HomeMy WebLinkAboutpcm_03112015 Final 1 UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 March 11, 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 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
15
16 1. CALL TO ORDER
17 The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Whetzel at
18 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California.
19
20 2. ROLL CALL
21
22 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Everyone cited.
23
24 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — The minutes from the February 25, 2015 meeting are included for
25 review and approval.
26
27 Commissioner Pruden made the following correction:
28 • Page 16, line 16, sentence to read, 'Is fine with removal of the Liquid Amber along the fence line.'
29
30 M/S Pruden/Hilliker to approve February 25, 2015 minutes, as amended. Motion carried (5-0).
31
32 5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
33
34 6. APPEAL PROCESS — Chair Whetzel read the appeal process. For matters heard at this
35 meeting, the final date to appeal is March 23, 2015.
36
37 7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION - Confirmed by Commission.
38
39 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE- Confirmed by staff.
40
41 9. PUBLIC HEARING
42 9A. AT&T Wireless Communications Cell Tower Site Development Permit and Use Permit, 300
43 Seminary Avenue (File No. 266). Consideration and possible action on a request for approval of
44 a Site Development Permit and Use Permit to allow the construction and operation of a wireless
45 communications cell tower (two alternatives/options) on the Ukiah Civic Center property, 300
46 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah.
47
48 Planning Director Stump gave a project presentation and provided photo simulations to demonstrate
49 the location and appearance of the proposed new cell tower on the Ukiah Civic Center property as
50 provided for in attachment 8 of the staff report and PowerPoint presentation:
51 • Requests the Planning Commission consider the two proposed alternatives 1) 100-foot tall mono-
52 pole; 2) 105-foot tall mono-pine/'faux' tree.
53 • AT&T provides for a project description in attachment 3 of the staff report.
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 11, 2015
Page 1
1 • The existing cell tower is used primarily for public safety, but AT&T leases space on the tower for
2 cell service where the intent of the project is to remove the commercial equipment from the
3 existing cell tower that would leave the City's public safety equipment on the existing tower. The
4 existing tower would then be designated for Police Department public safety equipment with room
5 for expansion. The new tower would be for a commercial wireless telecommunications facility
6 (WTF)for AT&T and US Cellular.
7 • The Ukiah Police Department currently collocates public safety communication equipment with
8 AT&T on the existing cell tower at the Ukiah Civic Center. The existing cellular tower structure
9 capacity appears to be `maxed out' at this time which counteracts the opportunity for cellular
10 companies or public safety to place additional equipment on the tower should expansion be
11 necessary in the future.
12 • It is also necessary for Public Safety to be the sole user of a tower to eliminate potential conflicts
13 of managing the infrastructure on the tower.
14 • The Police Department has been managing the licensing agreements with the cellular companies
15 related to the tower for eight years and more fully explained the history/background of the existing
16 cell tower as provided for on page 2 of the staff report.
17 • The staff report talks about project issues/environmental impacts/concerns related to radio
18 frequency emissions, historic and architectural inventory/historic significance, ground disturbance
19 and setting, site and neighborhood compatibility, compliance with the Ukiah Municipal Airport
20 Master Plan and/or other issues. Attachments 5, 6 and 7 of the staff report provide
21 information/responses to the project issues/environmental concerns.
22 • Talked about the Mono-Pine design approved for the Elks Lodge property on Hastings Road that
23 was approved by the Planning Commission.
24 • The DRB reviewed the proposed Project and voted to recommend approval of the mono-pole
25 alternative rather than the `flaux' tree mono-pine alternative. Most of the DRB members favored
26 the Mono-Pole alternative because of its utilitarian appearance with the notion `a cell tower is a
27 cell tower' and it should not be disguised to appear as a tree. Staff disagrees and supports the
28 Mono-Pine alternative because it would blend in with existing mature trees on the site and would
29 help to screen the existing tower from Dora Street.
30 • Staff recommends approval of the Mono-Pine alternative.
