HomeMy WebLinkAboutpcm_07222015 Final 1 UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 July 22, 2015
3 Minutes
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
6 Christopher Watt Mike Whetzel, Chair
7 Mark Hilliker
8 Laura Christensen
9 Linda Sanders
10
11 STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
12 Charley Stump, Planning Director Listed below, Respectively
13 Kevin Thompson, Principal Planner
14 Michelle Johnson, Assistant Planner
15 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
16
17 1. CALL TO ORDER
18 The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by Planning Director
19 Stump at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah,
20 California.
21
22 Planning Director Stump;
23 • The Planning Commission Chair is absent and the Commission is currently without a Vice Chair.
24 • Requested the Commission select an Acting Chair to be the presiding officer for this meeting in
25 accordance with City Resolution No. 99-01 that establishes procedures for conducting Planning
26 Commission meetings.
27 • Election of Chair and Vice Chair will be agendized for the next regular Planning Commission
28 meeting.
29
30 It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to select Commissioner Watt as Acting Chair.
31
32 Planning Director Stump welcomed newly appointed Planning Commissioner Linda Sanders.
33
34 2. ROLL CALL
35
36 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Everyone cited.
37
38 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — The minutes from the June 24, 2015 meeting are included for
39 review and approval.
40
41 Commissioner Hilliker made the following correction to the minutes.
42 • `Don Fletcher' is spelled 'Tom Fletcher.'
43
44 M/S Christensen/Hilliker to approve June 24, 2015 minutes, as amended. Motion carried (4-0) with
45 Commissioner Sanders abstaining.
46
47 5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
48
49 6. APPEAL PROCESS — Acting Chair Watt read the appeal process. For matters heard at this
50 meeting, the final date to appeal is August 3, 2015.
51
52 7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION - Confirmed by Commission.
53
54 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE- Confirmed by staff.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 22, 2015
Page 1
1
2 9. PUBLIC HEARING
3 9A. Hull Use Permit-Single Family Residence— Hillside (R1-H) at 315 Janix Drive, APN 001-040-
4 73 (File No. 707). Request for Planning Commission approval on a Use Permit to construct a
5 1,997 square foot single family residence and 795 square foot attached garage and pool in the
6 western hillside area (Hull) at 315, APN 001-040-73.
7
8 Assistant Planner Johnson advised City Fire Marshal/Division Chief Kevin Jennings is present to
9 address questions related to fire and safety and provided the Commission with the following documents:
10 • Additional project conditions of approval incorporated into the minutes as attachment 1;
11 • Three letters of concern from public members incorporated into the minutes as attachment 2;
12 • Project Review Comments from the Ukiah Fire Department, dated February 5, 2015 incorporated
13 into the minutes as attachment 3.
14
15 Assistant Planner Johnson gave a staff report/PowerPoint presentation and addressed:
16 • The subject property that is zoned R1-H (Single Family Residential-Hillside) and located in the
17 previously approved Hull-Piffero Subdivision.
18 • Project`Background' as provided for on pages 1 and 2 of the staff report.
19 • `Project Description' as provided for on pages 2 and 3 of the staff report and attachment 5 of the
20 staff report.
21 • Project location as provided for on the location map.
22 • Project `General Plan Consistency' as provided for on pages 4 through 8 of the staff report that
23 includes 10 corresponding elements for consistency thereof.
24 • Project consistency with the Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan as provided for on page 8 of the
25 staff report.
26 • Project consistency with all the `Hillside' zoning requirements with the exception of the `aesthetic
27 evaluation' and further elaborated about potential aesthetic impacts and the importance of
28 minimizing visual impacts from the Valley floor and Highway 101 corridor.
29 • Zoning, landscaping/vegetation/trees, soils and geology, hydrology/drainage as addressed on
30 pages 9 and 10 of the staff report and noted:
31 o The design of the proposed residence differs substantially from the assumed `prototype'
32 in the `2001 Visual Impact Analysis' as specifically addressed in attachment 8. That
33 prototype was modeled after the Hull residence located to the south so rather than wrap
34 the entire residence with the topography, a different approach was taken for the
35 proposed project such that the new residence steps down and assumes the natural
36 slope of the site, which is intended to minimize the bulk of the structure when viewed
37 from below.
38 o Showed the site layout and design plans for the project.
39 • Attachment 8 of the staff report concerning the Visual Impact Analysis (VIA)/corresponding visual
40 impact simulations that was conducted for the Hull/Piffero Subdivision shows photos of the
41 existing condition in the Western Hills before development and photo simulations of what the
42 Western Hills would look like today with the developments that are allowed in the approved
43 subdivision.
44 • Attachment 1 (Findings for the Mitigated Negative Declaration); Attachment 2 (Findings for the
45 Use Permit; and Attachment 3 (Conditions of Approval for the Use Permit), including the three
46 proposed new conditions of approval.
47
48 Assistant Planner Johnson:
49 • Planning staff received three letters of concern and no letters in support of the project. The public
50 concerns include:
51 o Traffic
52 o Natural disasters such as fire
53 o Water associated with the proposed swimming pool
54 • Potential project issues identified include:
55 o Visual Quality based on the related zoning and general plan requirements.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 22, 2015
Page 2
1 Essentially `Visual Quality' is a non-issue since the visual simulations in the Visual Impact
2 Analysis that was conducted for the Hull/Piferro subdivision indicates there is `no visual
3 impact' concerning the number of residents that could be developed in the approved
4 subdivision.
5 o Environmental Impacts are addressed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial
6 Environmental Study prepared for the proposed project where mitigation measures are
7 included that would reduce the potential significant impacts identified to less than
8 significant.
9 • Asked the Commission consider/discuss the three proposed additional conditions of approval
10 prepared by staff and explained the reasons for them.
