but after discussions with Staff, they submitted a
30 Mono-Pine alternative similar to the tower on the Elks Lodge property (Hastings Avenue)
31 recently approved by the Planning Commission. The Design Review Board favored the Mono-
32 Pole alternative because of its "utilitarian" appearance and the notion that a cell tower is a cell
33 tower and it should not be disguised to appear as a tree. However, Staff respectFully disagrees,
34 and favors the Mono-Pine alternative because it would blend in with existing mature trees on the
35 site and would help to screen the existing tower from Dora Street.
36
37 Staff recommends approval of the Mono-Pine alternative.
38
39 PUBLIC NOTICE
40
41 A notice of public hearing was provided in the following manner:
42
43 ■ posted in three (3) places on the Project site on February 27, 2015;
44 ■ mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site on February 27, 2015; and
45 ■ published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on February March 1, 2015.
46
AT&T Cell Tower Project
Major Site Development Permit and Use Permit
Ukiah Civic Center Site
PC March 11,2015
11
1 As of the writing of this staff report, no correspondence has been received in response to the
2 notice.
3
4 DECISION TIMELINE
5
6 The proposed project is subject to the requirements of the Permit Streamlining Act (PSA). The
7 PSA requires that a decision be made on the project within 60 days of the application being
8 deemed complete. This application was submitted to the Community Development and
9 Planning Department on November 3, 2014 and was deemed complete on February 10, 2014.
10 As such, a decision must be made on the project no later than April 10, 2015.
11
12 Attachments
13
14 1. Draft Site Development and Use Permit Findings
15 2. Draft Conditions of Approval
16 3. Project Description (May 29, 2014) and Revised Project Description (November 19,
17 2014).
18 4. Design Review Board Minutes
19 5. FAA Letter, dated December 15, 2015
20 6. Cultural Resource Impact Investigation Report, Archaeological Resources Technology,
21 January 7, 2015
22 7. Radio Frequency— Electromagnetic Energy Compliance Report, EBI Consulting,
23 January 14, 2015
24 8. Project Plans/Photo-Simulations
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
AT&T Cell Tower Project
Major Site Development Permit and Use Permit
Ukiah Civic Center Site
PC March 11,2015
12
1 ATTACHMENT 1
2
3 DRAFT SITE DEVELOPMENT AND USE PERMIT FINDINGS
4
5 DRAFT SITE DEVELOPMENT AND USE PERMIT FINDINGS
6 TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A MONO-PINE CELL TOWER
7 AT THE UKIAH CIVIC CENTER PROPERTY
8 300 SEMINARY AVENUE, UKIAH
9
10 The following findings are supported by and based on information contained in this staff report,
11 the application materials and documentation, and the public record.
12
13 1. The mono-pine "faux" tree alternative of the proposed project, as conditioned, is
14 consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan as described in Table 1 of the
15 staff report.
16
17 2. The mono-pine "faux" tree alternative of the proposed project, as conditioned, is
18 consistent with the Zoning Ordinance as described in Table 2 of the staff report.
19
20 3. The location, size and intensity of the mono-pine "faux" tree alternative of the project
21 would not create hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic because no work would be
22 performed in the public right-of-way, the nearest street is 150-feet away, and the
23 proposed tower would be located within an existing landscape planter.
24
25 4. The mono-pine "faux" tree alternative of the proposed tower would be located a
26 minimum of 150-feet from nearby Streets and surrounding land uses, would not conflict
27 with the existing parking lot, and therefore would not create hazardous or inconvenient
28 conditions.
29
30 5. The mono-pine "faux" tree alternative of the proposed project would not remove
31 significant amounts of landscaping and would act as landscaping to help separate and
32 screen the existing tower and Civic Center complex.
33
34 6. The mono-pine "faux" tree alternative of the proposed project would not cut out light and
35 air on the property, or on the property in the neighborhood; nor will it hinder the
36 development or use of buildings in the neighborhood, or impair the value thereof,
37 because it would be located in a large parcel over 150-feet from neighboring
38 development.
39
40 7. The project will not destroy any natural land features or creeks because none exist on
41 the site. No trees must be removed from the property and the mono-pine "faux" tree
42 alternative would provide a "tree" to the site that would help screen the existing tower
43 from Dora Street.
44
45
AT&T Cell Tower Project
Major Site Development Permit and Use Permit
Ukiah Civic Center Site
PC March 11,2015
13
1 8. The Mono-Pine "faux" tree alternative of the proposed project will provide a creative
2 approach to cell tower design consistent with a recently City approved cell tower on
3 Hastings Avenue, and would not result in a box-like structure.
4
5 9. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses and would not be detrimental to the
6 public's health, safety and general welfare because:
7
8 A. The site is located in an area with a mix of zoning districts, including Residential,
9 Public Facility and Commercial. This has created a mix of uses in the area,
10 including single-family and multi-family residential, religious uses and offices.
11 There are other wireless communication facilities/devices/towers in the vicinity of
12 the proposed project.
13
14 B. The mono-pine "faux" tree alternative would appear like a tree and blend in with
15 other tall trees in the immediate neighborhood.
16
17 C. The mono-pine "faux" tree alternative would help screen the existing tower from
18 views from Dora Street.
19
20 D. The applicant has provided an RF evaluation (Radio Frequency— Electromagnetic
21 Energy Compliance Report, EBI Consulting, January 14, 2015). This report
22 indicates that the proposed facility is meets the FCC requirements for RF
23 emissions, and does not pose a threat to the public's health, safety, or general
24 welfare
25
26 10. The project has been reviewed by all City Departments including the Police, Fire and
27 Public Works Departments, and none of these Departments have identified any potential
2s impacts to the public's health, safety or general welfare.
29
30 11. Based on the following, the proposed project would not have a significant impact on the
31 environment and is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
32 Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, Class 3 — New Construction
33 of small structures, and 15300.2(f) Exceptions/Historic Resources.
34
35 o Historic Siqnificance: As discussed above, and based on the findings contained
36 in the submitted cultural resources investigation, staff has concluded that neither
37 proposed alternative would adversely impact the historic Civic Center property.
38 Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines allows projects that involve historical
39 resources to be exempted from the provisions of the California Environmental
4o Quality Act when it can be determined that the project would not cause a
41 substantial adverse change in the significance of the historical resource. Based
42 on the cultural resource investigation provided, staff believes that the proposed
43 project would not result in a substantial adverse change in the historical
44 resource.
45
AT&T Cell Tower Project
Major Site Development Permit and Use Permit
Ukiah Civic Center Site
PC March 11,2015
14
1 o Radio Frequency Emissions: Local authorities cannot deny the wireless facility
2 based on health concerns when the facility meets the Federal Communication
3 Commission's regulations concerning radio frequency emissions. The applicant
4 has provided an RF evaluation - Radio Frequency — Electromagnetic Energy
5 Compliance Report, EBI Consulting, January 14, 2015 (attachment 7). The
6 report indicated that the radio frequency electromagnetic field that would be
7 generated is far less than the maximum standard established by the FCC. As
8 such, the FCC has determined that there is no environmental impact related to
9 RF emissions and as such the local authority is preempted from using RF
10 emissions in their evaluation of the project and the associated environmental
11 review.
12
13 o Ground Disturbance and Settinq: The proposed tower (either alternative) would
14 be placed in an existing small landscape planter adjacent to the existing tower
15 behind the Civic Center, which is property that has been substantially paved and
16 built upon. The project would not disturb or impact and watercourses, trees,
17 natural features or sensitive habitats.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
AT&T Cell Tower Project
Major Site Development Permit and Use Permit
Ukiah Civic Center Site
PC March 11,2015
15
1 ATTACHMENT 2
2
3
4 DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
5
6 DRAFT SITE DEVELOPMENT AND USE PERMIT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
7 TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A MONO-PINE CELL TOWER
8 AT THE UKIAH CIVIC CENTER PROPERTY
9 300 SEMINARY AVENUE, UKIAH
10
11 1. Approval is granted to allow construction of a 105-foot Mono-Pine cell tower as shown
12 on the plans date stamped December 19, 2014 and as described in the revised project
13 description submitted to the Planning and Community Development Department and
14 date stamped November 19, 2014.
15
16 2. Plans submitted for a building permit shall be in substantial conformance with the plans
17 conditionally approved by the Planning Commission.
18
19 3. Construction hours 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Saturday 9:00 a.m.
20 to 4:00 p.m., unless specifically approved by the Public Works Director. Construction is
21 prohibited on Sundays and holidays recognized by the City of Ukiah, unless approved by
22 the Public Works Director. Interior construction is exempt from these hours provided
23 that construction noise is not audible at the project property lines.
24
25 4. On plans submitted for building permit these conditions of approval shall be included as
26 notes on the first sheet.
27
28 From the Building Official
29
30 5. A Building permit is required for the project and shall be secured prior to commencement
31 of work pursuant to the requirements of the California Building Code.
32
33 From the Fire Marshal
34
35 6. There is an existing GFI receptacle in the planter strip on a steel post in the general
36 proximity of the proposed new tower. This outlet location must be maintained, moved if
37 necessary, but maintained.
38
39 7. If it becomes necessary to provide access for construction equipment during the
4o installation in the vicinity of the apparatus bay, notification must be provided well in
41 advance to Division Fire Chief Kevin Jennings (707-463-6271).
42
43
44
45
46
AT&T Cell Tower Project
Major Site Development Permit and Use Permit
Ukiah Civic Center Site
PC March 11,2015
16
1 From the Public Works Department
2
3 8. All work on City Property shall be by a licensed and properly insured contractor. The
4 contractor shall obtain an encroachment permit for work within this area or otherwise
5 affecting this area. Encroachment permit fee shall be $45 plus 3% of estimated
6 construction costs.
7 Standard Conditions
8
9 9. No permit or entitlement shall be deemed effective unless and until all fees and
10 charges applicable to this application and these conditions of approval have been paid in
11 full.
12
13 10. The property owner shall obtain and maintain any permit or approval required by law,
14 regulation, specification or ordinance of the City of Ukiah and other Local, State, or
15 Federal agencies as applicable. All construction shall comply with all fire, building,
16 electric, plumbing, occupancy, and structural laws, regulations, and ordinances in effect
17 at the time the Building Permit is approved and issued.
18
19 11. A copy of all conditions applicable to the Site Development Permit and Use Permit shall
20 be provided to and be binding upon any future purchaser, tenant, or other party of
21 interest.
22
23 12. All conditions of approval that do not contain specific completion periods shall be
24 completed prior to building permit final.
25
26 13. This Site Development Permit and Use Permit may be revoked through the City's
27 revocation process if the approved project related to this Permit is not being conducted
28 in compliance with these stipulations and conditions of approval; or if the project is not
29 established within two years of the effective date of this approval; or if the established
30 use for which the permits were granted has ceased or has been suspended for 24
31 consecutive months.
32
33 14. Except as otherwise specifically noted, the Site Development Permit and Use Permit
34 shall be granted only for the specific purposes stated in the action approving the Site
35 Development Permit and Use Permit and shall not be construed as eliminating or
36 modifying any building, use, or zone requirements except to such specific purposes.
37
38 15. The project shall comply with the following requirements to reduce air quality impacts
39 related to project construction:
40
41 A. All grading shall comply with Mendocino County Air Quality Management District
42 Rule 1-430, Fugitive Dust Emissions.
43
44 B. All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, road construction,
45 and building construction institute a practice of routinely watering exposed soil to
46 control dust, particularly during windy days.
AT&T Cell Tower Project
Major Site Development Permit and Use Permit
Ukiah Civic Center Site
PC March 11,2015
17
1
2 C. All inactive soil piles on the project site shall be completely covered at all times to
3 control fugitive dust.
4
5 D. All earth moving and grading activities shall be suspended if wind speeds (as
6 instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour.
7
8 E. Adjacent roadways exposed to dust, dirt, or other soil particles by vehicles tires,
9 poorly covered truck loads, or other construction activities shall be cleaned each day
10 prior to the end of construction activities using methods approved by the Director of
11 Public Works/City Engineer.
12
13 16. Any future lighting for the project is subject to Planning Department review and approval
14 as part of the building permit required for the lighting. Any lighting shall comply with the
15 following requirements:
16
17 ➢ International Dark Sky Association approved fixture or equivalent;
18 ➢ Design compatible with the structures on the site.
19 ➢ Downcast, full cutoff fixture(s);
20 ➢ Pole height similar to any existing poles.
21 ➢ No light impacts or spill-over to adjacent properties.