31
32 Commissioner Hilliker:
33 • Asked about the longevity/maintenance of the Mono-pine and the possibility of deterioration over
34 time with debris (such as pine needles) and/or other tree elements/materials falling off.
35
36 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:11 p.m.
37
38 Commissioner Pruden:
39 • Has knowledge mono-trees are made well and are durable.
40 • Cited the Hastings Road cell tower and another cell tower in Windsor and noted the Planning
41 Commission preference for the Hastings Road cell tower project was for the mono-pine to be a
42 Redwood rather than a pine tree. Is of the opinion the mono-tree poles are aesthetically a good fit
43 for cell towers as opposed to a mono-pole.
44 • Preference for the new cell tower would be `faux' Redwood tree on the Ukiah Civic Center
45 property.
46
47 Commissioner Watt:
48 • What is applicanYs design preference?
49 • What is the difference in cost between the two alternatives?
50 • How long before the existing cell tower exceeds its design/useful life and needs to be upgraded?
51 • When was the original cell tower constructed at the Ukiah Civic Center?
52 • Are there samples available of the coating that would be used on the mono-pole?
53 • Why not incorporate a lattice structure for the new cell tower?
54
55 Frank Schabarum,Wireless Site Development Specialist, applicant representative:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 11, 2015
Page 2
1 • Does not have specific information as to longevity, but understands the materials (pine needles,
2 bark etc.) are made to be durable and explained how. Mono-pines have become recently popular
3 for cell towers. Because mono-pines are a relatively new product there is not much case study in
4 terms of documenting longevity.
5 • Client preference is essentially two-fold; AT&T preference would be a mono-pole, is cost driven
6 and the infrastructure, i.e., antennas for instance, align/fit better on a mono-pole than a mono-
7 tree. Explained in more detail placement and location of the various antennas on the facility. If the
8 Commission went with the mono-pole alternative would have to separate the antennas to `keep
9 the profile down.'As the situation currently exists, cannot put additional antennas on the structure
10 because it is not strong enough to handle additional weight. Client would be willing to proceed
11 with whatever the Planning Commission's preference is so as get the project approved.
12 • Does not have expertise in construction costs so cannot comment on the cost differentials.
13 • The cell tower is a mechanical structure so if maintained/managed properly the longevity
14 increases. Alternatively, if a facility is neglected and not maintained, the life expectancy will be
15 shortened considerably. The removal of weight from the tower to alleviate stress like that which
16 has been occurring increases its longevity. To this end, the antennas have been lowered to half
17 the height. However, as a non-structural engineer does not have the professional expertise to
18 adequately address the longevity of a cell tower from a technical perspective
19
20 Planning Director Stump:
21 • The original cell tower was constructed in 2001.
22
23 Frank Schabarum:
24 • Provided some coating samples to staff and noted the coating would be a painted flat finish.
25 Referred to the simulated photos and noted the mono pole could be painted `galvanized or having
26 a flat gray finish.'
27 • Related to why not using a lattice structure, the intent is `to keep the profile low' and make it more
28 streamline. Also, there is a limited amount of space in the landscape area to `post a round hole.'
29 A lattice structure requires four posts. A lattice structure would likely be `too industrial looking' for
30 a civic center application.
31
32 There was discussion concerning the materials board displayed for the proposed Hastings Road mono-
33 pine project.
34
35 Planning Director Stump:
36 • The sample board concerning the mono-pine for the Verizon cell tower on Hastings Road had
37 bark dadding.
38
39 Commissioner Pruden:
40 • There are only a few companies that `dress' cell tower poles so the work will likely have to be
41 sub-contracted out.
42 • The intent with regard to the cell tower on Hastings Road was to get it to look like a Redwood tree
43 as much as possible.