11 • The project has conditionally been approved by the City Planning, Building, Fire, Public Works
12 and Electric Departments.
13 • Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the recommended Mitigated Negative
14 Declaration and approve the Major Use Permit.
15
16 Planning Director Stump:
17 • Related to the issues of traffic, natural disasters/fire protection, water, drainage, soils and
18 geology/erosion and/or other issues associated with residential development in the hillsides were
19 exhaustively reviewed and addressed for the subdivision and subsequent use permit projects to
20 build homes in the hillside. As such, there were extensive reviews and public hearings to check/
21 re-check whether or not to allow residential development to occur in the hillsides.
22 • Staff is confident that all the aforementioned issues are resolved and with recommending
23 approval of the proposed development.
24
25 Commissioner Christensen:
26 • When were the photo simulations in the visual analysis taken?
27 • Is staff asking the Commission to discuss the additional conditions of approval?
28
29 Commissioner Sanders:
30 • Acknowledged the Hull/Piffero Subdivision and subsequent residential hillside development was
31 originally controversial.
32 • Mr. Hull and Mr. Piffero have been good stewards of the land.
33 • Referred to the matter of land donated to the City of Ukiah by Mr. Hull and Mr. Piferro in which
34 there were likely negotiations associated. As such, asked for clarification if the Hull/Piferro
35 Subdivision only allows for five residential developments where no more structures can be
36 constructed than what was originally approved.
37
38 Planning Director Stump:
39 • Believes the simulations for the Visual Impact analysis were taken in 2002.
40 • Commissioner Sanders is referring to land in the vicinity of Gibson Creek canyon where a series
41 of lot line adjustments were done. There were a number of parcels in Gibson Creek canyon that
42 the City was interested in acquiring. In order to accomplish this land acquisition, a series of
43 boundary line adjustments were necessary and showed the location of the subject property on
44 the land map as to the intent.
45 • It is important to remember potential buildout of the Hull/Piferro Subdivision allowed the
46 development of five homes and five second units and/or 10 structures. As a result of the
47 boundary line adjustments an agreement was made between the associated parties that no
48 second units can be constructed on any of the parcel in the subdivision. Believes there are two
49 more lots in the subdivision that can be developed with homes and this includes Mr. Piferro's lot
50 and one other such that there would be less potential buildings constructed than originally
51 approved.
52
53 Commissioner Sanders:
54 • Requested clarification with the aforementioned explanation there could one more home
55 constructed in addition to the five allowed for the approved subdivision.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 22, 2015
Page 3
1 • Referred to page 11, condition of approval No. 55 in a letter to Mr. Hull and Mr. Piffero from
2 Planning Director Stump dated January 17, 2002 provided for in attachment 5 that reads, Prior
3 to the recordation of the Final Subdivision Map, the applicants shall submit a Landscaping and
4 Re-vegetation Plan for the scarred and barren areas resulting from the unauthorized grading
5 and road up-slope tapering activity that occurred in 1997. The Plan shall be prepared by a
6 qualified landscape architect, botanist, or other professional with the expertise necessary to
7 design an approach to mitigating the visual impact resulting from the scarred slopes. The Plan
8 shall include, but not be limited to the following: a) the planting of native fire resistant and
9 drought tolerant shrubs on the exposed slopes visible from the valley below; b) The selective
10 planting of rapidly growing threes designed to screen the exposed slopes below the access
11 road; c) Measures that will be taken to ensure the long-term survival of the plantings; d) This
12 Landscaping Plan may be included with the Plan required by condition no. 49,' and asked about
13 the status of this condition.
14 • Referred to Chapter 2 of the Hillside zoning regulations(-H District), Hillside Development
15 Standards, Soils Report section C4 that reads, `Any area which presents one or more of the
16 following limiting factors shall not be subjected to development unless the engineer can
17 demonstrate conclusively to the commission that these limitations can be overcome in such a
18 manner as to prevent hazard to life, hazard to property, adverse effects on the safety, use or
19 stability o f a public way or drainage channel and adverse impact on the natural environment: a)
20 Water table within six feet of the surface at any time of the year; b) Soils with a high shrink-swell
21 potential; c) Soils with a unified classification of unstable soil types,' and is of the opinion item `b'
22 and `c' are well addressed in the subdivision reports but would like clarification on item `a.'
23
24 Commissioner Hilliker:
25 • Related to the Mitigated Negative Declaration asked at what point does the building permit phase
26 come into play?
27 • Requested clarification about the size of the water tank? He calculated the tank can hold
28 approximately 100,000 gallons of water. Asked about what occurs should the water level of the
29 tank fall below a certain level and how would the residents know? Is there an alarm and/or some
30 type of device that alerts the residents of a problem with the water tank?
31 • Asked about the roadway width requirements. It was his understanding an 18-foot roadway was
32 required and/or two nine-foot lanes for the project.
33 • Now that the City Fire Marshal is associated with the Ukiah Valley Fire Authority asked if project
34 approval from this agency is necessary.
35
36 Assistant Planner Johnson:
37 • Would like the Commission to review the new conditions of approval that were formulated to
38 address concerns that were brought about after-the-fact.
39
40 Acting Chair Watt:
41 • Related to the water supply, requested clarification there is no service connection to the City
42 water system for the entire subdivision?
43 • Did the well that was developed for the subdivision meet the required standards?
44 • Given the current drought conditions do we know the status of the well and/or whether it is
45 running low?