22
23 17. This approval is contingent upon agreement of the applicant and property owner and
24 their agents, successors and heirs to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the
25 City, its agents, officers, attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from any claim,
26 action or proceeding brought against any of the foregoing individuals or entities, the
27 purpose of which is to attack, set aside, void or annul the approval of this application.
28 This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, costs, expenses,
29 attorney fees or expert witness fees that may be asserted by any person or entity,
30 including the applicant, arising out of or in connection with the City's action on this
31 application, whether or not there is concurrent passive or active negligence on the part
32 of the City. If, for any reason any portion of this indemnification agreement is held to be
33 void or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the
34 agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
35
AT&T Cell Tower Project
Major Site Development Permit and Use Permit
Ukiah Civic Center Site
PC March 11,2015
18
I
i
;
` a����►�,��� , ; ,,. 3
` �'�. . - --
; �� �t&t
; .
,
�
;
�
;
� �
� PROJECT DESCRIPTION
;
; AT&T proposes to modify its existing unmanned wireless communications facility behind the Ukia.h
; Police Department headquarters. The proposed modification consists of locating, installing and
� maintaining a new 100 ' tall monopole in a landscape median in close proximity to its existing facility
� with outdoor shelter and 100' tall self support lattice tower. The new monopole will allow AT&T to
� remove all of its existing equipment off of the existing lattice tower and relocate that equipment with
� additional equipment, to the new monopole. Twelve ( 12) antennas with twenty-four (24) new and
; future• remote radio units (RRUS) will be distributed evenly over two (2) center lines at 96 and 86 ' .
� This proposed equipment configuration was chosen to help keep the profile of the pole and antenna
� arrays as narrow as possible. Otherwise, twelve ( 12) antennas and equipment over a single antenna
� array at the top of the monopole would produce a wider and more voluminous look to the monopole. It
should also be noted the monopole, mounting hardware and equipment is proposed to be painted a
y single color, acceptable with the Pla.nning Department, so as to try and have this structure and
` equipment blend in with the surrounding area and/or hills in the background.
i
� AT&T is requesting land use approval for this new structure to remove itself from the over-loaded and
� deficient state of the existing lattice tower. On November 21 , 2013 , a TIA-222-G Maintenance and
Condition Assessment was made on the existing 100' self support lattice tower. A copy of the
C Assessment is provided for your reference: The Assessment indicated items requiring immediate
i
� attention and items requiring scheduled maintenance. In summary, the tower is out of pluxnb above
i 60' and the structural engineering company responsible for the Assessment recommends either
� replacing 60% of the tower structure or better yet, replacing the tower altogether as the best solution. .
� It is that pxofessional assessment and solution that necessitates this proposed new Project.
�
The Project would also involve facilitating the relocation of the U. S . Cellular antennas, hardware and
coax lines onto the new monopole. With the removal of all AT&T and U. S . Cellular equipment,
; AT&T will convey tower ownership to the City of Ukiah Police and public safety organizations so
', they can have autonomy in the sole use of the tower.
i
Enclosures: 2013 TIA-222-G Maintenance and Condition Assessment I
Photo Simulations
EME Report
� � � � ��� �
MAY 2 9 2014
CITY QF IJKIAH .
�UII.DING! PLANNING IDEpAR1'1V��°
,
AT&T Mobility. 2700 Watt Avenue, Suite 2200-016 , Sacramento CA 95821
_�_.
� a�&t
Ms. Kim Jordan REG�{VE�
Senior Planner NOV 19 2014
Planning and Community Development Department �
300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482 � ciTY o� uaa�H
$ZjILDINGI P�.AN1vINC UEPARTMEN'1'
Ra: AT&T Site CCL00915 — LTkiah Downtown
Use Permit and Site Development Permit Response Letter
Dear Kim,
This response letter follows my May 22, 2014 Planning Applications for Use Permit and Site
Development Permit an.d your subsequent correspondences with comments, questions and concerns
about the proposed new AT&T structure at 300 Seminary Avenue. I will attempt to address your items
of importance with the following:
Structure Re-design
,
AT&T antennas were previously located at the top of the existing 100' tall lattice tower to maximize
coverage capabilities at and around the project area. The height of the e�sting structure, I have to
believe, was primarily established to allow the antennas to be at a reasonable distance above the trees
that exist on and around the property. Sheet C2 in the revised drawings provided in this package show
a small number of existing trees at 30, 70, 80 and 100 feet plus or minus surrounding the existing
wireless communications facility. I also have to believe the prior height was established to allow the
Police Department appropriate height for their communications systems to be the most effective
particularly si.n.ce th�re is an omni an.tenna attached to the top of the 100' tall structure. Consequently,
AT&T' s proposed new structure has been designed to be at the same height as the existing structure so
as to not diminish its pre-existing coverage "footprint".
You suggested AT&T consider stealthing the proposed new structure out of preference by the P1�ng
Commi.ssion, community and for eompatibility sake with the historic nature of the property. This
suggestion was heard and at this time, AT&T would like to submit a revised new structure consisting
of a 105 ' ta11 monopiue (faux pine tree) which we believe meets the Planning Commission and
community' s preference for new structures in tlus heavily wooded area. The proposed monopi.ne
method of stealthing would attempt to mimic the evergreen trees found on aaid around the project site
so as to blend in with the existing surroundings.
AT&T panel antennas an.d associated electronic equipment are proposed to be secured at the 96' and
86' center-lines and remain within the circumference of the branches. The inner monopole suppo�
structure will be painted brown and all tower mounted equipment and mountirig hardware will painted
brown and/or green to match the color of the tree needles and/or branches. Due to frequency licenses �
AT&T owns and operates under, we need to secure a total of twelve ( 12) panel antennas at the desired
AT&T Mobility. 2700 Watt Avenue, Suite 2200-016, Sacramento CA 95821
center-lines to effectively maintain and service the surrounding area. Twelve ( 12) panel antennas
cannot be realistically placed at a single center-line a.nd .remain within the outside circumference of the
monopine branches. This also defeats the purpose of this type of stealth si�ucture. Therefore, vve split
� the twelve (12) antennas over two (2) center-lines. Doing so, allows the fewer antennas per sector to
be located closer to the inner monopole without interfering with the ends of the adjoi.ni.ng moutrting
members. T1us is our intention here and we have had great success at other locations as denaonstrated
in photographs of constructed monopin.es I sent you via email attachm.ents on October 2, 2014. p�
drawings indicate the bottom of the monopine branches will start at 35' above ground level anc�. taper
to a crown at 105 feet above ground level. Finally, we will design this monopine to have a high
density, 3 .5 branches per vertical foot count. This will certai.nly make the monopine appear to be a
much fuller tree and help to conceal attached equipment. I will have samples of the tree branches and
needles available to you at a later date and certainly before this project goes to public hearing.
Photo Simulations
i
' Four (4) professionally produced photo simulations are now provided show:ing how the proposed
' siructure and location would appear from 4 di.fferent views from around the project site.
,
�
I
;
�ttca�rhm�r�� �' �
1 M/S Nicholson/Thayer to recommend Planning Commission approval for Mutt Hut Outdoor
2 Dining Site Development Permit, as presented with more focus on the landscaping aspects for
3 possible reconsideration as discussed above . Motion carried (5 -0) .
4
5 Member Hawkes :
6 • Requested clarification the City of Ukiah has an employee with landscape
7 architecture/design expertise on board .
8
9 Member Thayer:
10 • The City of Ukiah would benefit from having a person with landscape design
11 experience/expertise as staff.
12
13 Planning Director Stump :
14 • Confirmed the City does not presently have an employee with landscape design
15 experience but has in the past and recognizes the importance of having such a person if
16 this were possible .
17
18 6D. AT&T Site Development Permit for a Wireless Telecommunications Facility, 300
19 Seminary Avenue (Ukiah Civic Center) (File No. 266) : Review and recommendation to
20 the Planning Commission on a Site Development Permit for a 105-foot tall Mono-Pole
21 Wireless Telecommunications Facility at the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue ,
22 APN 002-255-03 . This project also requires Planning Commission approval of a Use
23 Permit.
24
25 Assistant Planner Johnson :
26 • The Project applicant was unable to be present due to weather conditions getting to
27 Ukiah .
28
29 Trent Taylor presented the Project:
30 • The proposed Project involves the construction and operation of a wireless
31 telecommunications facility (WTF) designed as a mono-tree that would include the
32 construction/operation of a 105 mono-tree WTF. The Project would utilize the existing
33 equipment enclosure and would run new conduit, fiber, and cables to connect to
34 equipment located in the existing enclosure .
35 • The Project was originally submitted as new antennas added to the existing lattice tower
36 where a structural analysis was prepared for the existing tower. The analysis determined
37 the existing tower could not support additional equipment . As such , the applicant revised
38 the Project to include removing the AT&T antennas on the existing tower and the
39 construction of a new tower designed as a mono-pine.
40 • The Ukiah Police Department manages the existing WTF tower.
41 • Edge Wireless initially installed the existing cell lattice tower with approval of a Major Use
42 Permit from the Ukiah Planning Commission . This tower was necessary in order to
43 upgrade the City's police and fire radio equipment because we have a full public safety
44 answering point here at the City of Ukiah . The City of Ukiah is also a regional dispatch
45 center because Ukiah Police Department also dispatches for Fort Bragg Police
46 Department.
47 • Found an upgrade to the tower was very expensive so a licensing agreement was made
48 with Edge Wireless to assist the City and explained the intricacies of the transaction .
49 Eventually Edge Wireless was bought out and acquired by AT&T , which was really a new
50 singular wireless business and noted this wireless business to be very complex. The area
51 where the tower is located the licensing agreement is now owed by AT&T or more
52 properly referred to as ' New Singular Wireless' that subleases to US Cellular so now the
53 City has two cell companies on City equipment. Recently, because of federal regulations
54 the City upgraded its safety equipment with future upgrades to be made over the next 25
55 to 30 years , none of which would ever maximize/compromise the current existing tower
Design Review Board December 11 , 2014
Page 10
1 service from the public safety perspective. However, it is the cellular matters that keep
2 getting more complicated . US Cellular approached the City last year wanting to go to the
3 next level since it is a very competitive market place. The tower at the City of Ukiah is
4 critical to the Ukiah Valley since it is the only downtown ceil tower.
5 • When assessing the existing tower concerning an upgrade it was determined the tower
6 could not support additional equipment and explained the structural �imitations in more
7 detail . The City was essentially going be 'pushed off' the use of the tower to
8 accommodate cellular use and this could not occur. One option is the tower could be
9 abandoned and given to the City or take the existing tower down and build a new one .
10 The option that was proposed in connection with the City managing the lease was to
11 install another tower. This option would leave the City not co-located on the same tower
12 with cellular providers thus giving the City the opportunity to expand . The new tower
13 would certainly be suitable for City needs for many years/decades to come . With the
14 rapid improvement/advancement of the cellular business and pressure for being
15 competitive in this market place and from the City management perspective of being able
16 to protect the public safety equipment is an issue the City must address relative to
17 capacity and effective function/service. Cellular company vendors offer hiring
18 subcontractors to work on the City tower and this has become a security issue in the
19 past. City public safety equipment is critical such that the system must always function
20 properly without failure of any kind . To effectively manage and protect our interest cost
21 factors are a consideration such that the City must weigh the benefit received from the
22 initial licensing agreement versus the benefit now. No one could predict how use of the
23 tower and value received thereof would play out since the initial licensing agreement was
24 initiated some time ago . Should the project move forward , the City Attorney would then
25 have to renegotiate the City's contractual relationship with the cellular companies. The
26 City just went through this process when new fiber cables etc. , were installed and the
27 underground work involve where new rules about access were put in place.
28 • From a public safety and City perspective the benefit to instailing a new tower would be
29 the ability to separate public safety from cellular issues all of which are critical to the
30 community. Allowing for effective cellular service for the community is a necessity and
31 with being able to technically keep up with the rest of the nation .
32
33 Member Liden :
34 • Is the proposed new tower a City idea or that of AT&T , a cellular company?
35 • Is there a problem with having another tower that requires security fencing?
36 • Has a problem with the new tower being a tree design . The existing tower is utilitarian in
37 appearance and to make the new tower a tree makes it look like a tourist attraction .
38 • It would likely be cheaper to install a regular utilitarian cell tower rather than a tower
39 having a 'tree' design .
40
41 Chair Hise :
42 • Would rather see a utilitarian looking tower than that of a tree design .