44
45 Commissioner Hilliker:
46 • Related to the project description, understands the existing lattice tower is `fully loaded' where the
47 intent for the Ukiah Police Department is to continue to use this facility and asked about
48 maintenance costs relevant to condition assessment. The project description indicates according
49 to assessment there are items requiring immediate attention and items requiring scheduled
50 maintenance. Would there be maintenance costs where the tower tilts above 60 feet? The
51 structural engineering company responsible for the Assessment recommends either replace 60%
52 of the tower structure or replacing the tower altogether and would the City be responsible for
53 these maintenance costs?
54
55 Trent Taylor, Ukiah Police Department:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 11, 2015
Page 3
1 • The Project involves facilitating the relocation of the U S Cellular antennas, hardware and other
2 associated equipment to the new monopole. With the removal of all AT&T and US Cellular
3 equipment AT&T will convey tower ownership to the City of Ukiah Police and Public Safety
4 organizations to they can have autonomy in the sole use of the tower.
5 • Has had the `tilY assessed and this condition essentially pertains to more of a `twisY having a
6 curve such that when US Cellular came onto the tower in 2006 they poured concrete down the
7 legs of the tower and this caused the 'twist' to the tower. There has been no structural problem
8 associated with this condition. When AT&T wanted to do some upgrades, during assessment it
9 became apparent the City's ability to expand would then be limited in the future and that the tower
10 would not effectively fit the needs of AT&T so the plan would be for the City to take possession of
11 the lattice tower and AT&T would continue to use the lease space on the `shelter' that is there
12 collocated with the City.
13 • In talking with a cell tower/radio expert the technical equipment the Police Department and Public
14 Safety organizations in general would put on the existing lattice tower is fine. It is the cellular
15 company equipment that is heavy and creates potential structural issues for the tower. With the
16 cellular company equipment off the tower allows an estimated 25 to 30 year life expectancy for
17 the tower with very low maintenance because of the type of equipment the Police Department
18 would be putting on it is much lighter. The tower expert indicated the Police Department would
19 not be able to `max out' the tower with the type of equipment it uses. The City will have to
20 maintain the tower if there was a problem. The addition of concrete to the tower reduced the
21 likelihood to collect moisture and the potential for deterioration inside the tower.
22 • In addition to Police/Fire Department equipment on the tower, the City has infrastructure for the
23 `networking' equipment. Does not foresee any changes in the future that would require bigger or
24 heavier antennas on the tower.
25
26 Commissioner Watt:
27 • Was consideration given to possibly upgrading the existing cell tower?
28
29 Trent Taylor:
30 • The aforementioned was a consideration. The problem is where the tower is located there is a
31 base where the foundation base for the tower is engineered for the size of the tower. To construct
32 a large tower that holds more capacity the base would have to be enlarged outside the perimeters
33 of the leased area and there is not sufficient room between the City buildings without doing some
34 major remodeling to obtain the necessary base that is required. To accomplish this would need a
35 temporary solution for having to take down the City's radio/communication equipment in order to
36 keep operating 24/7. There is no place to temporarily put the equipment. There was discussion
37 about using a portable tower where this approach did not seem feasible. In talking with City staff
38 concluded that while having multiple towers could be an issue, the best solution is for the City to
39 have sole ownership of the tower. As such, the consideration was directed toward installation of a
40 new mono-pole.
41 • The tower was initially installed by Edge Wireless because the City and Police Department could
42 not afford to upgrade its infrastructure that was necessary at that time. It was a good deal for the
43 City and Police Department to get a tower constructed the City could collocate on. However,
44 collocation was been problematic for the Police Department because every time someone does
45 something to the tower, inspections have to be done to determine that none of the public safety
46 equipment has been compromised through some inadvertent maintenance-related task or
47 upgrade where new equipment is added.
48
49 Commissioner Christensen:
50 • Inquired whether both alternatives are `equal' with regard to being able to expand or add
51 equipment in the future should there be a need?