46 • The drainage plan talks about onsite drainage and the corresponding technique to be used to
47 direcUdivert runoff to a drainage swale that is located to the north of the parcel. Finds the
48 drainage swale area to be very steep and observed there is not a lot of vegetation. It appears the
49 hydrology report `contemplated/' took into consideration an overall increase in runoff but did not
50 look at the specific increase in runoff to that particular swale such that all of the flows would be
51 directed to. While there may be a small increase in water across a six acre parcel the hydrology
52 report did not look at the drainage flows from the road and the properties above. Given the
53 steepness and current erosion from the pad itself that is undeveloped it appears the hydrology
54 report did not take these factors into consideration.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 22, 2015
Page 4
1 • His concerns are: 1) the need for dissipation of energy material to protect against erosion when
2 the water exits the drainage pipe and hits the drainage flow to the swale where effective
3 measures need to be in place to minimize erosion; 2) the carrying capacity of the swale itself
4 given the new development taking water that ordinarily did not go to this area and now is. This
5 area is very steep and currently displays erosion.
6
7 Planning Director Stump:
8 • Confirmed one more home could potentially be constructed in addition to the five allowed for the
9 approved subdivision.
10 • A Landscaping and Re-vegetation Plan was prepared and submitted by a professional
11 landscape person. The barren areas were completely re-vegetated according to the
12 requirements and inspected four times as to the hydro-seeding and plantings for compliance
13 with the subdivision conditions of approval.
14 • Related to item `a', a well was dug for the subdivision and provided statistical information about
15 the well and corresponding function. Is of the opinion concern for the `water table' is a non-issue
16 since water was found at a depth of about four to five feet deep when digging for the well.
17 • The water table has not been an issue for any of the residential units constructed in the
18 subdivision and should not be an issue for the proposed new development.
19 • Once the Planning Commission approves the project, it is likely the applicant will prepare
20 construction drawings/plans for submittal to the City Building, Planning, Fire, Electrical, Police
21 and Public Works Departments for review.
22 • Recalls the size of the water tank can hold/store 115,000 gallons of water.
23 • Every home is required to have an alarm system that tells the residents the water tank has fallen
24 below a certain level.
25 • The installation of two nine-foot lanes is not a requirement for the proposed project.
26 Acknowledged the applicants did seek exceptions to some road standards as part of the original
27 subdivision and talked about the roadway improvements/measures taken to make certain the
28 road was safe for use by all persons and emergency vehicles.
29 • City Fire Marshal Kevin Jennings has reviewed the proposed project and his associated project
30 requirements are included in the conditions of approval in attachment 3 of the staff report. Fire
31 Marshal Kevin Jennings is the spokes/contact person for Ukiah Valley Fire Authority for the
32 development of projects within the City limits.
33 • Confirmed the water system is private. There is a well that feeds to a large tank that supplies
34 water for the homes in the subdivision. Sanitation for the subdivision differs and explained how
35 the sewer system works for the subdivision and provides for an alternative on-site sewer
36 system.
37 • Confirmed the well developed for the subdivision met City standards and noted Mendocino
38 County Environmental Health was also involved in the process.
39 • Has no knowledge about the well as to its present physical/working condition.
40 • Acknowledged an overall engineering geotechnical and hydrology report was prepared for the
41 project.
42 • Not all of the drainage flows into the swale Commissioner Watt is referring to. The applicant may
43 want to further elaborate on this issue. Over the years the applicants have become experts
44 about drainage on the sites.
45 • The applicants have done a good job repairing the areas of erosion.
46 • The applicants are `open' to erosion control anywhere on the property. City Public Works has
47 concern about erosion in the hillsides with development and requires an extensive erosion
48 control plan for further development of the property.
49
50 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:32 p.m.
51
52 Jarod Hull, Applicant:
53 • Is available to answer Commission questions.
54 • Do any of the other homes in the Hillside subdivision have a pool?
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 22, 2015
Page 5
1 Commissioner Christensen:
2 • Do you plan to defer construction of the pool to sometime in the future after the house is built?
3
4 Commissioner Sanders:
5 • Related to the fire danger in the Western Hills and the fire resistant vegetation recommended by
6 the State asked the applicant to elaborate on the choice of vegetation.
7
8 Jarod Hull:
9 • Confirmed the pool will be constructed at a later time, but plans for the pool are included as part
10 of the proposed project.
11 • Confirmed no other homes in the subdivision have a pool.
12 • The intent is to include vegetation that is native and/or drought tolerant and to find a balance that
13 works for the terrain and current drought condition.
14 • It important to clear out the underbrush as a fire protection precautionary measure.
15
16 Dave Hull, Resident in the Hull/Piffero Subdivision:
17 • Related to landscaping, confirmed a lot of work and effort goes into maintaining the landscaping
18 and with taking fire precautionary measures from an aesthetic and safety perspective.
19 • The transplanting of Manzanita and/or other native vegetation has been very successful. Has
20 planted Redwood trees and Doug Firs and/other tree species of this nature where placement is
21 very important.
22 • It is best to plant native vegetation/trees during the winter months such that by June these
23 plants/trees will be well-established.
24 • Thinning/trimming/transplanting of vegetation is highly important and this is done regularly and is
25 very time consuming.
26 • There is wildlife to consider and what they will do when it comes to making the landscaping work
27 since fencing is not an option. Acknowledged there is a lot of balancing that goes on when it
28 comes to working the land and providing for abundant landscaping.
29 • Has a lot of experience with drainage living in the hillsides to effectively address runoff and
30 subsequent erosion.
31 • Explained the subdivision has `two different water forces' that handle runoff. Would not be
32 possible to capture all the runoff from the entire property and have it effectively drain on the north
33 side of the property. There is another drainage area on the south side of the property.
34 • Explained how drainage works for the subdivision where essentially every property is on 4-inch
35 drain lines and all downspouts flow into these pipes and into the drain outlets to the north and/or
36 south. If one line is plugged the water flows into the other lines. Has never experienced a plugged
37 drainage line. Consistently checks runoff and associated drainage and is acutely aware of the
38 drainage how it works and how to deal with any associated problems that may occur.