43 • His experience with mono-tree towers is that all the equipment on it can be seen anyway.
44
45 Member Nicholson :
46 • Would be nice if AT&T could put a tower on their building instead .
47 • Is fine with the tower being a mono-tree.
48
49 Member Thayer:
50 • A cell tower is a cell tower and should look like one rather than disguising it and making it
51 something it is not.
52 • A tower design as a tree is a way to appease the public who perceives that a cell tower is
53 � ugly and is of the opinion a cell tower is fine. We need cell towers for public safety
54 reasons .
Design Review Board December 11 , 2014 .
Page 11
1 Howie Hawkes :
2 • Is fine with a regular mono-pole design .
3
4 Trent Taylor:
5 • AT&T originally wanted a mono-pole that would require fencing for security purposes . A
6 mono-tree does not need security fencing because it cannot be climbed without special
7 tools .
8 • Existing site constraints would be problematic with having to provide additional fencing
9 for a second tower.
10 • Will consult with AT&T concerning a change in the design and review how the security
11 fencing would work. It is important for AT&T to move forward quickly on this project
12 because of the need to have good cell service . AT&T will likely propose a mono-pole
13 unlike the existing lattice-type tower that currently exits at the City. A lattice tower cannot
14 support the latest technology .
15
16 Planning Director Stump :
17 • Acknowledged the existing cell tower when proposed was not well received by the public.
18 .
19 M/S Liden/Thayer to recommend Planning Commission approve an AT&T Site Development
20 Permit for a regular utilitarian WTF mono-pole rather than a mono-tree and/or pole that is a fake
21 tree design . Motion carried (4-0) with Member Nicholson abstaining .
22
23 7. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD:
24 There was discussion about the current condition of the Palace Hotel and the next steps to be
25 taken in the process of renovation .
26
27 8. MATTERS FROM STAFF :
28
29 9. SET NEXT MEETING
30 The next regular meeting will be Thursday January 8, 2015 .
31
. 32 10 . ADJOURNMENT
33 The meeting adjourned at 4 : 52 p . m .
34
35
36 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
Design Review Board December 11 , 2014
Page 12
Mai1 Processing Center Aeroriautical Stlzdy:No.
Federa� Aviation AdmiYlistration 2014-AWP-9141-OE
Southwest Regit�nal O�ice �� � � �� � � � � � �
Obstruction Evaluation Grau �
p ���`��� ��d�������� �°,.
2601 Meacham Boulevard .�'�"�__.:�.�.°-_-.�,
Fort Worth, TX 7b193
' Issued Date: 12/15/20�4 '
AT&T MOBILITY
JOHN MONDAY -JENNIFER BULLARD
3300 RENNER ROAD
RICHARDSON, TX 75043
**DETERMINATItJN QF NQ HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION **
Th�Federal Aviation Administration has canducted an aeronautical study underthe pTOVisions of 49 U.S.C.,
Section 4471$and if applicable Tit1e 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations,part"77, concerning:
Structure: Tower CA264 =UKIAH DOWNTOWN
Location: UKIAH, CA
Latitude: 39-08=47.94N NAD$3
L ongitude: 123-12-3 8.65 W
Heights: 645 feet site elevation(SE)
l 15 feet above ground 1eve1 (AGL)
760 feet above mean sea level(AMSL)
This aeronautical study revealed that the structure does not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a
hazard to air navigation pravided the following condition(s),if any, is(are)met:
It is required that FAA Form 7460-2,Notice of Actual Construction or A�teration,be e-filed any time the
project is abandoned or:
At�east 10 days prior ta start of construction(7460 2, Part l)
X Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height(7460-2,Part 2)
See attachrnent for additional condition(s) or information.
Based on this evaluation,marking and lighting are not necessary for aviation safety: However, if marking/
lighting are accomplished on a voluntary basis,we recommend it be installed and maintained in accardance
with FAA Advisory circular 70/74b0-1 K Change 2.
This determination expires on 06/15/2016 unless:
(a) the construction is started(not necessarily completed) and FAA Form 7460-2,Notice of Actual
Construction or Alteration,is received by this of�ce.
{b) extended,revised, or terminated by the issuing office.
(c) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC)and an app�ication for a construction permit has been�led,as required by the FCC,within
6 rnonths of the date of this determination. In such case,the determination expires on the date
prescribed by the FCC for campletion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application.
Page 1 of 7
NOTE : REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION MUST
BE E-FILED AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE . AFTER RE-EVALUATION
OF CURRENT OPERATIONS 1N THE AREA OF THE STRUCTURE TO DETERMINE THAT NO
SIGNIFICANT AERONAUTICAL CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED, YOUR DETERMINATION MAY BE
ELIGIBLE FOR ONE EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD .
This determination of No Hazard is granted provided the following conditional statement is included in the
proponent's construction permit or license to radiate :
Upon receipt of notification from the Federal Communications Commission that harmful interference is being
caused by the licencee's (permittee's) transmitter, the licensee (permittee) shall either immediately reduce the
power to the point of no interference, cease operation, or take such immediate corrective action as is necessary
to eliminate the harmful interference . This condition expires after 1 year of interference-free operation.
This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates , heights,
frequency(ies) and power . Any changes in coordinates , heights, and frequencies or use of greater power will
void this determination. Any future construction or alteration , including increase to heights, power, or the
addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA .
This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc . , which may be
used during actual construction of the structure . However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as
indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the
FAA.
This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace
by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or
regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body.
Any failure or malfunction that lasts more than thirty (30) minutes and affects a top light or flashing obstruction
light, regardless of its position, should be reported immediately to (877) 487-6867 so a Notice to Airmen
(NOTAM) can be issued . As soon as the normal operation is restored, notify the same number.
A copy of this determination will be forwarded to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) because the
structure is subject to their licensing authority.
If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office at (425) 227-2625 . On any future correspondence
concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2014-AWP-9141 -OE .
Signature Control No : 235539153-236980997 ( DNE )
Paul Holmquist
Technician
Attachment(s)
Additional Information
Frequency Data
Map(s)
Page 2 of 7
cc : FCC
Page 3 of 7
�
x TOPQ iYIap for ASN 2014-AW1'-9141-C3E
,..-���k� ,�'��t,,,.��.��`'�':g��'F��v `�i�k.:'r )i"S�i s�' �.o,."�,.',�s^�;�,`�k �``-�'°�` �.�'r,� � i; ""°w°'b t��.;:�� �''.^-`. "�#--'-�� ��'���,# C�-�"Ay ,;�'�4°�
`_�_,, 'a�r��,�, c+_'��-��B��fr��' �"'�. �,I -� + �. � r� i t`.;=;� � � ,�� #�'�`a�;
'� �� P � .° � �, }�w(� � ���
t,,� 3��� 17 �� �n.°�`� y�� ^= ti. �' � y'" ��' � ���`��`�"� ��t ��''�i'r� ���+�,� ��
� � �����,� � v`� t -,«- ,,�?_ �i � , ? ��"Q' ,,_��`,J$ c ��"'`�,+ �� �.. �;;r
"N�� ,„..�r ����'�� k .,���-a.�,�'� ,�{�`�"_`" -1 .� �,,. �.;b�x e"° � �'1i������'���'�.a'�y�.�'����;=`ti: . .
�, ��,�..
"�- .��' •.�'-•,t' � *�a .� �"Nma'li�� .� ,,"` ♦ . �'� � �
) t� > . �E :t ...-�.� m ,� �a�'��'�°e�� ;
4,�rti t � �� � . . �����c� `. .�si � - � �,��� '. c°' .u+.�...< <,��.�,.�''..�,�r r�,. ,--���r s��� ���`r .� .
� � /
�
� _ ', - Ln � ,, ,� ,;�"� ��
� `S { t�'� � f � �� ;; .. �`y �A fT�''^'J j� `x3•P'b�� �,,� ....
3 �a ' ` w,�i N ...n.,, � ��e`x
� �-.<�u. � � _ '�k � '�.k,� + � ,��^'` '�"� „'" � �S�
�- "" ��"�` �`'+ `� �.,,. �• -y �Y s ��,����i'.�`' !
�- t
.. �� �t#�� � � � � .. ' ? 2 *"' � �
.0 �9- -..d � r .r
� � .�s f�Po'p ` � ,' �}�i �� i- �; �. A'�,._.� ''�-�-. ��`��:�.,��",y� z ✓-��f�
� -: ? ""��� � r, y�a- � �� ��'.. AS � r } � �,`. ��,� .��s. 'ti�-������'4 �"
�,I.'{ 'S,yi,t���� 3,}f ., u' ,t_ ��7�� , k ���� .��� J,��'=. �
"'"`;r. �rt 1-,'s`"`"`�..r . 'n` M1. . il,�,,..1�t y. .. . � � '�- � � '�� �`�s 'S'�' ,.,�, �� .
�
. �
�. 'r rf't.,�,.��-3 � �.t r. �F„ �1� f $ . ; "'�. .. '� s '�^K."��` ¢ �f 7 �` 'C . ..
i..5k � �''��' ,:�``'` . � 4} xu ro+�a " . ' l+ic�woa3 �. + x � x+�^a� ���rr��;a��...�����, �`�� •e
� �� r,,,,�_ � . ,1� � .� ..� ,. � ,�,,; ' �-".�'�"�.� 1�-, �'�,'; 1� � ��....A�ry .
�' 4' � ``� �`3 � �`r- �}+ � , r��:J' : ��.��`t..�,,�° r fi,�,»�.����''; .
_.- _
`�"`�'��-i r V . x ' :� � � ° �; ^�.. "1' yr'�'�t` ��`��� �i� � f y
�,x �t -�''�'�.� „� ��.`' '� ,r .� '��,`,,,.v.,�� a
`_��,. s...�' �``--`' y �� a, �° , 4.v. '"' ��€�;��,� f ;�„�,
�`� r."`''� "1 �t� '`� `^"# .,.�,, a�',�""� � i�,,_,�:�� ��.c ,�- x'����, �"ra y,ti c
�,-, � 'tt-� ,,,''� .. �i -z"'� ..:1 � '_...,_w . �.- � ..:�;^- '`�a �.,_. 4`` '� `.. ,j���4 .
4 �" ��
��� � �.. �, ._ �'�``�, � � ��w��'r�O ,,� °y '�..r.e �: -3 " � �_ '� ,,,{�
F ���� �"' ,�� i��?t '�52�, `� -t �e�k' "`�'.� "=a, �.� S:€���� �r
''�' �� �71 ,, t d,�.��� i e � �`yc=s t..:s
""e{ ?`y }� }
3 r ���.::+ � � �` � f �, ��`
��!.�}� y����� �^ y� �' � �'�`R'��`Z�-u �q. x �I �� �� � '`.- �'�f���S F` .
� J 7�C y. t i•�1 �. M.4.. I ~'ti. ..rt �"��i
�j;�� � ���:-ytc°,t. "� ,F.`�.`�-.,°y"*.._'. 'Si�"'•5t�->� '� au� a �; ���;% �'s -t'�y .°;;
'.e.�,.: ��3 S��� �f �. J •�i s �:.� � � ���,.'��'Sk'��� .
��¢f- �'r ..t���....k� q�'�,..r}��t �'� �' � �r`�"
fr'-r ka`�,•���� �57�"`..1, .l! � � .��,�.�w"-'.- �'a�-,-�,� "`_`}`
f � �" t r�-°-,..31 c �..' 4
� f, ,`' � ' c��r-�°t-==-�"-z.f`
i�N*.- �Ir�`t"��$J � rf•z-=-'- �-•• � ti ,-���" �"�'� �.
x �^ ,
� �„� s::! �^�'! 5 .�' ..�`� �� r.�"F'S�"' 8'c �� � ' `.�-,'� „ .
���:.°
�. ����. � ^ '�, '.." .� 'h ,��y : "� .,4�.J s,� •f' . ..
4 � � • � � �
��'` ?T�s.���� �� � ':��`� ��,�j'�.�.� } �: � � ' _�`• f t i - ��,,.�� ` � .
I +
�y� � .. :.� �� . �� � � . ��r
� 2 t ��`s� � �--� � � ��,, �, ��z�
- , F.` W
�
, -`
�..�s .�.. �^ �-,t 4� ,i"''�.,J � � 4 ��,rx �I' � �:-� ..�� ���,'�..-( ...