52 • Found it interesting the majority of DRB members support the utilitarian alternative of a mono-
53 pole rather than the proposed mono-pine alternative. Is of the opinion, a mono-tree tower would
54 look better.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 11, 2015
Page 4
1 Frank Schabarum:
2 • Confirmed both alternatives would require a structurally engineered facility that can handle
3 additional collocations and/or other City public safety equipment so there would not be a reason
4 to come back to address further structural issues. Talked about the technical aspects related to
5 adding equipment to a mono-pine tower.
6
7 Chair Whetzel:
8 • Related to police/fire frequency line-of-site asked with the mono-pole in close proximity to the
9 existing tower is there the potential for any 'blanking/communication interference' with the new
10 tower in the way of the existing tower?
11
12 Trent Taylor:
13 • Discussed the potential for 'blanking' with the radio and cell tower expert that services the City's
14 equipment and noted there will be a requirement in the agreement that allows for some baseline
15 testing should the new cell tower project be approved. At this point, the City is at the lowest
16 potential for any interference type of scenario with the cell company collocating on the tower. The
17 cell company made some changes to their system and moved their antennas down on the tower
18 so they are not at the top of the tower like in the photo rendering. The City had equipment right
19 next to the cell company at the top of the tower. The cell company is not on the same frequency
20 range as the City Police Department so this should not result in any interference; However, there
21 is always the potential in this regard.
22 • On many of the mountain top cell tower and radio sites, there may be three or four towers within
23 very close proximity and possibly even closer than the existing City lattice tower and proposed
24 new tower scenario. Towers can be set up to have no interference between one another.
25 • Generally cellular activity does not interfere with Police Department `UHF'type of radio equipment
26 and explained in more technical detail about setup precautionary measures that are taken to
27 prevent potential interference. The City's radio communication expert will be watching for any
28 possible interference.
29
30 Commissioner Pruden:
31 • Referred to the Verizon cell tower project on Hastings Road and noted the Planning Commission
32 approved the project at the maximum height possible for compliance with FAA regulations and/or
33 for compliance with other related agencies or City standards such that no light could be put on the
34 top of the facility.
35 • Talked about her experience on the Planning Commission for past cell tower/wireless
36 communication facility projects in connection with the public's concern regarding radio frequency
37 emissions and the measures taken to mitigate some of the concerns.
38 • Supports a Redwood tree tower.
39
40 Frank Schabarum:
41 • Related to the preference for a mono-Redwood tree instead of the mono-pine/'flaux' tree would
42 like to see some flexibility on the 105-foot tall height where the intent is to keep the antennas in
43 proper alignment and still provide for a more natural tapered top above the antennas rather than
44 the current more rounded crown, but understands asking for flexibility regarding the height is not
45 an option because the FAA has already given approval for a 105-foot tall mono-pine tree
46 alternative.
47 • Will review the Verizon Wireless project on Hasting Avenue for information concerning the vendor
48 and/or other relevant/necessary information that may be applicable.
49
50 There was discussion concerning vendors.
51
52 Commissioner Watt:
53 • Preference would be to go with the 100-foot tall mono pole alternative. Sees the backside of the
54 Civic Center as 'industrial' in nature with the Fire Department training tower and/or other similar
55 type of infrastructure in this location.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 11, 2015
Page 5
1 • Notices `fake'trees for cell towers time after time.
2 • Does understand there is footprint problem in connection with the mono-pole/mono-pine
3 alternatives.Would like to see a tower with a smaller footprint.
4
5 Commissioner Hilliker:
6 • Preference is the mono-tree tower and would support the concept of a mono-Redwood.
7
8 Chair Whetzel:
9 • Preference is the mono-Redwood that resembles the approved Verizon Wireless cell tower
10 project on Hastings Road.
11
12 Commissioner Hilliker, Pruden, Christensen, and Chair Whetzel consensus:
13 • Add a new condition of approval that reads, `The cell tower tree shall be a Redwood or similar
14 design with bark cladding to a distance of approximately five feet above the initial branches. The
15 design shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval.'