39
40 Acting Chair Watt:
41 • Is of the opinion the hydrology report/analysis that was provided did not specifically cover the
42 issue of natural steep drainage swales or energy dissipation material to protect against erosion
43 associated with the increase in runoff from the new development.
44
45 Dave Hull:
46 • The hydrology report/analysis for the proposed project might have been less detailed than the
47 studies prepared for the subdivision and his residential unit but can attest that the soils and
48 geology and/or geotechnical analysis and hydrology/drain reports completed for the subdivision
49 and his residential unit were very comprehensive/thorough and detailed in every way to make
50 certain the concerns of the public with regard to development in the hillsides were adequately
51 addressed.
52 • Talked about the proposed pool and the concern associated with the drought and ability to fill the
53 pool and what might occur in the event of a crack and noted the subdivision has no water
54 shortage and any crack would be taken care of immediately.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 22, 2015
Page 6
1 • Is very knowledgeable/cognizant about drainage, how it works, and what measures need to be
2 taken/done and/or are in place to ensure runoff is handled appropriately on the sites and that the
3 two corresponding drainage systems function properly such that erosion does not occur and
4 safety not an issue.
5
6 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 6:46 p.m.
7
8 Commissioner Christensen:
9 • Related to the new conditions of approval finds #1 reactive from a public member about allowing
10 for swimming pools in hillside areas and asked if the proposed condition is typical as it pertains to
11 swimming pools by requiring the property owner to consult with the City Building Official
12 concerning the draining of the pool. Is of the opinion this condition is unfair/unnecessary and
13 should not be required.
14 • Proposed new condition of approval #3 is about `trees and the creek' and requested clarification
15 the aforementioned discussion about drainage that this is what `the creek' is. Does not see `a
16 creek' on the land maps.
17 • Inquired whether there are Oak trees in the building footprint?
18
19 Planning Director Stump:
20 • Not many projects include the construction of a swimming pool so the condition is not `typical.'
21 • Confirmed there is no creek in the subdivision.
22
23 Principal Planner Thompson:
24 • Recommends removing all language in the condition that references a creek. The intent of the
25 condition is to provide tree protection during construction. Has no knowledge of Oak trees within
26 the building envelope.
27
28 PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED: 6:50 p.m.
29
30 Commissioner Christensen:
31 • Asked about the ease of emergency vehicles accessing the hillside?
32 • Requested clarification a secondary road exists for egress in the event of an emergency.
33
34 Kevin Jennings, Division Chief/Fire Marshal:
35 • Four-wheel drive fire engines can access the roadway. Acknowledged it does take a little bit
36 longer to reach the homes because of the steepness of the road. The road is in good enough
37 shape and paved such that a type 3 engine and/or other similar vehicles can made the drive.
38 • Is not familiar with a secondary roadway.
39
40 Dave Hull:
41 • Recalled even before the existing roadway was improved and paved a test was conducted to see
42 if emergency vehicles could make the turns and contend with the steepness and found they could
43 in 7.5 minutes from the Ukiah Fire Department to his residence in the hillsides going at a normal
44 speed of 35 mph or less and no sirens.
45 • Acknowledged that small creeks do emerge in the winter time with storms, particularly after a
46 heavy rainfall and dry up in the summer months. They are not permanent.
47 • Confirmed no trees exist on the site proposed for development. There may some Manzanita.
48 • Concurs the new proposed recommended condition of approval #1 is unnecessary and would
49 take a lot of valuable City resources and time to have City staff monitor the draining of a
50 swimming pool.
51 • Related to proposed new condition of approval #3 tree protection would be a normal/typical part
52 of the process anyway. To require someone from the City to monitor the digging within six feet of
53 the base of all trees is unnecessary because such procedures/measures would automatically be
54 taken anyway to protect root systems. The intent is to leave all vegetation in place as much as
55 possible and is very diligent about doing this. Also, it is very costly to replace trees.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 22, 2015
Page 7
1
2 Acting Chair Watt:
3 • Understands it is necessary to remove some vegetation to build the house as needed. Asked
4 about the drain lines that may extend hundreds of feet and would such an associated condition of
5 approval impinge on the applicanYs ability to protect the trees.
6
7 Commissioner Christensen:
8 • Asked about a secondary road for egress?
9
10 Commissioner Sanders:
11 • Related to new condition of approval #3 regarding tree protection is interested in preserving the
12 existing Oak trees identified on the landscape plan and is not referring to the Oak trees along the
13 drainage lines. Sees the importance of installing protective fencing and protective buffer around
14 the base of the native Oak trees and noted this has not been an uncommon procedure/practice
15 for other projects. The Oak trees help visibly screen the residential developments from the Valley
16 floor and is of the opinion requiring fencing and/or use of other measures to protect these Oak
17 trees is a reasonable recommendation.
18
19 Commissioner Hilliker:
20 • It is likely the emergency vehicle response time would be longer now that the fire department
21 operates from different locations.
22
23 Dave Hull:
24 • Related to the condition of approval requiring City staff to oversee tree protection and managing
25 drainage, preference would be to allow the applicant to monitor and take care of protecting trees
26 and drain lines. Having lived in the hillsides for some time now dealing with landscaping and
27 drainage, highly understands what methodologies/measures need to be taken to protect the
28 natural environment and effectively address any associated potential impacts thereof. Has
29 experience with drainage pipes with regard to placement and size.
30 • There is no legal secondary road for egress. There are `fire break' trails in the area
31 built/maintained by CalFire. In the event of an emergency use of these fire breaks is possible by
32 leaving the area from the top rather than the bottom of the hillsides. There is no paved road out of
33 the area other than the existing road that is maintained by the homeowners association.
34 • Addressed the matter of the Oak trees and noted they would not be within the building envelope.
35 There are tall Oak trees located along the drainage swale that are approximately 150 feet from
36 the proposed residential unit.