�� � '�I, � . �
_ _ I, �° �
"t��.:�c �",.:." °3`.-: r�J} 5"y'��"�st'�w,u�``�'7"��� ,£..r,,,� �', F. �,.t � .,� � t / i''
i
sv �T��,5- tt
) .;xk�,4�`3.• ,.c�y' t;�..�-�;kl { �'� � � � m ,�i, ? T� �. k',a� .,,. =,r ^.'Y;r .
�! h� F�i�tt` -.::y��l� ,'� t��1�,� �,3'I�G. '.�, +'}A. �: .:�
4 �v �.t �� �F � ����t.��-.�}, �` -`�.�.r�� �' � :-p`s' :� ..
�� ��1r�1��� ����E} � _, � ,.� ,�,, i � - �' �'F{ ��
��'� �ki �4 z�r'i� � � � f j 1:��� �x' '.�-�,.� =: 1 r� . `"-" Taiwna a .
. x
�,� k � ���}��,, t � � , t U � � � y �a;vm-tF.s�.3atw�rl �
;�� t�� -,.,,� � `�j�t 1 s a„ �, �§v`�
f4, � '��t�,�'f��i ��. �, r.� �:-w:�.,,�. °-°�" ."�"-:�. -:, ,'�� � ,� +. �,�T. �' � ����°„"��"".'�a�
� �^� ' �.z
�
��� � � n� ��'�:
v
��4 y� � M N f.4� �
� ` �� 4�3 �dµ ��}x5 � ^,,,,� .
�-~ °��i��''--���:. �` � .� ��A�'��"�` '. r 1�\`, x � . � ��
9 � a �,
� � !*`` d��"�g���'y�fi� .��.�"3 �xf�,�.�i� :,�° � ��� 1� , �� �sur��. .,� ..
"� " �,.f '"` - �� '�,' aw,+,�at' � � z�
.wn.s �t�: ��` z', 3 �+g.
,. ,, � .�= �'eu.�, .,,Q.: ��� �.. � � � .
�§�' `�'� �t. � rrr-R"="""�`�� � � ��a.__- —�}
� ' '`` .t w' a,,a �r 3.
`�*d�^-,, ,1 � �x �� � 0. � �,.�-^-�"' � ' ��.� �t 1°...
i� �5 � i :.�! 3 ��- � � s
y� t�� �
�S•y lt �""Y c k,j �4� � ��Y� '"� ' l��:
�s.,� � ,�. � .4 t�s� '�.9' �• a,,,..P �` ��'4, �k`, � ��^ . � �
��� ���s� ..,,. . , . ... . �,��,.�C.�S�. ,..., .�.. .... .. .. ,. ���'�,.:� ��'_-�`,... � i,. d?.,.=� "``._... •.�_.
Page b of 7
�
' �ectional�Map f�r ASN 201�-AWP-9141=0E _ __ _ _
; "��,����*.'�'- '�i>'�?�; �r."�'`''4 '�"a�u� , ... -,v„^x �; `��a, � r�s .. tt��,ur �.... . .. ....... '.
��` ',`ti.,, e t , � : t t z � � ��`s�
i��sx �t ti'c�*`.�lt��.�L i� � � ��g„ .. y 3� 1;y�1 #� ��t��� � �� i� f!?Utl��a 3 , �Lt°"
W�
, y y�a $�Y > ".�� �'t 4 � �,� %y i � ��� ��"i�,F tk�� ��'�.'�'�xi��`�h��*` q .
: �
' ?, . i ,� ry�7�,?��F�4.. ��'�' s��
� n� `, � �� �;w�� i� � 3TM: , 4. .
x. }� .,, 3 ... ..a;;N ' j��� m��� � i., � ti t .
Y
� � � ,.s, ,,�� '�� � ��,., : �
�� ` " � � �'���`� ��1
�
, ;`.4 s..�, , � �
� ��. �� � �..,
... < . ,..,,a, �� x. 7� � ¢°��ti����"� . ..
� � i
�l; � � ��' `� ,. , , e��, 2t '� ��� a 4. :,. .�.
,
�,:
� �� �
y �...
a
x
z
, ,.��..,�_ r e y, ?�, ,: .r, �
� : ,:,,;t, , .., ,�r�.. .
� �y �
�`� S
t �
; °.� � � � �
... .. ' ���s t't ,.. '� V'f `�Y .
d� i7� y�
s8,,1!1 i�� 5 �f� tr� a�. �}„ .
.. . �4k �§r,�'y��;�'�,�. dVl�����4 G�`�W a i�y��1 y.,.
� �
,. t , � �"�t�< �,§�,:i¢�����
�..� ;
� v �
� �� ���� �i �er,��
� r���� � .�,.�ti:�
..... ,� ..��. .,.��� ,�.��' .:;,j ���� ��� �4����� � .. ..
. ,.. v,�� � �X+
� . �
���w ���"��� �� \� �,r t ��"��
a �
�� h' �
,
'
, :'�. {,�... ' 3» ` h��` �y.' y� �
„ , i
x:
x
� � ' .... L �' �. �. l�� � � � � . .
{a.�
���
� F� fln'i , ` *� " .' .
�rk..,:rt. ' . .
ti
�
� �
C k' �
... �� $ ,.y, 1 � a�} ��" �,� ' �, � .
, .,�. . �. .,.e , ,
� � �``.
� �
�"y� �
s
� , �.,. `�"j . < k ,
. �.., ; ' � : ,... ., . �.u
t,
4,4�. � �Rr��'a R$. � .<. . , . �� � �
. P�a4�„ �, . . �„`y� IY� �e5
� � ,£1, . ` �;�< �� ��Y� �� .
a .�_� ,<'r � ...', A`
..�,. § � _ . . �b'. ,.� � . t
am.. �
� }
� , ° Y � 4�, l W� e i ;.. �c��. z
� n.
� �.'u
M i..,.�Re^r. fii��ri.� ' � §P
�
Y „
�.
'.� �y. �.r rti \ ^ � k"`"
.. � ., .�.. �`t � �'. •��� � ��.„r,� � .
t � �� � 4 M4t�
n k�4 I t����tt
Y ��� s� �K F�c.� Y ���'�� � ?.`�a�j?�C4X�"��+�� .
' „ f
� , ,� ���� � a 5`�,..; ��t^ .
. '^�; ika'�W� a� '�i �� '��. -�
�."
'� �'�`�� t �'; �� �^� 't�`�,�,t �� � �.
� � ,.t� ��t���. , �� t. � � � ' .. .
,
t ^: I tJ'�� 4�u.
� , :
�, r.
, . . . ,- �.1� 4 \� ,
.n� ; "?� ���j���{4�1� '� "�,,, ? � .
� ���� �� ip �yW ��� °�� � ""�
s �
�,,
� � a
.
,
l�.{ L � �� �.� .��.. ��,
� � � � � � ��
'� '` .*., °t �'�. � '�a �.���� ?. ��
8�"����, �� � �� Y{i�� �
VO t � �
�'� �� »t �3 �;
� r � �"��� i���#����" � `�1�,�i �5 4� ��t�l����z4a�ttifa�t��� � , � ���
� v i�� � �ti y ,.y
� dr a r fi V �. � d, a. ��. .
� � ���� �� ���,
�n � �''�� , , 'k ,� �`w,;. °•��
, , •., „ �� �
,
������ ,: � �,��: � �:s u`U�� �,`= y�k� g'� " � �,..� .
� a��t g , �� tl �L`�y
a� ;t., .� St '� �'� ts`4 .'���a�� x �
:, &�,, t� � � � � � �
� ''°��`" _� ��
�
�.As�Y�,,. �,..�,� .�*,��\:s. , ,��.s�,.�a�.�a b�� h�"ic*,�,n x�tS?�, ,''' ,; �. ',, .. .�;�.:1�m„� � ,�,`�`t�� �f .:��. . ���,. ,.,.< . . . �3�
�r. �
Page 7 of 7
__ _ ��:�� �'��� >
� � �.
... ... ... . .. . .... Y �.&3wb�.+�4rT8 l�S�S$� 7.`� . ... . . ... F .. . . .
d^`A s. i p%,,g
.. � � � .. . .. � . . .. � .. ... . . w"" .��'4��% �, &f �.��� � .
. . ... . . . . . ... � .. . . . . .. .. . � . � 4,.�A„a�.Rr g�A"' &�64°�.��33 . ..� .. .
. .. . . � rw ��asFy�`� - . . . . .. .� .� � . ... .. . .. . ..�� ����d�,.��(���.!`�!�?zT���.a�`��;��t��k�,'�'��;bq°a,'" �.
� a
r � �r'�,�t��:��C����c�� �,����.��'�,��J��;�.��{��d���J ;
' ; BZ2 Co��e�e Avenue,Bax�42,K�nt�ie�c�,G�;;)��14�a Losee025�comcast.net a�#-1j.�Zo.�,�"(aU
.�aTillal'y�, �Q I�
�/IP. SL`�V0 C�T�1St
�EIST ENGINEERIN�AN1) EN"YIRQNMENTA� �R�DITP',IN�o
901 Trestl�CJlen Road
Oakland, Callfornia 94610
I2e. IZ�vfsed �a�ltur�l I2�scaur�es Investi�ati�re far AT$�T 1l�Iobility CCL00915 "Ukiah
��wnt�wn'�300 Sem�in�ry Avenue,Uki�h,lVlendocino County, C�lifarnia 95482
I�ear�1Ir, Czei�t:
At your r�que�t, Archaealog�cal I�esources T�c�nalogY (i�IZT) carr�ed out a records sear�� to
�dentzfy cultural resourc�s and mak�recon�m�ndations regard�ng the installation of antenna� and
�ther cellular equipment. Thrs investigation was made in accordance with th� cu�°g°ent
I�atronw��d Prcgrarnmatic I�greement far the �ollocatian of�'rreless Antennas (NP�) and the
fo��owrng; 36 �F�L �00 et. Seq. ("Protection of H�storical and �ultural Prap�rties"}; �ections
lOb and 110 a(2) of the I�atlonal �-Irstoric Prot�ctian 1�ct(��IPA) as amended (lb USC 470h-2)
and its implementln� regulations 36 CFR Parts 60 and 63; Ex�cutrve �rder 11593, F'rotectron
and Enhancement of the cultural Environmentg and �ection 110(b}(4) of the National
Environmental Policy Act(NEPA}of 1969,as am�nded.
Th� proj�ct is �ocated ati 300 Seminary Avenue in Ulciah, IVlendocina �ounty, Califarnia 954�2
{s�� I'roject Lo�atzor�1VIap, attached), For the fa11ow1ng repart revlszon, two separat� alternativ�s
were taken und�r consld�ration; new phatoszmu�ations wer� used for the aiternatives of a 100�
fe�t ta11 monopole to complement the 105-feet tall monopine phatosimulations campleted in July
of last year,
Revis�d Cultaarczl Resources Investigation for��IT&T Nlobility CCL0�915 "Ukiah Downtotivn"
300 Seminz�ry�luenaae, Ultiah,tVfendocino Cozanty, Ca.l�aY•nia.95482 j� ��
Project Summary and Determination of Areas of Potential Effects
It is ART's understanding that AT&T proposes to remove the Universal Mobile
Telecommunications System (tTMTS) cabinet inside the existing structure and to install the
following: Long-Term Evolution (LTE) upgrade, Global Positioning System (GPS), and new
power plant inside the existing shelter; and either a 105 -feet tall monpine or a 100-feet tall
monopole with new fiber and power runs, 12 antennas and 6 Remote Radio Units (RRUs), and
two 6601 units inside the existing rack. Based upon stipulations of the current NPA, ART used a
%z-mile radius from the proposed Project area define the indirect Area of Potential Effect (APE) .
Records Search Results
On 17 November 2014, I personally conducted a records search Northwest Information Center
(NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) for the proposed
project (NWIC File No . 14-0663). The purpose of the records search was to identify all
previously recorded cultural resources (prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, historic
buildings, structures, objects, or districts), as required by Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 and its implementing regulations 36 CFR Part 800 . The
records search required a review of pertinent NWIC base maps that reference cultural resources
survey and excavation reports, recorded prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, historic -
period maps, and literature for Mendocino County. At contact, the project area was part of the
territory occupied by the Pomo Indians. References that include ethnographic publications are
provided as an attachment to this letter report.
To identify historic properties, the State of California Office of Historic Preservation Historic
Properties Directory (HPD) was consulted, which includes properties of the National Register of
Historic Places (NRHP), California Historical Landmarks (CHL), California Points of Historical
Interest (CPHI), the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), as well as certified
Local Government surveys that have undergone Section 106 review. The records search entailed
a review for all previously recorded cultural resources within '/2-mile of the referenced project
boundaries, or the indirect APE.