16
17 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 6:35 p.m.
18
19 M/S Pruden/Hilliker to approve AT&T Wireless Communications Cell Tower Site Development Permit
20 and Use Permit (File No. 266-SDP-UP-PC) with Findings in attachment 1 and Conditions of Approval in
21 attachment 2 with the addition of a new condition of approval, as referenced above. Motion carried with
22 the following roll call vote:
23
24 AYES: Commissioner Pruden, Christensen, Hilliker and Chair Whetzel
25 NOES: Commissioner Watt
26
27 10. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
28 Planning Director Stump reintroduced Assistant Planner Michelle Johnson and introduced new Principal
29 Planner Kevin Thompson.
30
31 Principal Planner Thompson:
32 • Is pleased to be aboard with the Planning Department.
33 • Provided background information about his work history, education, and experience.
34
35 11. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
36 Commissioner Pruden:
37 • Noted the sign advising of a wireless communication facility in the Methodist Church is no longer
38 around and asked staff to check on this.
39 • Talked about the historical telescope featured in Observatory Park and the plan to allow it to
40 permanently remain in Ukiah where it has always been and should be.
41
42 12. ADJOURNMENT
43 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:56 p.m.
44
45
46 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
47
48 AT8�T Site Development Permit and Use Permit
49 Planning Commission adopted Findings and Conditions
50
51 SITE DEVELOPMENT AND USE PERMIT FINDINGS
52 TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A
53 MONO-PINE CELL TOWER
54 AT THE UKIAH CIVIC CENTER PROPERTY
55 300 SEMINARY AVENUE, UKIAH
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 11, 2015
Page 6
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 mono-pine "faux" tree alternative of the proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with
5 the goals and policies of the General Plan as described in Table 1 of the staff report.
6
7 2. The mono-pine "faux" tree alternative of the proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with
8 the Zoning Ordinance as described in Table 2 of the staff report.
9
10 3. The location, size and intensity of the mono-pine "faux" tree alternative of the project would not
11 create hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic because no work would be performed in the
12 public right-of-way, the nearest street is 150-feet away, and the proposed tower would be located
13 within an existing landscape planter.
14
15 4. The mono-pine "faux" tree alternative of the proposed tower would be located a minimum of 150-
16 feet from nearby Streets and surrounding land uses, would not conflict with the existing parking
17 lot, and therefore would not create hazardous or inconvenient conditions.
18
19 5. The mono-pine "faux" tree alternative of the proposed project would not remove significant
20 amounts of landscaping and would act as landscaping to help separate and screen the existing
21 tower and Civic Center complex.
22
23 6. The mono-pine "faux" tree alternative of the proposed project would not cut out light and air on
24 the property, or on the property in the neighborhood; nor will it hinder the development or use of
25 buildings in the neighborhood, or impair the value thereof, because it would be located in a large
26 parcel over 150-feet from neighboring development.
27
28 7. The project will not destroy any natural land features or creeks because none exist on the site.
29 No trees must be removed from the property and the mono-pine "faux" tree alternative would
30 provide a "tree"to the site that would help screen the existing tower from Dora Street.
31
32 8. The Mono-Pine "faux" tree alternative of the proposed project will provide a creative approach to
33 cell tower design consistent with a recently City approved cell tower on Hastings Avenue, and
34 would not result in a box-like structure.
35
36 9. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses and would not be detrimental to the public's
37 health, safety and general welfare because:
38
39 A. The site is located in an area with a mix of zoning districts, including Residential, Public
40 Facility and Commercial. This has created a mix of uses in the area, including single-
41 family and multi-family residential, religious uses and offices. There are other wireless
42 communication facilities/devices/towers in the vicinity of the proposed project.
43
44 B. The mono-pine "faux"tree alternative would appear like a tree and blend in with other tall
45 trees in the immediate neighborhood.
46
47 C. The mono-pine "faux"tree alternative would help screen the existing tower from views
48 from Dora Street.