37
38 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 6:58 p.m.
39
40 Commissioner Hilliker:
41 • Project questions were properly answered.
42
43 Commissioner Christensen:
44 • The project meets City standards.
45 • Related to the visual impacts, this has been the topic of discussion for years. When looking up at
46 the hillsides from any vantage point in the Valley can see the big scar where the building pad is
47 located. Is of the opinion having a house would aesthetically be an improvement.
48 • The environmental impacts already exist as well.
49 • Supports project approval.
50
51 Commissioner Sanders:
52 • Supports adding new condition of approval #3 for the Oak trees.
53 • While the geotechnical report is dated 2006 supports new condition of approval #2 that requires
54 an updated geotechnical report be submitted.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 22, 2015
Page 8
1 Planning Director Stump:
2 • Related to new condition of approval #2 this condition would be required anyway. The City
3 Building Department would require a current geotechnical report for the pool.
4
5 Acting Chair Watt:
6 • Noted new condition of approval #2 does not include language about the pool and recommends
7 revising the language for the condition to addresses `the pool.'
8 • Would like to add a condition that specially addresses the drainage pipes into the natural steep
9 drainage swales and that they include energy dissipation material to protect against erosion.
10
11 Commission Consensus:
12 • Disregard new condition of approval #1 that reads, `Prior to draining the pool, the property owner
13 shall consult with the City Building Official to determine if the draining of the pool is necessary,
14 and if it is that all state and local laws are complied with and the draining is performed in a way
15 that does not impact neighboring properties or the natural environment.'
16 • Supports adding new condition of approval #2 that reads, `Prior to the issuance of a building
17 permit, an updated Geotechnical Report must be submitted that includes analysis and
18 recommendations for the proposed pool.'
19 • Supports adding new condition of approval #3 that reads, `Tree/ protection for native Oaks of
20 DBH of 8" as shown on the landscaping plan require:
21
22 a) Care shall be taken when digging under ground near the base of the trees to be
23 protected and preserved.
24 b) All digging within 6-feet of the base of the trees shall be done by hand.
25 c) Any holes dug for construction (such as foundations, fence posts, utilities)shall avoid
26 roots 4 inches or greater by relocating these holes to an area where roots do not exceed
27 4 inches.
28 d) Dumping of chemical, washing equipment, and/or stacking of loose debris on or near root
29 zones and near the creek is prohibited.
30 e) Any work near the creek shall be performed consistent with industry and environmental
31 standards in order to prevent damage to vegetation on the bank.
32 f) Installation of protective fencing and protective buffer around the base of native Oaks at
33 8"DBH.'
34
35 • Supports adding new condition of approval pertinent to drainage that reads, `Per Mitigation
36 Measure 22 and Condition of approval 34 above, the outFall for the drainage pipes into the natural
37 steep drainage swales shall include energy dissipation material such as riprap to protect against
38 erosion.'
39 M/S Sanders/Hilliker to approve Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Hull Use Permit Single Family
40 Residence at 315 Janix Drive, File No. 707 based on the Findings in attachment 1 of the staff report.
41 Motion carried (5-0).
42
43 M/S Sanders/Christensen to approve Hull Use Permit Single Family Residence at 315 Janix Drive, File
44 No. 707 based on the Findings in attachment 2 of the staff report and subject to the Conditions of
45 Approval in attachment 3 with the addition of three new conditions of approval as discussed above.
46 Motion carried (5-0).
47
48 ATTACHMENT 1
so FINAL FINDINGS- MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
51
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 22, 2015
Page 9
1 Recommendation for the Adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration: The Planning
2 Department's recommendation for the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for this
3 project is based, in part on the following findings:
4
5 1. Based upon the analysis, findings and conclusions contained in the Initial Study, the project as
6 conditioned does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the local or regional
7 environment;
8
9 2. Based upon the analysis, findings and conclusions contained in the Initial Study, the project will
10 not result in short-term impacts that will create a disadvantage to long-term environmental goals;
11
12 3. Based upon the analysis, findings and conclusions contained in the Initial Study, the project will
13 not result in impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable; and
14
15 4. Based upon the analysis, findings and conclusions contained in the Initial Study, the project will
16 not, as conditioned, result in environmental impacts that will cause substantial adverse effects
17 on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
18
19
20 ATTACHMENT 2
21
23 FINAL FINDINGS-USE PERMIT
24
25 Recommendation for the Approval of the Major Use Permit: The Planning DepartmenYs
26 recommendation for approval of Major Use Permit No. 707, to construct a primary dwelling unit on a lot in
27 the Hillside District, is based, in part, on the following findings:
28
29 1. The proposed single family residential development is consistent with the goals and policies of the
30 Ukiah General Plan because it has been designed with careful consideration and preservation of the
31 natural features of the site, would not produce adverse visual impacts, would not adversely soils and
32 the geology of the site, and would not cause unusual erosion or drainage impacts.
33
34 2. The dwelling is a residential land use (allowed use)that is consistent with the use and development
35 standards for the Single Family Residential Hillside Zoning District, including those for minimum lot
36 size, maximum building height, setbacks to property lines, and on-site parking.
37
38 3. The dwelling is designed in a manner that is consistent with the development standards for the
39 Single Family Residential Hillside Zoning District, including those for building site area, lot width,
40 setbacks, non-combustible roof materials, water supply and fire hydrants, and the retention of lands in
41 a natural state.
42
43 4. The dwelling is consistent with the Conditions of Approval for Major Subdivision 98-37.
44
45 5. The dwelling is compatible with surrounding land uses since it will utilize building materials and
46 designs that are consistent with the natural setting of the site and compatible with the building
47 materials on other residential structures already constructed, and will be screened by substantial
48 vegetation designed to preserve privacy for adjoining property owners.