Seven cultural resources studies have been performed within the %2-mile research radius (NWIC
Study Nos . 6471 , 21890, 22700, 22736, 31388, and 36144) . The study prepared for the existing
lattice tower was provided by your office (EBI 2013 ) . NWIC Study No . 36144 appears to have
cursorily covered the project area for a recycled water and stormwater development project.
Since there is a large number of historical resources determined NR-eligible by the City of Ukiah
( 13 -page appendix of this letter report), results of the records search indicate that the project is
located in an area of high historical resources sensitivity. Furthermore, since Ukiah is located in
an area characterized by abundant prehistoric natural resources (such as game, foraging plants,
and water) it is ART' s understanding that the project is also located in an area of potential
prehistoric cultural sensitivity, as well .
Revised Cultural Resources Investigation for AT& T Mobiliry CCL00915 " Ukiah Downtown "
300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, Mendocino County, California 95482 2
Evaluation of Project-specific Impacts
The following sections analyze the project-specific impacts of the proposed project as required
by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). They were prepared in January 2015 by architectural historian Alexandra Bevk, who
meets the Secretary of the Interior' s Standards professional qualifications for architectural
history and history (see Qualifications attachment).
Status of Existing Building as a Historical Resource
In November 1985 the property at 300 Seminary Avenue was evaluated by Historic
Environmental Consultants and given a status code of S . The property was re-evaluated in 1995
as part of the City of Ukiah ' s city-wide Historic Resource Inventory prepared by p. s .
Preservation Services, and determined to appear individually eligible for the California Register
as "an outstanding example of Mission Revival in school architecture" and given a status code of
3S .
In December 2014 architectural historian Alexandra Bevk revisited the property to document its
current conditions and the property' s eligibility for the National Register was reconsidered. 300
Seminary Avenue continues to appear to meet the criteria for individual listing in the National
Register and the California Register under criterion C and 3 for its architectural merit as an
example of the Mission Revival style in school architecture . As such, it also appears to be a
historical resource for the purposes of CEQA.
Determination of Effect under NEPA
Pursuant to 36 CFR 800, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires Federal
agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties . An adverse
effect is found when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of
a historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register in a manner
that would diminish the integrity of the property's location, design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling, or association.
Following the Criteria for Adverse Effect as outline in 36 CFR § 800 . 5 , neither alternative of the
proposed project has the potential for adverse effect. They will not cause any physical
destruction of or damage to the building, remove the property from its historic location, change
the character of the property ' s use, cause neglect of the property, or transfer, lease, or sell the
property. The project proposes to add either a new telecommunications 105 -feet tall monopine
facility or a new telecommunications 100-feet tall monopole facility at the rear (west) facade of
the building. Neither the monopine nor the monopole will be attached to the building; instead
they would be placed in an existing planter area, and could be removed at a future date without
causing damage to the property. Both new facilities will be additionally screened by an existing
Revised Cultural Resour•ces Investigation for• AT& T Mobility CCL00915 " Ukiah Downtown "
300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, Mendocino County, California 95482 3
74-feet tall tree. As depicted in the photosimulations for the monopine design (facing south , east,
west and southwest), the monopine ' s tree-like design will further mask the facility and blend into
the property' s setting, which currently contains numerous coniferous trees . Conversely,
photosimulations of the proposed monopole depict a structure that is both industrial and
contemporary which, therefore, would not contribute to the integrity of the setting of the
historically significant property of 300 Seminary Avenue .
While the addition of either facility does reduce the building' s integrity of setting, however, it
. does not reduce it to the degree that the building can no longer convey its significance . The
building' s integrity of setting has already been reduced by the existing 100-feet tall lattice tower,
and the building is still able to sufficiently convey its significance. The City of Ukiah will retain
ownership of the existing lattice tower and operate it for the Police Department. As discussed
below, even with two towers present, there will be no net loss of integrity of setting. Due its tree -
like design, it is ART' s opinion that the Monopine Alternative has less of an impact to the
integrity of setting than the monopole design (or the existing lattice tower, for that matter) .
The results of this investigation deliberates that addition of the either facility will not alter the
property, change the character of the property' s use or physical features, or introduce elements
that diminish the integrity of the property's significant historic features . As such, the proposed
project has no potential for adverse effect.
Determination of Effect under CEQA
According to CEQA Guidelines subsection 15064 . 5 (b), a "project with an effect that may cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of an historic resource is a project that may have a
significant effect on the environment." Substantial adverse change is defined as : "physical
demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings
such that the significance of an historic resource would be materially impaired." The significance
of an historical resource is materially impaired when a project "demolishes or materially alters in
an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its
historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register. . .as
determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA. " Thus, a project may alter a structure that is
considered a historical resource but still not have a significant adverse effect on the environment
as defined by CEQA as long as the alterations will not materially impair or undermine those
physical characteristics that make the structure a historic resource to begin with.
The proposed project has no potential for significant adverse change since neither the monopine
nor the monopole will be attached to the existing building and both are considered removable
features . Again, while the addition of the monopine or the monopole reduces the building ' s
integrity of setting, it is not to a degree that the building can no longer convey its significance .
The addition of either facility will not cause physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or
Revised Cultural Resources Investigation for AT& T Mobility CCL00915 " Ukiah Downtown "
300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, Mendocino County, California 95482 q
alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historic
resource would be materially impaired .
In sum, ART' s findings for both the monopine and monopole proposals are "No Adverse Effect
to Historic Properties in both the Indirect and Direct APEs ." The addition of the either facility
will not alter the property, change the character of the property' s use or physical features , or
introduce elements that diminish the integrity of the property's significant historic features . As
mentioned above, the effect of the proposed monopine on the historical setting of 300 Seminary
Avenue would be slightly less than that of the proposed monopole. Even with the addition of the
existing 100-feet tall lattice tower, the building retains its ability to sufficiently convey its
significance . Both a pole and an artificial tree would be screened largely from other historic
properties in Ukiah by mature trees that, in effect, circle the 300 Seminary Avenue property.
No additional recommendations for cultural resources are made at this time . Thank you very
much for allowing ART to assist you with this Project. If you have any questions or concerns
regarding the content of this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me .
Very truly yours,
�
Carolyn Losee RPA
Owner/Principal
Attachments : Project Location Map, References, Direct APE Photographic Reconnaissance,
Indirect APE Photographic Reconnaissance, previous and new DPR Forms
Revised Cultural Resources Investigation for AT& T Mobility CCL0091 S " Ukiah Downtotivn "
300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, Mendocino County, California 9.i482 5
At#achmer� � r'`
Ra. dio Frequency � Electromagnetic Ener�y
( RF - EME) Compliance Report
USID# 99467 � � � � � V� �
Site No. CCL00915
Ukiah Downtown ;JAN 19 2015
300 Seminary Avenue ��'ypF �TAH
Ukiah, California 95482 �UIT,D1IdG/ PY.ANNINGDEPARTMEI�t'i'
Mendocino County
39. I 46722; - I 23 .2 I 0528 NAD83
� Monotree
� ' EBI Project No. 62150107
January 14, 2015
� z
�., , t,u . ,
I a€�' ,F ry�. :�
�
I r
J:)
'. u�;,
' t :
� s:
_ �.,
i
�:
, a
i
, t9
' ; '
I . ��`. f��':� .
i �
� � '
!I � �1 . � z:�
., '..�, l �` .
� �Y'
_
, Y :
F1fi
I L
I
�� . - I
� F . k
i � �
'i. r.;,.s e� 3° n� , . _ s.t -�mz- tr s..y , � �nd' � � . . � k . .
i
' Prepared for:
' AT&T Mobility, LLC
' c/o Peek Site-Com, Inc.
, I 2852 Earhart Avenue, Suite I 01
Auburn, CA 95602
' Prepared by: ;
, � � I ��ar� SU� It � n
� �
; � environm �ntal � engineering � due diligenc�
� ,
I
i �
;
;
I
�
', RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 99467 Site No. CCL00915
� EBI Project No. 62150107 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California
I
iTABLE OF CONTENTS
,I
EXECUTIVESUMMARY.......................................................... ..................................................... . ..... I
I .O SITE DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................ 3
2.0 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (FCC� REQUIREMENTS ............................. . ..... 3
3.0 AT&T RF EXPOSURE POLICY REQUIREMENTS .................................................................... 5
4.0 WORST-CASE PREDICTIVE MODELING................................................................................. 6
5.0 RECOMMENDED SIGNAGE/COMPLIANCE PLAN ......... ...................................................... . .... 8
6.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................ ..... 9
7.0 LIMITATIONS ..................................................................................................................... .... 9
APPENDICES
Appendix A Personnef Certifications
Appendix B Antenna Inventory
Appendix C RooNiewOO Export File
Appendix D RoofView RO Graphic
Appendix E Compliance/Signage Plan
EBI Consulting ♦ 21 B Street ♦ Burlington, MA 01803 • 1 .800.786.2346 i
RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 99467 Site No. CCL00915
b EBI Project No. 62150107 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Purpose of Report
EnviroBusiness Inc. (dba EBI Consulting) has been contracted by AT&T I`lobility, LLC to conduct radio
frequency electromagnetic (RF-EME) modeling for AT&T Site CCL00915 located at 300 Seminary
Avenue in Ukiah, California to determine RF-EME exposure levels from proposed AT&T wireless
communications equipment at this site. As described in greater detail . in Section 2.0 of this report, the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has developed Maximum Permissible F�cposure (MPE)
Limits for general public exposures and occupational exposures. This report summarizes the results of
RF-EME modeling in relation to relevant FCC RF-EME compliance standards for limiting human
exposure to RF-EME fields. .
This report contains a detailed summary of the RF EME analysis for the site, including the following:
■ Antenna Inventory
■ Site Plan with antenna locations
■ Antenna inventory with relevant parameters for theoretical modeling
■ Graphical representation of theoretical MPE fields based on modeling
■ Graphical representation of recommended signage and/or barriers
This document addresses the compliance of AT&T's transmitting facilities independently and in relation
to all collocated facilities at the site.
Statement of Compliance
A site is considered out of compliance with FCC regulations if there are areas that exceed the FCC
exposure limits and there are no RF hazard mitigation measures in place. Any carrier which has an
installation that contributes more than 5% of the applicable MPE must participate in mitigating these RF
hazards.
As presented in the sections below, based on worst-case predictive modeling, there are no modeled
exposures on any accessible ground walking/working surFace related to ATT's proposed antennas that
exceed the FCC's occupational and/or general public exposure limits at this site.
AT&T Recommended Signage/Compliance Plan
AT&T's RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document, dated September 21 , 2012,
requires that:
I . All sites must be analyzed for RF exposure compliance;
2. All sites must have that analysis documented; and
3. All sites must have any necessary signage and barriers installed.
Site compliance recommendations have been developed based upon protocols presented in AT&T's RF
Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document, dated September 21 , 2012, additional
guidance provided by AT&T, EBI's understanding of FCC and OSHA requirements, and common
industry practice. Barrier locations have been identified (when required) based on guidance presented in
AT&T's RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document, dated September 21 , 2012.
The following signage is recommended at this site:
EBI Consulting • 21 B Street ♦ Burlington, MA 01803 ♦ 1 .800.786.2346
RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 99467 Site No. CCL00915
; EBI Project No. 62150107 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California
■ Green INFO I sign posted at the base of the monotree.
■ Yeflow CAUTION — TOWER sign posted at the base of the monotree.
The signage proposed for installation at this site complies with AT&T's RF Exposure: Responsibilities,
Procedures & Guidelines document and therefore complies with FCC and OSHA requirements: Barriers
are not recommended on this site. More detailed information concerning site compliance
recommendations is presented in Section 5.0 and Appendix E of this report.