49
50 D. The applicant has provided an RF evaluation (Radio Frequency— Electromagnetic Energy
51 Compliance Report, EBI Consulting, January 14, 2015). This report indicates that the
52 proposed facility is meets the FCC requirements for RF emissions, and does not pose a
53 threat to the public's health, safety, or general welfare
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 11, 2015
Page 7
1 10. The project has been reviewed by all City Departments including the Police, Fire and Public
2 Works Departments, and none of these Departments have identified any potential impacts to the
3 public's health, safety or general welfare.
4
5 11. Based on the following, the proposed project would not have a significant impact on the
6 environment and is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
7 (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, Class 3 — New Construction of small
8 structures, and 15300.2(f) Exceptions/Historic Resources.
9
10 o Historic Siqnificance: As discussed above, and based on the findings contained in the
11 submitted cultural resources investigation, staff has concluded that neither proposed
12 alternative would adversely impact the historic Civic Center property. Section 15300.2 of
13 the CEQA Guidelines allows projects that involve historical resources to be exempted
14 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act when it can be determined
15 that the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of the
16 historical resource. Based on the cultural resource investigation provided, staff believes
17 that the proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse change in the
18 historical resource.
19
20 o Radio Frequency Emissions: Local authorities cannot deny the wireless facility based on
21 health concerns when the facility meets the Federal Communication Commission's
22 regulations concerning radio frequency emissions. The applicant has provided an RF
23 evaluation - Radio Frequency — Electromagnetic Energy Compliance Report, EBI
24 Consulting, January 14, 2015 (attachment 7). The report indicated that the radio
25 frequency electromagnetic field that would be generated is far less than the maximum
26 standard established by the FCC. As such, the FCC has determined that there is no
27 environmental impact related to RF emissions and as such the local authority is
28 preempted from using RF emissions in their evaluation of the project and the associated
29 environmental review.
30
31 o Ground Disturbance and Settina: The proposed tower (either alternative) would be
32 placed in an existing small landscape planter adjacent to the existing tower behind the
33 Civic Center, which is property that has been substantially paved and built upon. The
34 project would not disturb or impact and watercourses, trees, natural features or sensitive
35 habitats.
36
37
38 SITE DEVELOPMENT AND USE PERMIT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
39 TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A
40 MONO-PINE CELL TOWER
41 AT THE UKIAH CIVIC CENTER PROPERTY
42 300 SEMINARY AVENUE, UKIAH
43
44 1. Approval is granted to allow construction of a 105-foot Mono-Pine cell tower as shown on the
45 plans date stamped December 19, 2014 and as described in the revised project description
46 submitted to the Planning and Community Development Department and date stamped
47 November 19, 2014.
48
49 2. Plans submitted for a building permit shall be in substantial conformance with the plans
50 conditionally approved by the Planning Commission.
51
52 3. Construction hours 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 4:00
53 p.m., unless specifically approved by the Public Works Director. Construction is prohibited on
54 Sundays and holidays recognized by the City of Ukiah, unless approved by the Public Works
55 Director. Interior construction is exempt from these hours provided that construction noise is not
56 audible at the project property lines.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 11, 2015
Page 8
1 4. On plans submitted for building permit these conditions of approval shall be included as notes on
2 the first sheet.
3
4 From the Building Official
5
6 5. A Building permit is required for the project and shall be secured prior to commencement of work
7 pursuant to the requirements of the California Building Code.
8
9 From the Fire Marshal
10
11 6. There is an existing GFI receptacle in the planter strip on a steel post in the general proximity of
12 the proposed new tower. This outlet location must be maintained, moved if necessary, but
13 maintained.
14
15 7. If it becomes necessary to provide access for construction equipment during the installation in the
16 vicinity of the apparatus bay, notification must be provided well in advance to Division Fire Chief
17 Kevin Jennings (707-463-6271).
18
19 From the Public Works Department
20
21 8. All work on City Property shall be by a licensed and properly insured contractor. The contractor
22 shall obtain an encroachment permit for work within this area or otherwise affecting this area.