49
50 6. The dwelling unit will not be detrimental to the public's health, safety, or general welfare since its
51 development, as conditioned, will be consistent with the minimum requirements for construction in the
52 western hillsides and will utilize standard building methods designed to ensure that they will not cause
53 landslides, erosion, or other potentially dangerous conditions.
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 22, 2015
Page 10
1 7. The granting of the use permit will cause potentially significant adverse environmental impacts, but
2 these impacts have been reduced to levels of insignificance with the adoption of project-specific
3 Mitigation Measures and a Mitigation Monitoring Program, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration has
4 been adopted for the project.
5
6 8. The project will not cause visual quality impacts because it has been designed to "step" down the
7 hillside, the structure is narrow and is sited on an east-west axis, there are mature native trees
8 screening the structure, and additional native trees will be planted to further soften the aesthetics of
9 the structure.
10
11
12 ATTACHMENT 3
13
14 FINAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
15
16
17 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The following Conditions of Approval shall be made a permanent part of
18 Major Use Permit No. 707, shall remain in force regardless of property ownership, and shall be
19 implemented in order for this entitlement to remain valid:
20
21 1. All Conditions of Approval shall be printed on all sets of project plans pertaining to any site
22 preparation work or construction associated with the development of the single-family residence
23 and ancillary structures approved by the Major Use Permit.
24
25 2. All use, construction and the location thereof, or occupancy shall conform to the application and
26 to any supporting documents submitted therewith, including any ma.ps, sketches, or plot plans
27 accompanying the application or submitted by applicant in support thereof.
28
29 3. Any construction shall comply with the "Standard Specifications" for such type of construction
30 now existing or which may hereafter be promulgated by the Engineering Department of the City of
31 Ukiah; except where higher standards are imposed by law, rule, or regulation or by action of the
32 Planning Commission such standards shall be met.
33
34 4. In addition to any particular condition which might be imposed; any construction shall comply with
35 all building, fire, electric, plumbing, occupancy, and structural laws, rules, regulations, and
36 ordinances in effect at the time the Building Permit is approved and issued.
37
38 5. Applicant shall be required to obtain arid maintain any permit or approval which is required by
39 law, regulation, or ordinance. Sewer, water, and electric service shall conform to the
40 specifications of the City Department of Public Utility.
41
42 6. Building permits shall be issued within two years after the effective date of the Use Permit or
43 same shall be null and void.
44
45 7. If any use permitted shall cease for six (6) consecutive months, then the right to any Use Permit
46 permitting such use shall terminate and such Use Permit shall be revocable by the granting body
47
48 8. If any condition is violated or if any required approval is not obtained, then the Use Permit granted
49 shall be null and void; otherwise to continue in full force and effect indefinitely until otherwise
50 terminated and shall run with the land.
51
52 9. The approved Use Permit may be revoked through the City's revocation process if the approved
53 project related to the permit is not being conducted in compliance with the stipulations and
54 conditions of approval; or if the project is not established within two (2) years of the effective date
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 22, 2015
Page 11
1 of approval; or if the established use for which the permit was granted has ceased or has been
2 suspended for twenty-four(24) consecutive months.
3
4 10. Except as otherwise specifically noted, any Use Permit shall be granted only for the specific
5 purposes stated in the action approving such Use Permit and shall not be construed as
6 eliminating or modifying any building, use, or zone requirements except as to such specific
7 purposes.
8
9 11. All on-site paving shall be a minimum of 2" asphalt concrete with a 6" aggregate base, or an
10 alternative paving option reviewed by the city Engineer and approved by the City Engineer prior
11 to its installation.
12
13 12. (MITIGATION MEASURE 1)The proposed residence and any future accessory buildings shall be
14 painted subdued earth-tone colors such as shades of greens, dark tans, browns, and similar
15 colors. The final colors selected for the residence shall blend with the surrounding natural
16 environment. Prior to painting any portions of the residence, the applicants shall paint a "swatch"
17 on one of the walls, and call for an inspection by Planning Department Staff. The color shall be in
18 substantial conformance with the color evaluated herein, and shall blend with the surrounding
19 natural environment.
20
21 13. (MITIGATION MEASURE 2) Prior to the issuance of a building Permit, a Final Landscaping Plan
22 shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Planning and Community
23 Development or his/her designee. The Final landscaping Plan shall include trees placed in such a
24 manner as to help screen the proposed residence and other components of development (road-
25 cuts, driveways, retaining wall) from the valley below. All required landscaping shall be planted
26 prior to final inspection, and shall be maintained in a viable condition to the satisfaction of the
27 Department of Planning and Community Development. The final Landscaping Plan shall
28 incorporate designs derived from the fire protection concept of defensible space.
29
30 14. (MITIGATION MEASURE 3) The Final Landscaping Plan shall include details regarding the
31 exterior lighting for the residence, garden areas, and walkways. All exterior lighting shall be
32 hooded and down-cast, and shall not shine towards the valley below or skyward.
33
34 15. The applicant shall maintain a mandatory fire-break around each of the residences, which
35 includes the removal and "limbing up" of vegetation.
36
37 16. (MITIGATION MEASURE 4) All future accessory structures shall be designed and constructed to
38 complement the topographic features of the site, and shall be sited in the least visible locations
39 on the subject property. The colors shall blend with the surround natural environment.
40
41 17. (MITIGATION MEASURE 5) the final plans for the proposed residence shall be in substantial
42 conformance in terms of size, height, materials, etc. with the plans evaluated herein.
43
44 18. (MITIGATION MEASURE 6) All existing mature trees on the subject property outside of the
45 building footprint shall be retained unless a professional arborist submits a report to the City
46 Planning Director indicating that specific trees are dead or diseased. For every one tree removed,
47 two new trees shall be planted in the same general location.