EBI Consulting • 21 B Street • Burlington, MA 01803 • 1 .800.786.2346
RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 99467 Site No. CCLfl0915
EBI Project No. 62150107 300 Seminary Avenue, UI<iah, California
I .0 SITE DESCRIPTION
This project involves the proposed installation of twelve ( 12) new antennas and a new monopole to
replace three (3) existing wireless telecommunication antennas on an old lattice tower in Ukiah,
California. There are three Sectors (A, B, and C) proposed at the site, with four (4) proposed antennas
per sector. For modeling purposes, it is assumed that there will be one ( I ) UMTS antenna in each sector
tr.ansmitting in two bands of the 1900 MHz frequency range, one ( I ) LTE antenna in each sector
transmitting in the 700 and 1900 MHz frequency ranges, one ( I ) LTE antenna in each sector transmitting
in the 700 and 2300 MHz frequency ranges, and one ( I ) GSM antenna in each sector transmitting, in the
1900 MHz frequency range. The Sector A antennas will be oriented 0° from true north. The Sector B
antennas will be oriented 120° from true north. The Sector C antennas will be oriented 240° from true
north. The bottoms of the LTE antennas will be 93 feet and 83 feet above ground level. The bottoms of
the UMTS antennas will be 93 feet above ground level. The bottoms of the GSM antennas will be 83 feet
above ground level. Appendix B presents an antenna inventory for the site.
Access to this site is accomplished by approaching the unsecured monotree at ground level. To be
conservative and to comply with AT&T's corporate policy, the modeling results are reported as though
the general public is able to access the monotree.
Modeling results were generated based on information from the following materials:
• RFDS — CCL00915 - LTE-Next-Carrier LTE-2C_RFDS with Matt Grubbs Red-Lines -
04. I 5.20 I 4 dated 4/ I 5/20 I 4
• CDs — CCL00915 REV 100% ZDS-CDS BINDER I I . 14.2014 dated I I /4/2014
2.0 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (FCC) REQUIREMENTS
The FCC has established Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) limits for human exposure to
Radiofrequency Electromagnetic (RF-EME) energy fields, based on exposure limits recommended by the
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) and, over a wide range of
frequencies, the exposure limits developed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.
(IEEE) and adopted by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) to replace the 1982 ANSI
guidelines. Limits for localized absorption are based on recommendations of both ANSI/IEEE and NCRP.
The FCC guidelines incorporate two separate tiers of exposure limits that are based upon
occupational/controlled exposure limits (for workers) and general public/uncontrolled exposure limits
for members of the general public.
Occupational/controlled exposure limlts apply to situations in which persons are exposed as a
consequence of their employment and in which those persons who are exposed have been made . fully
aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over their exposure. Occupational/
controlled exposure limits also apply where exposure is of a transient nature as a result of incidental
passage through a location where exposure levels may be above general public/uncontrolled limits (see
below), as long as the exposed person has been made fully aware of the potential for exposure and can
exercise control over his or her exposure by leaving the area or by some other appropriate means.
General public/uncontrolled ex�osure limits .apply to situations in which the general public may be
exposed or in which persons who are exposed as a consequence of their employment may not be made
fully aware of the potential for exposure or cannot exercise control over their exposure. Therefore,
members of the general public would always be considered under this category when exposure is not
employment-related, for example, in the case of a telecommunications tower that exposes persons in a
nearby residential area.
EBI Consulting � 21 B Street ♦ Burlington, MA 01803 � 1 .800.786.2346
• � ' - � • � • " ' . • � � •
C ' • - • . 1 1 � � . _ �
. � � � - • � - � • : . _ .
• � • - � - - � • � • � • � • — �
- � • • . • - � � — • - � � — � - • � - • . � .
' — - � • � — � • • • • — • �
• • - � - � • —
' - . • � • • — — • _
� • � - — . � - � • � . • ' • � - � —
� . • • — . ' • • - � � — • � - ' II - . —
• ' — � � — • � — : 1 • � . • ' :
. • • — . ' • 1 • — ` • . . • � - 11
• � . • ' � • • — � ' • 1 '
• � - — � � • - — • — — � � � •
_ ;i
. .:: . _� -; . . ..,.; _. . _ <:_ �::. . , , . .. : . . : ' —
1 1 � �
1 1 ; . . � . • 11 .
1 11 �_ 1 . 1 - .
11 11 11 .
11 11 111
.
-- , — —,
c _ �
` �� J ` ', t , ` ' Y �(.i
( �� ' J s � " ,�
i r � i � ,_ ;/t -
1 1 / '" ! l' ? � � 1 d 4�
' �l� /'�— _ ��� / F `■
/ • • 1 /
' I „ / � / /
' , � / / - / / � /
/ / / / / / � / 1
�
� � • � ■ �
� � • • � � � / • , • ' / • • � •
RF- EME Compliance Report USID No. 99467 Site No. CCL00915
� EBI Project No. 62150107 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California
Fiaure 9. FCC Llmlfs for Maximum PermissJble Exposure (MPE)
Plane-waveEquivalent PowerDensity
�,00a
N � OccupatlonaUControlfed Exposure �
� Generaf PopulatlonNncontrolled Exposure
V 900
� �
� \
v �
� 10 �� .
C ' 5 �
� �
�, �
` � �
� � �r - - - - - - - - -
� � �
O � �
p_ 02 �— — — — —�i
0. 1
0.03 0.3 •1 3 30 300 � 3,000 30,000 � 300,000 �
1.34 . 1,500 900,000
Frequency (MHz)
Based on the above, the most restrictive thresholds for exposures of unlimited duration to RF energy
for several personal wireless services are summarized below:
Personai Gommunication (PCS) 1 ,950 MHz 5.00 mW/cmZ I .00 mW/cmz
Celiular Telephone 870 MHz 2.90 mW/cmZ 0.58 mW/cmZ
Specialized Mobile Radio 855 MHz 2.85 mW/cm2 0.57 mW/cmZ
Long Term Evolution (LTE) 700 MHz 2.33 mW/cmZ 0.47 mW/cmZ
Most Restrictive Freq, Range 30-300 MHz I .00 mW/cmZ OZO mW/cmZ
MPE limits are designed to provide a substantial margin of safety. These limits apply for continuous
exposures and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age,
gender, size, or health.
Personal Communication (PCS) facilities used by AT&T in this area operate within a frequency range of
700- 1900 MHz. Facilities typically consist of: I ) electronic transceivers (the radios or cabinets)
� connected to wired telephone lines; and 2) antennas that send the wireless signals created by the
transceivers to be received by individual subscriber units (PCS telephones). Transceivers are typically
connected to antennas by coaxial cables.
Because of the short wavelength of PCS services, the antennas require line-of-site paths for good
propagation, and are typically installed above ground level. Antennas are constructed to concentrate
energy towards the horizon, with as little energy as possible scattered towards the ground or the sky.
This design, combined with the low power of PCS facilities, generally results in no possibility for
exposure to approach Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) levels, with the exception of areas directly
in front of the antennas.
3 .0 AT&T RF EXPOSURE POLICY REQUIREMENTS
AT&T's RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document, dated September 21 , 2012,
requires that:
I . All sites must be analyzed for RF exposure compliance;
EBI Consulting ♦ 21 B Street • Burlington, MA 01803 • I .800.786.2346
RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 99467 Site No. CCL009 I 5
� EBI Project No. 62150107 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California
2. All sites must have that analysis documented; and
3. All sites must have any necessary signage and barriers installed.
Pursuant to this guidance, worst-case predictive modeling was performed for the site. This modeling is
described below in Section 4.0. Lastly, based on the modeling and survey data, EBI has produced a
Compliance Plan for this site that outlines the recommended signage and barriers. The recommended
Compliance Plan for this site is described in Section 5.0.
4.0 WORST-CASE PREDICTIVE MODELING
In accordance with AT&T's RF Exposure policy, EBI performed theoretical modeling using RoofViewO
software to estimate the worst-case power density at the site ground-level resulting from operation of
the antennas. RoofViewO is a widely-used predictive modeling. program that has been developed by
Richard Tell Associates to predict both near field and far field RF poWer density values for roof-top and
tower telecommunications sites produced by vertical collinear antennas that are typically used in the
cellular, PCS, paging and other communications services. The models utilize several operational
specifications for different types of antennas to produce a plot of spatially-averaged power densities that
can be expressed as a percentage of the applicable exposure limit.
For this report, EBI utilized antenna and power data provided by AT&T and compared the resultant
worst-case MPE levels to the FCC's occupationallcontrolled exposure limits outlined in OET Bulletin 65.
The assumptions used in the modeling are based upon information provided by AT&T and information
gathered from other sources. US Cellular also has antennas that will be transferred to the new AT&T
monotree. Information about these antennas was included in the modeling analysis. In addition,
omnidirectional and panel antennas operating as public safety equipment are installed on a nearby tower '
located approximately 70 feet northeast of the proposed AT&T monotree. Information about these
antennas was included in the modeling analysis.
Based on worst-case predictive modeling, there are no modeled exposures on any accessible ground ;
walking/working surface related to ATT's proposed antennas that exceed the FCC's occupational and/or
general public exposure limits at this site. ',
At the nearest walking/working surfaces (ground level) to the AT&T antennas, the maximum power
density generated by the AT&T antennas is approximately 3.50 percent of the FCC's general public limit
(0.70 percent of the FCC's occupational limit). The composite exposure level from all carriers on this
site is approximately 3.80 percent of the FCC's general public limit (0.76 percent of the FCC's
occupational limit) at the nearest walking/working surface (ground level) to each antenna.
There are no modeled areas on the ground or rooftop surfaces to the east of the monotree that exceed
the FCC's limits for general public or occupational exposure in front of the other carrier antennas.
The inputs used in the modeling are summarized in the RoofViewOO export file presented in Appendix C.
A graphical representation of the RoofViewO modeling results is presented in Appendix D. It should be '
noted that RoofViewOO is not suitable for modeling microwave dish antennas; however, these units are
designed for point-to-point operations at the elevations of the installed equipment rather than ground-
level coverage. Based on AT&T's RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document,
dated September 21 , 2012, microwave antennas are considered compliant if they are higher than 20 feet ;
above any accessible walking/working surface. All microwaves on site are considered compliant with
AT&T's guidance and were not included in the modeling analysis. The FCC states that "Measurernents
have shown that ground-level power densities due to microwaVe directional antennas are normally a
. thousand times or more below recommended safety limits, Significant exposures from these antennas
EBI Consulting • 21 B Street • Burlington, MA 01803 ♦ 1 .800J86.2346 ;
RF-Ei`1E Compliance Report . USID No. 99467 Site No. CC �00915
EBI Project No. 62150107 300 Seminary Avenue, UI<iah, California
� 5.0 RECOMMENDED SIGNAGE/COMPLIANCE PLAN
Signs are the primary means for control of access to areas where RF exposure levels may potentially
exceed the MPE. As presented in the AT&T guidance document, the signs must:
; ■ Be posted at a conspicuous point;
; ■ Be posted at the appropriate locations;
■ Be readily visible; and
■ Make the reader aware of the potential risks prior to entering the affected area.
The table below presents the signs that may be used for AT&T installations. Detailed views of the signs
(each approximately 8 inches by 12 inches in size) are included in Appendix E.
Informational Signs Alerting Signs
��;��;::m.:.,:� , �
�....�db.L.,,,�....W,a. I
m,�..�......
' LnYII.IllYlqtl �INppbbR4vq �
Wuw�y��rY�� fr�nr .
mshu�Yw++�W�,,,e„m
�� �+M�ti..w�rm�x�4n+o�nW�.
� - . � INFO I NOTICE
...,..,.�;; r..
��. ` w`:.L:.:..'r'G"'...,'°""' Bry•anAY7JsPotntpum .
Cwwrwsm�YpTmneM Ira�run F b -
. ..w...�.,�.,.u.....� mtauy an ,m++h¢cRF
, �aip..r�.,w
e..s..�..eu�rwu� m�v.� .ur Emsdttcn*Pe:mlUu"n:
� .m.�..w...erw�.•�n+x�.�ort.w�
e..r.ru.
. ee..n.z��m..... Omm19�h�m E.'M1wnro .
. e....��...rv+�w.,.....o-..w.. .
. '.S'".m�.naw..e..�5..,�M 4rcniu �
L _
� ^ � � �CAUTION,
ACTIVEJINTENNASAHE MOUN7E� .
, � ONTHEOUTSIDEfACE0FTH15@I11tDMG INFO 2 ��i'� � �AUTION °
. � BEHINOTHIBpANEI .
p oNni�ssmucruRe ROOFTOP
' STAY BACKA WtqYUM OF7 FEfT FPOA1 TifESE
.. . ��N�g � Bq•onA7TisPoln[yvur�
' Can4uATbiMO611Ny�t an0lollow mte� acm:dlatuc sna< .