23 Encroachment permit fee shall be $45 plus 3% of estimated construction costs.
24
25 Standard Conditions
26
27 9. No permit or entitlement shall be deemed effective unless and until all fees and charges
28 applicable to this application and these conditions of approval have been paid in full.
29
30 10. The property owner shall obtain and maintain any permit or approval required by law,
31 regulation, specification or ordinance of the City of Ukiah and other Local, State, or Federal
32 agencies as applicable. All construction shall comply with all fire, building, electric, plumbing,
33 occupancy, and structural laws, regulations, and ordinances in effect at the time the Building
34 Permit is approved and issued.
35
36 11. A copy of all conditions applicable to the Site Development Permit and Use Permit shall be
37 provided to and be binding upon any future purchaser, tenant, or other party of interest.
38
39 12. All conditions of approval that do not contain specific completion periods shall be completed prior
40 to building permit final.
41
42 13. This Site Development Permit and Use Permit may be revoked through the City's revocation
43 process if the approved project related to this Permit is not being conducted in compliance with
44 these stipulations and conditions of approval; or if the project is not established within two years
45 of the effective date of this approval; or if the established use for which the permits were granted
46 has ceased or has been suspended for 24 consecutive months.
47
48 14. Except as otherwise specifically noted, the Site Development Permit and Use Permit shall be
49 granted only for the specific purposes stated in the action approving the Site Development Permit
50 and Use Permit and shall not be construed as eliminating or modifying any building, use, or zone
51 requirements except to such specific purposes.
52
53 15. The project shall comply with the following requirements to reduce air quality impacts related to
54 project construction:
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 11, 2015
Page 9
1 A. All grading shall comply with Mendocino County Air Quality Management District Rule 1-430,
2 Fugitive Dust Emissions.
3
4 B. All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, road construction, and
5 building construction institute a practice of routinely watering exposed soil to control dust,
6 particularly during windy days.
7
8 C. All inactive soil piles on the project site shall be completely covered at all times to control
9 fugitive dust.
10
11 D. All earth moving and grading activities shall be suspended if wind speeds (as instantaneous
12 gusts)exceed 25 miles per hour.
13
14 E. Adjacent roadways exposed to dust, dirt, or other soil particles by vehicles tires, poorly
15 covered truck loads, or other construction activities shall be cleaned each day prior to the end
16 of construction activities using methods approved by the Director of Public Works/City
17 Engineer.
18
19 16. Any future lighting for the project is subject to Planning Department review and approval as part
20 of the building permit required for the lighting. Any lighting shall comply with the following
21 requirements:
22
23 ➢ International Dark Sky Association approved fixture or equivalent;
24 ➢ Design compatible with the structures on the site.
25 ➢ Downcast, full cutoff fixture(s);
26 ➢ Pole height similar to any existing poles.
27 ➢ No light impacts or spill-over to adjacent properties.
28
29 17. This approval is contingent upon agreement of the applicant and property owner and their agents,
30 successors and heirs to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its agents,
31 officers, attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from any claim, action or proceeding
32 brought against any of the foregoing individuals or entities, the purpose of which is to attack, set
33 aside, void or annul the approval of this application. This indemnification shall include, but not be
34 limited to, damages, costs, expenses, attorney fees or expert witness fees that may be asserted
35 by any person or entity, including the applicant, arising out of or in connection with the City's
36 action on this application, whether or not there is concurrent passive or active negligence on the
37 part of the City. If, for any reason any portion of this indemnification agreement is held to be void
38 or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the agreement shall
39 remain in full force and effect.
40
41 18. The cell tower tree shall be a Redwood or similar design with bark cladding to a distance of
42 approximately 5-feet above the initial branches. The design shall be submitted to the Community
43 Development Director for review and approval.
44
45
46
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 11, 2015
Page 10