48
49 19. (MITIGATION MEASURE 7) All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading,
50 road construction, and building construction shall institute a practice of routinely watering
51 exposed soil to control dust, particularly during windy days.
52
53 20. (MITIGATION MEASURE 8)All inactive, soil piles on the project site shall be completely covered
54 at all times to control fugitive dust.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 22, 2015
Page 12
1 21. (MITIGATION MEASURE 9) All activities involving site preparation, excavation filling, grading,
2 and actual construction shall include a program of washing off trucks leaving the construction site
3 to control the transport of mud and dust onto public streets.
4
5 22. (MITIGATION MEASURE 10) Low emission mobile construction equipment, such as tractors,
6 scrapers, and bulldozers shall be used for earth moving operations.
7
8 23. (MITIGATION MEASURE 11) All earth moving and grading activities shall be suspended if wind
9 speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour.
10
11 24. (MITIGATION MEASURE 12) If, during site preparation or construction activities any historic or
12 prehistoric cultural resources are unearthed and discovered, all work shall immediately be halted,
13 and the City notified of the discovery. The applicant shall be required to fund the hiring of a
14 qualified professional archaeologist to perform a field reconnaissance and to develOp a precise-
15 mitigation program if deemed necessary.
16
17 25. (MITIGATION MEASURE 13) Any new cut and fill slopes along the existing access •road
18 necessary for the minor road widening shall match the existing slope gradient. No cut and fill
19 slopes shall exceed 1.5H:1V in gradient and disturbed slopes shall be planted with deep rooted
20 groundcover. All cut and fill slopes shall be mulched and seeded at the completion of construction
21 to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Director/City Engineer.
22
23 26. (MITIGATION MEASURE 14) Areas to be graded for building construction shall be cleared of
24 artificial fills, vegetation, roots, and loose soil containing organic matter. Surface strippings or
25 other soils containing organic materials cannot be used as fill except in landscape areas.
26
27 27. (MITIGATION MEASURE 15) Areas to receive fill flatter than 5H:1V shall be prepared by
28 removing the weak and compressible surface soils as determined by the geotechnical engineer in
29 the field with concurrence by the City Engineer. Prior to placing any fill material, it shall be
30 inspected and approved by the geotechnical engineer, and a report shall be submitted to the City
31 Public Works Department.
32
33 28. (MITIGATION MEASURE 16) The residence shall be supported by drilled concrete cast-in-place
34 pier and grade beam foundation as described in the Design Level Geotechnical Investigation
35 prepared by PJC &Associates, Inc. and dated July 17, 2006.
36
37 29. (MITIGATION MEASURE 17) Existing fill soil in areas to be constructed with slab-on-grade
38 foundations shall be removed and re-compacted as described in the Design Level Geotechnical
39 Investigation prepared by PJC &Associates, Inc. and dated July 17, 2006.
40
41 30. (MITIGATION MEASURE 18) Any fill placed on slopes steeper than 5H:1V shall be keyed into
42 the existing slope in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building
43 Code, 1997 Edition.
44
45 31. (MITIGATION MEASURE 19) A professional/certified engineer shall routinely inspect all grading
46 work on the project site. Field density tests must be taken during grading in order to evaluate the
47 adequacy of the contractor's work. After grading is completed and the soil engineer has finished
48 the observation of the work; no further excavation or filling shall be done except with the approval
49 of and observation of the soil engineer in consultation with City Public Works Department Staff.
50 The contractor shall be responsible to prevent erosion and water damage of the graded areas
51 and adjoining areas during construction.
52
53 32. (MITIGATION MEASURE 20) All retaining walls shall be designed to resist an active lateral soil
54 pressure of 60 pcf as well as all other design recommendations described in the Design Level
55 Geotechnical Investigation prepared by PJC &Associates, Inc. and dated July 17, 2006.
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 22, 2015
Page 13
1 33. (MITIGATION MEASURE 21)All final grades shall be provided with positive gradients away from
2 foundations to provide rapid removal of surface water runoff to an adequate discharge point. The
3 use of continuous roof gutters is recommended to accomplish water removal.
4
5 34. (MITIGATION MEASURE 22) Surface drainage around building sites shall be directed into
6 natural watercourses, gullies or swales. The outlets for the building site surface drainage features
7 shall be constructed with riprap material or lining materials with prior approval by the City
8 Engineer.
9
10 35. (MITIGATION MEASURE 23) The driveway shall be graded with a cross slope of 1% to 2% from
11 the upslope to downslope side. Water shall be directed to flow across the road rather than
12 channeling it into inboard ditches to decrease surface erosion.
13
14 36. (MITIGATION MEASURE 24) Riprap or other lining materials approved by the City Engineer
15 shall be placed at both the entrances and outlets of all culverts to reduce erosion to insignificant
16 amounts. All surface runoff shall be directed around cut and fill slopes with riprap lined ditches or
17 underground pipes to suitable outlets in nearby natural watercourses.
18
19 37. (MITIGATION MEASURE 25)All grading activities on the site shall be conducted consistent with
20 a Grading Plan for all disturbed areas which shall be submitted to the City Public Work
21 Director/City Engineer for review and approval prior to the commencement of any grading
22 activities.
23
24 38. (MITIGATION MEASURE 26) Prior to any site preparation, excavation, filling, road work,
25 grading, of construction activities, the applicants shall submit, and have approved by the City
26 Engineer; a comprehensive Erosion Control Plan prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer. The
27 comprehensive Erosion Control Plan shall include, but not be limited to the following:
28
29 A. A description of the sequence of construction of the development site stripping and
30 clearing; rough grading; construction of utilities; infrastructure and buildings; and final
31 grading and landscaping. The sequencing shall identify the expected date on which
32 clearing will begin; the estimated duration of exposure of cleared areas, areas of clearing,
33 installation of temporary erosion and sediment control measures, and establishment of
34 permanent vegetation.