, UrklnqmetlwuprlortopulomilnO +mYmalnbnanto iFEmesicn.evc•.u.•.elthn
� ar repaks Geserlhnn 3 hcl hom Ihoanlennao. iCC Ouupa[unef cap�nrx
� TAIs Is AT4T MOBI LITY al W
- snz uuww. I,i�fals �
� m..m mn.�n>��n.r.
' ,d,�A�TIQN '
, .,.,
.�..�..�.._. ..� -
,
'g''t ''i
,�� ��'��C� INFO 3 , �i�i) , '��;, CAUTION -
�.,,, fr�y _ ;, , ,, TOWER
�_. .. ---
r.:
---- -------------- o�mamr+,r
' ' 0.WbhqusnryTtlCSnaasomo
anknnai mayexaed fCC Mn
kr human expatura
Inwendd'nl2qMcbawvssltl b
- M�vdyr.pgy in�MaAAxrny
' wYwawq�w Ylta�nawa 1V
�*d'��MO no.wurt a.pnr '
..�...:..... ..,..........
: INFO 4 WARNING
: . : 13e��nnd 77iCs Puu�t you arK
� ; _ � <nlcungoroNrclkdarcareher¢
. . Itl+rmis;ions .an•.•�l�ha G�J�'
. • !'��nuolleJ tisp.•s�rtc L imlu�
. . ���OIr1OO1M'M1I11��'InIW W I4Yl p1(
• m�44nnaoyAmmuinmbmaiu0ny
� I �� in .,�
EBI Consulting ♦ 21 B Street • Burlington, MA 01803 • 1 .800.786.2346
RF-EME Compliance Report WSID No. 99467 Site No. CCL00915
; • EBI Project No. 62150107 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California
�
Based upon protocols presented in AT&T's RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines
document, dated September 21 , 2012, and additional guidance provided by AT&T, the following signage
is recommended on the site:
Recommended Signage:
■ Green INFO I sign posted at the base of the monotree.
■ Yellow CAUTION — TOWER sign posted at the base of the monotree.
No barriers are required for this site based on the lack of general population or occupational exposures
at the nearest walking/working surfaces (ground level and nearby rooftops). When required, barriers
� should be constructed of weather-resistant plastic, metal or wood fencing. Barriers may consist of
railing, rope, chain, or weather-resistant plastic if no other types are permitted or are feasible. Painted
stripes should only be used as a last resort and only in regions where there is little chance of snowfall. If
painted stripes are selected as barriers, it is recommended that the stripes and signage be illuminated.
The signage and any barriers are graphically represented in the Signage Plan presented in Appendix E. It
is important to note that this Signage Plan is speci�c for AT&T antennas only, and does not address RF
emissions of other carrier antennas.
6.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
EBI has prepared this Radiofrequency Emissions Compliance Report for the proposed AT&T
telecommunications equipment at the site located at 300 Seminary Avenue in Ukiah, California.
EBI has conducted theoretical modeling to estimate the worst-case power density from AT&T antennas
� and other carrier antennas to document potential MPE levels at this location and ensure that site
control measures are adequate to meet FCC and OSHA requirements, as well as AT&T's corporate RF
; safety policies. As presented in the preceding sections, based on worst-case predictive modeling, there
� are no modeled exposures on any accessible ground walking/working surface related to ATT' s proposed
i antennas that exceed the FCC's occupational and/or general public exposure limits at this site.
;
� Signage is recommended at the site as presented in Section 5 .0 and Appendix E. Posting of the signage
brings the site into compliance with FCC rules and regulations and AT&T's corporate RF safety policies.
j Workers or members of the general public accessing areas directly in front of the other carrier
i antennas should contact the carrier and/or landlord to determine appropriate setbacks or measures to
; safely occupy those areas.
� 7.0 LIMITATIONS
i
sThis report was prepared for the use of AT&T Mobility, LLC to meet requirements outlined in AT&T' s
corporate RF safety guidelines. It was performed in accordance with generally accepted practices of
other consultants undertaking similar studies at the same time and in the same locale under like
� circumstances. The conclusions provided by EBI are based solely on the information provided by the
client. The observations in this report are valid on the date of the investigation. Any additional
� information that becomes available concerning the site should be provided to EBI so that our
conclusions may be revised and modified, if necessary. This report has been prepared in accordance
with Standard Conditions for Engagemen.t and authorized proposal, both of which are integral parts of
this report. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made.
EBI Consulting ♦ 21 B Street � Burlington, MA 01803 • I .800J86.2346
� � �
_ _ _ _ __
;
t > � ' g g 3 3 3 g � � 3
rQ ^ O
z ^ + � m II �. o E a a
f � $
F G� ❑ QUW � � N VI N 41 N N O �N • V YZ ! �i
a x . � o e a o s � o0 0 ffi � W
� wa= ZF � j m � ` � � � � � � N V Nm�o ^ W
O aNYiNi �"� acai Z � 6 g 3 8 N N P� P.� N S N ° ON � '.j�+
� 2 2 .. 2F � � k 3 g gl I N N K K bt K K � � Q � 0 o r^
uNa �wa 3 � O � `� g � N H °o °o o °o °o N o,� m n "�
y u ww u p '� � � _ _ ' � c o i � r,
. a o ..�. rcF4J °o I � § °a � ° ¢ a a a rc � `oc�i '�^ � �\MEFR�ty � ^I � �
�.. w � � �'- �° � '� N � E Q � � w � •- j�'� �ky N .
, '� a �a � �W � �'� � ; � � Y n � e a a a e ° ' a d n� o s° � �'`� ��� '~ {� .
0 o4s ,�'- in rY' � i i i i S a c Q,� - an w l� , B u N h �
�L � rawo ¢ � ' �. U s � 5 i o n n i m § 3a ��� m � � r
,� a � " P� � g �y ? n n P N m n m P a � y� ��'�'S� R u � C� � .
W H II � N N « + S ..
G i n iui i
�
Q
�
r Z € °, -,<
N � � � m 3� � �
h �
n � �
a � � �� V� � 3
� � .� " � � � � ga � � � �
L � �1 ? U � � � � m � �� a a
. � � q o (/� F � � g � � � .��
� � � � q �� �g � �V� K' � � � �$ � d
� � L'iZ'i � � s 6Wy � C..' § zz � � i � �
O � S � � 0000y� y� J {�y1 � p �'6 ° � d � `�
� `\ r' � N11dQ66QJJC � � L` 2w ' � n2< �¢ � 0 3 ..
y� �i� FI-WIYI- ILl- W � � � IQ- � J �W � 2 v2y� O � �
O 11� `l 1� NNVINWWWWOOW IW � ? �ii � � � � � � pa � � ��
<rI� ��r^l ] n � '�5 %' p.� 1
� � �I VJ � N .-. NII .� � a � < 18F � ZS/1 �' 2 �CC � 2 '
� � NNNNMM � fl � Vi � �l.`^�.v� spg ���.
FIIIIIIII111 ^Y
U6QQ666 < Q6W ? yyyzyy � y � yy � �
� a � az � � a
� � o � £o � � � c� �' � 2da = = � .
m
�� � �� � < �� . . . . . . . . . . .
v � z d �
d � � � n�� ��
� O O � � w ���� �g
� —J Q � � � ' � ��€; ��
�
� � � b � ��g� g�
U = � � � � a � � � � � . � � � ���� �°�
� � � � �i � � a 8 ..� ' i o � W��g 8w$ g�� .
. � ti � h ° V N��6� ��� ' �n$ .
w � w x w � � � q ���W ��� ���
, m � ~ ° Wt # � � � � � � �°, ���s ��� ��s
� . . o � � _ _ '
� W M � a w � � g � � � � � � � � � � � � ���� n�r ���
; Z �
� F- � � � �$�
� $
W ^ � ^ � ����` ���3�
_ � F— � � � B � a � � a � �W
� � � � � � � z ���� �x��
� �
� � � � � � � � � � � � �
� IIII 2 :
r�j I I I I p ~
� I I I I V '
, I I I � � ��� �� a�
�3 �3e �3p
� � � I 5 �`e.. t R
I 1 I ��� g � � � ..
. I I I � I �.3�� iA�� '<3A�9 �,.
I I I I I
. ��-_:_ .�.:�..-� `
, = IYYRWM�P�u� • ``
. ��:.�.�a �� ` .
I \
. o� •o �� 5�I y��\\
u = � m <vs ..
. � ,� e � a � � .
" .�2 Q 6 Y �
���� b� ��W °�� � �§ �� ������ a�� Ww �s°- s� �b ���g ���� ab�� b� �� ` 1r �� $'-+ss�s�
. C/1 � e�� _3 a a.= ��g �@ a � � ��� @ � �� 8� ��F � � Y ��^',. . . �.
�1 � ���`�° `s� � � g' � �� � a° s� �"a �" ���� �� �� `�
� �'"� �� 5� e� �_� �F� �� �� n e§°� ��° 6� �W` � � ��—
3 � .���gE � 3 me 4° y� b �� a � A� � 8a o.. ,.
F' "as � ��� �� � � �a���� g �� �� �� `��� §��� '��s����€ � �o�—s�� ,
Z � e �����m a � � ��� a°� �a �k� w b@ e �e �c�� ��y� 5� � ��`s'"� � 1 �,E� . � �,
���3 e�€��z' e ��� � � et� �% 3� E�W u L�----saa. .
� � �• � ��� ��� �� �@���s �%� �� vem �� gs g��a ���� ���� s�� 6 �' n�D �� -�
N €"g ��� �� �ea ���° �§g ������ `£� �" s�� a� �� s° ���s� ��`s�gea��� E� 1� �. a;�.�A
� e� e�8 ixx� � � � t €@s � � � e �S �a� �€ ���� ���� '� � .
� � �ag a�9� �� �"' � r,s � E� �S �s�� �.. �� � �s�'a � $ � ��ol1sv,-„'� �z \��,sJl'
�3� � k ��a � ��� �� � ������ � �� � �_ � �� ��W � ��_� � = 11 �
�j ng� � � � � €� 8s' �3 � �` g x e o s
8 �' � �� aaa �7 a� 8 �� � �e� � � � o
� �z
� � y °' � 3s 3 �� � ��� ��� ��5 � U a a F
� ���� � 3 ��gg �� ��q� � �R�y � �� �Yd � � �� ��6� � �V6������: 'ti a� V �a� ,:
W ge>� �n ����na"� ��e s�s g�� ;� � ���= g � �� ��� ��� �s�AS �����a��"na a � �1 �� �,
� +ixg� "s �� a s a s � a , � � �3� � � � �.� n ag u � a��
����� ���a�� $£� ���� �`� ���g„ ��g� h�a° � c ��� �a�i €��t"� S $� ���°3� �� `�� �W �� � `
� s� a ��`� �� �� �� �- �q� ,g: � ��g �� �, g� � 3 ^n �L i ~ , i 1
����3a �E� s< � � � �50 ���33§� 8 : €� ��a� W�� �e� %a5$ ����& ���s�a�g��� n1 +1J����� ��'�
Il. �
_ �u� n . u� ie � m a - ��� l� �^.3� SSp°�g��\ ,
d _ N :•f _ S . �� 1 `�
Y
� � � � auavd BBL9-1C[ (SZ6) �^
c �
F 2
Q 89SY6 V9 'NIV�O p
'uewo OOL all^5 'F�onpl^o8 qlVnp Iqll W
R y �oau���6v woa o�w=osaasz ��uIsaawagpue'I° °z � o �' <
0 o z � AlIl190W 1'81tl �T!7A T`T T!7T(� $ O> " ` m �
i a 'x" O C� � QCl/11 a �L'1111� � � � Z � � w .
= 5 ^
: i w � � � ���� u� t) < � �
' m o � o@ F � T T ' � i��. F (1 � a � o
z z
5 p N n
tii a e B e ' It il . fajii � � � ` ii � I . . : lll . � � � � ti ' { SC
O a a W
.wrs K € E � � a: $7 ��5t a�o ,�6� a � g .
- � � ���a ��� i� �,t Fi�;� $� � $�
� 0.� g" � � � 5 1� � � ; �� i�� � ;3 E��&� � E �
� � � � �� a � a � I if��gf ��� ��� ���� � j�°$j�� � � � � � � H @
�a 2 �h t � N 3 ; ', 1$dE t�.� za� ���: F�1a�1 ;- a
'�+ � g`1 'd� • Y �j
. i� � g A ;� � § a �3 � ; • 3?3' ���3 4E9 �#;� S��+jEi,g1 � 0 ' ° �� ; ° �
� � < c°p ; a '3 "a j SspE' � � � C ����� 3�Ey�f 9f
� w �S t � � � s � 6 § 8gE{ 5��§ ��� �i�E° �;•�t�F � �
y . `s 4 ° ��' ' `-�p W � t'$j f�eY � �8•�y1p a�Y�'3�a � �
� o� mu' � a ° � � g �: .� @ ��A � 9 � 'g ��' � � ��i,�� ;7��55 �� €��L �f43a�Y g $ fi � � �
M � s�xn ; ¢ s � � t 6� �5'� �gg; � q � g� 'g� Y� F� Ed �' � ; +,} � �3'e . € � g `z3 �
°`"" ' •� a d� Q "s Yb g Fo�� m 4 .�;$i� � �� �[g �;��a {{��'�6�'1 n � $ �d � € � � � � � � �
� � �� � £ e � a a � �� � a � � � E S ° g °� �2Fy �9- g%s li;a- ia �g8$i a
e � 9 g $ Ff9 d� ' � 3- g
Y . a � � 3 '- 3 �' £ �C- �S S�� .��d � � � S a �m�d� m� S `�s �° <�I SS�s+� ;a�;E�sls � x — �
8a� xsi �� �a £ ,a ., a.8 M 98d £ � : ; . � ; o �
l
'� aW � � I � �:s � �� I �
�z � �1 �: � �: ����� �� �a � -( �
_ J �a � _ _ k' _ _ — I / ^ �� I� SI . � . I 5a� I� '� �� � � � � a. �1� 1
SOUTHOAK57REEf � - - I / � .� � g� . ' e7i ���.::�.,�: � �
� .:
� � I\ � � �
� — I _ _ — �a
— � - - u•: � ' _ _ _ - - *�x - a� a / �S� '+ a � ..� � $ - .
a ...I s� � " � "�
` - - -� � :
� �\ i � 1 � � e �so� � i0�.n/� �1 .
� � � � � ` ' II I�- - � � �a� �. 'e 3 _ .` 3�'� �•,,a«�,_ �� �
b . ,
I � �� i�- ' ' I = I _ ' ���
e �� a � � ,�� . .
; e ` g \ g a i au `�q �U�ndl�,nG
1 � z �8 � \ � I �y I � . .�,--�� ' ��;s=8 { 3� — S�� '. 3 �fni�i�qi �3 . „��`�/�;
� 3y
� °a � � I I I nc g � ° 9 �z" �-.. � :. '
� Is Q � ,i I � � � J �d �� � � . � �aa �s � �'n; jc�
� y� c�,✓/ Z g _ _ _ � 33� 3 q � b� ��3 4 i�,,,,9�i ��<
m � i 1 � � �5' � e§ � ; � � � � . ` ek 2
' S � � � �� � 4 �'� r�" n ! �` � �l� ` �'� 1 a
u I � � . �o ' �� e � � .
1 � � - y � � � * �� *�' ` J.�„„mi�.,u w �
J � nn.n ,� � � �� �U`li{�/�� � �
3 �
� �, W / � . � x� ^ `t F 4 y
—D � F ( ^ V nw — tl� � ��'9/..,�� 911'�� � V b
_ � —, N � � � � — ' ��zA ti � '9n, �r��\�� � "
1 � "°°°, y �:. _ t gSZ g 1 � �R� 1 .`i
I8. � y g, 1 ��� �- ,, r 2
� ` 0 1R , 4 $ a � :9 1 � ,�% � � i� W
� �
� � � = Q� - � � � � � , � � ; � �
� y 9 � i , �1 t�
EET 1 1
_ _ � SOUTNDOf3A� _ — ` ° � a � ' ��§ :� RI � �N tlC �� � 1
\ A�IU��4/� �' a a . 8 S ��`�U'46.q// �k �� ` �
� — �i1, � . e �\UnVll u//\ R ��`` \J .//G �' '� l .
�u•y. �� — � di//�-�� ��'\�vNi/fi � � 3 �� �\ 1� \.J � �
_ _�� �� �� 1 � — -�°��'� . �� ' 1; J - - � - �
� z � � �"^�rt �� � 3 � �!/� '�� �C y�x jg� � �.
1 1 $ O � '411 � �0� �� i� NI'ca� __ � 'Qini � x � � .
� � I a o \ ,,���y�� � q�,,,,��� :9 — — e ,w,Fa,; � `:
yx \ , .:cw3�a �xr'u � 3 .
\ ` p6
� I � \ � - - ° �
I I � devM�Y . ,
I �j �j�,l ' \�\ � �# A� ��Y souTHOOnAS�e� �
� �i ` �� � �� � °- � � �:
II �S�la //��� �I�Ih�\� �� Y � ' � � g
R , _�� �� Y ` a., � ', ' ` . �� �� r � " — T
a= . .. .
� � � i � ,
1 II 1 b
� \ I I1 ° y p �= p b � � i ..
� \ .. � e 1 �� � & r b
3 a a "g � � g � fY+ I _ � .
g ¢ I F [[[{{{]]] t�areo iuoW rxrmm n au spai
� a ' SV S ? �h � „ Y� og YNOIMI A 19LLOB i.CiO�
;ar'�rz e�� � $ « I `�$ .at�r � �+ F S mw nwv� aws n mi :saoi
' ' �P x Z ��� •� e z S = rxmxvnw� sA�ic
3a � ; e . '—�� �' � _ 5 � � � �
�y ]]tll f0 Al sA'rl
'Q �Z I r — a, o O}] bpp S � �f 6 .,�„�. ,� �.a ...,<
t '�$i ab�a �1 a ry� v �,q{ 'f ��Y y3� I W , F.� `1 Y.. 6 YNOIMINYMYMIFAJlli.Ltt O
' 1'y�p��OMS I v�i e � �6 o ja � � CYI / y � � %�/ I � 5 v w d�n A tl L iAK F .
b V 9 e
k • � e a �E '� ° ��...�� � q � n inua�e o<t �
3 S ^'e° . 3i� $ � _ � p r+7 R
a- gg � �S§ �ek � �h � ` � F � r �'' � W �
x � �.�g §G �5 �� §L . � a v g` °° m d F y .
. . 3Y $� . � � � � „. \ � e M V #$$t���, g R8x� _ � U � �
5 �o �C v y� � tl��C���.atl� YI.qIMI A MllN iS'1� � �..
a §� vwplx� A /Jl sP'U ¢
� a e �� �Eqa�g� rreauv n nouae :n'�s �l
Tj "4� b - ~ - { ` a �c��46g6 rwam eo av ss'.o
` a y� S9 � $ " y. . � atRe�pi�� , vlMlxv Nvx01L^n F A dU sAn � U
� e �i. F Y €���C� 3�C vw13�rn A nouOB sA'�[ .
o `� [J�, ���+' � �l :z�n
� i . �� � � ` xr� � � .. . ���������P�5^� vx�NM'I fJ OJl sF�OA50 �.
� §
a . �5 '�:��� � �be���n �x uian n ai ssu� '.
�� � �
� ` �� W z . i .�-., e@sa� 4 �a
��� u ~ g�:�r� a �@��S���Peff
�"3�d
< � .i
»u� uccan - noe ni .w W�vs[aiwa�e.Mw.imAwaz .��!=a cena
� r � m' g � � � � g � � � � �
�
� < �� Y ��l � O
= � �KFP L N � � o m 1 S
a wdw � i�r r w m � � � � � a O =� o o � � � .
o � p� z 3 � � � G e S w .
o Fa � iwm �/ a � 3 � o ° � H H H H ° N I Nqb � N
Q • 0 g V t� � j 'n F
� O `iQ � YK � QO H i � � �j 1 I N N N N it N `N 6Em m ~ _ \
u w d 3 � Z N � �°.1 °o °o o °o o $ N t� °° n �]
tt zi �iia > °o � O � `1 0 ° No w u w � u ' � �'oo o ��u�\ij.� � ■
r �= � ooF N � � Q � � m D O ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ K � � W�v F �� �`� � W
n rcA � � w � I � � Q ^ a a a a a e v X ''� � ma o i � g6/, ` a' �
a i ° m � � N �� � ��� ^ - � e "' � � o r .i i m d � � `^a' i u �'�+�q $ /f„°4 u '-" � N � t .
� ^� urc � ~Wp d : � � h e � � P � � �l!ox`K?� ,� o �w � .
� � o a 6 � - c+ n a �n �o n m y�, q � � � �
U il iUl I
� • I _ � I I I � ♦ �
� � / /
I , . . � � � I � � "
� � � .
I _i
� �� s � ��i /� � � !. � ����� I�I � < � 1� � / � ;
i , � I
a � �� � � �/;r �Ill �,�,,:�;\ « � S
� � $ � � � ' .` � c � �
c� � . � =$ a � I m ,� .
< ! I r.. .= . ;I _ 1�. � � VI � � � I �
� �
a � � �� �t_ - --- - 1 � s� � �I �
m 1 ,
o � W � I = � < 7 � � � �
� � � � � . I � Q� § a � �
� \ \ � ' , � � c � �.
_ _ _ _ y •� � � ��I ��
' � . .' . '� • . , , a I J _ _ _
� Psi., a , �^ I - -& — � -- � — �
� g � � � �
—,—.—� � ' • . � � . ��� �� �. ,;,�w r — — a .
� �. W • .� a �,.�_ , " , �
� I , :� �� �, " ,���z �� .
� � _ � _ - - -
/ / i ywrosra lal — _
. � . � � . � �. I 1 . — — . � . . •. .•e '
�F � • •
1 . . • I
a � � � ' . : . � • , • ' l
� V _ � . , e . . • . �. •.� �. . . . �
� „ m � • Ptij� ° �, ° • � , Q
-,
� a
� � f - - ' ..� •• \�� . . a — .
� I. • m�m
m � m �
.s --"_� J �C
� / .0
. .o=ZV � �I -- . � ly, .
bt
}/� � , ' � � 1
° � z `J` � V ' _', m � �
a = z � y = _ ' 3 .
�
ci � � � � S ^ °a2. � q .
. N '6� � z � i� � � �d � iH7M35Y3 ? � Ch
s � a .�i °z v� � � z � o�" °m I .9/181Y (d n � V V �
� � i � LL � � � o � o W �/ m � \\;��1 li��ll/� . . . , 2
� '. � � s o � � � p W = � — �� � � �� � � �
' '^ � y o a � ° ti 3 � z z �+ J \. � , � \� ,a., �i �� .
a � a a � � � = z � ° �4 � � �il , . .i i _ • _ �'_ _
w a !� � m o - \�y � i, � _ _ ' �r,p�f �' ;'
ua 3 n � °¢ m � � % �-` � ` �.
� � � � W o `� � w � i ��q'IC �' .. _.i� .�/ I�II'�� :
� � � a H � i J � � n m �'� ��:1� � � \�� � 4\ . �
,.
d � ° � mw� o � � a � � � g p � �r�^ ' ���' r��l�� �����\
i � o � z � �� � 3 a � � i � � 11 .
o? °z `�'��^em � w � � � ��.+ � i^ m i � °w 1 �
u� � �� ca.� '�J' aa � LL 'p-' o <+ � `n n` f W � / ..
awowiPSma� caw.tlo �6 � > .M � _ 'JZ7 / I Jl � .
U Q 6
. o� go= � � 30� � 3 V Wm m � � � � L � � g V / �
ZK3o01�- z1' �L' ¢ oww % GuoQV¢3m ¢ � � � 2y � W � / .
dOZdLLG �1LLZOw � Ka� 6 p (� W � � i5 w / � .
ii' O �i � 'a-' '6 !L"'�" ? waic� " .o °s �° L^ c� °z °' g \ / /
� zcaNtJ" � WOjof"" zcrc � c+ 3 � moo � + � / .
c
w �"FO �F $ ¢ i �;o83 ° � � �._.^, F � o � F � � � \� � / � .
�-- � . �., � aov.-.c4 : K' � xy.� 5 5 � 2 .^ ' � \\ . /� �
O 000a� � a �^ '�' oa ¢ ¢ �
Z i.3+� � u�' G'� 'Gin. 'Gi 'G�G'� � 'a � a '�' ? � � � i � o � � I � \\� / // !
Wz� z...zzozza ? co �
Y � N .i sv� �unad m o ri e �\ � � �
� � / g
I � \\ // � _ � .
\\ /� n
� /
� � u � r
� � � £ � � �
I £ 6
� � � 6
c
PM1� �NE � g / _ ..
� � - - - �W� . �.
— � �I WE
_ - / L$�II
. 1