35 B. A description of all erosion and sediment control measures necessary to adequately
36 control erosion along the roadway, driveways, home site, and all other areas disturbed as
37 a result of the project.
38 C. Seeding mixtures and rates, types of sod, method of seedbed preparation, expected
39 seeding dates, type and rate of lime and fertilizer application, and the kind and quantity of
40 mulching for both temporary and permanent vegetation control measures.
41 D. Specific measures to ensure no erosion will occur into Gibson Creek.
42 E. Provisions for both short and long-term maintenance of erosion control facilities.
43 F. The City Engineer shall have the authority to require modifications to the submitted
44 Erosion Control Plan that will ensure adequate erosion control.
45 G. Any other elements required by local, State, or Federal law.
46
47 39. (MITIGATION MEASURE 27) The dwelling unit shall be equipped throughout with a fire Sprinkler
48 system that complies with the NFPA 130 Standard or other standards required by the Fire
49 Marshal.
50
51 41. (MITIGATION MEASURE 28) The applicants shall maintain around and adjacent to any such
52 building or structure additional fire protection or firebreak, made by removing excessive brush,
53 flammable vegetation, or combustible growth other than trees for a distance of thirty (30) feet.
54 Grasses and shrubs and other vegetation located within thirty feet (30') of the residence that is
55 less than 18 inches in height above the ground may be maintained where necessary to stabilize
56 the soil and prevent erosion.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 22, 2015
Page 14
1
2 42. (MITIGATION MEASURE 29) Remove that portion of any tree that extends within
3 approximately ten feet(10') of the outlet of any chimney or stovepipe.
4
5 43. (MITIGATION MEASURE 30) Provide and maintain at all times a screen over the outlet of
6 every chimney or stovepipe that is attached to any fireplace, stove, or other device that burns any
7 solid or liquid fuel. The screen shall be constructed of non-flammable material with openings of
8 not more than one-half inch in size.
9
10 44. (MITIGATION MEASURE 31) Disposal, including chipping, burying, burning or removal to an
11 approved disposal facility, flammable vegetation and fuels .caused by site development and
12 construction, road and driveway construction, and fuel modification shall be completed prior to
13 completion of road construction or final inspection of a building permit, whichever is appropriate.
14
15 45. (MITIGATION MEASURE 32) The roof covering on any structure regulated by this ordinance
16 shall have a minimum class A fire rating. Wood shingles and shakes, including fire retardant
17 treated type, are expressly prohibited.
18
19 46. (MITIGATION MEASURE 33) The residence shall be integrated into the water tank alarm
20 system.
21
22 47. Hours of- construction shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, except
23 for owner occupied single-family construction which can also occur from 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
24 on Sunday provided no heavy construction equipment or vehicles are utilized.
25
26 48. Prior to the commencement of grading or other site improvement activities associated with the
27 construction of the dwelling unit and/or accessory structures, the applicant shall prepare and
28 submit a Mitigation Compliance Plan verifying when and how the required mitigation measures
29 will be complied with. The applicant shall fund and/or contract with qualified professionals such as
30 civil and geotechnical engineers and landscape architects and/or specialists to verify compliance
31 with all mitigation measures, and to prepare field reports for submittal to the City.
32
33 The Mitigation Compliance Plan shall also specifically address how the adopted mitigation
34 measures will be successfully implemented over the long term during construction and on an
35 ongoing basis.
36
37 The Mitigation Compliance Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planning Director'
38 prior to the commencement of grading activities. The Director shall have the authority to require
39 changes to the Mitigation Compliance Plan prior to approving it to ensure that it contains a thoughtful
40 and comprehensive strategy for successfully implementing the required mitigation measures in both the
41 short and long term.
42
43 The Mitigation Compliance Plan shall include, but not be limited to the following:
44
45 A. A discussion of how daily logs will be prepared during all site preparation and
46 construction activities detailing how all applicable mitigation measures are complied with.
47 B. A discussion of how contractors will be advised about the required mitigation- measures,
48 and supervised for strict compliance.
49 C. The names of qualified professional monitoring personnel such as civil and geotechnical
50 engineers, botanists, landscape architects, etc. The required professional monitoring
51 personnel shall be retained by the applicants, or by the City at the applicant's expense.
52 D. A list of the required mitigation measures and who will be responsible for implementing
53 and supervising the completion of the measures. The list shall be organized in the
54 following categories:
55 a. mitigation measures required prior to issuance of a grading permit;
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 22, 2015
Page 15
1 b. mitigation measures required prior to issuance of the Building Permit;
2 c. mitigation measures required prior to final inspection and issuance of the permit
3 of occupancy; and
4 d. mitigation measures required on an ongoing basis.
5 e. A timeframe for the submittal of regular status/compliance reports detailing how
6 and when each mitigation measure is complied with, and who inspected and
7 verified the work. The reports shall also describe the effectiveness of the
8 mitigation measures in off-setting the environmental impacts. The City Planning
9 Director shall review and approve the timeframe for the report submittals, and
10 shall be responsible for reviewing, approving, and filing the submitted reports.
11 The timeframe for report preparation and submittal shall be regular enough to
12 provide the City with a comfort level that all required mitigation measures are
13 being implemented and are effective at mitigating the identified environmental
14 impacts.
15
16 49. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, an updated Geotechnical Report must be submitted that
17 includes analysis and recommendations for the proposed pool.
18
19 50. Tree/protection for native Oaks of DBH of 8"as shown on the landscaping plan require:
20
21 g) Care shall be taken when digging under ground near the base of the trees to be
22 protected and preserved.
23 h) All digging within 6-feet of the base of the trees shall be done by hand.
24 i) Any holes dug for construction (such as foundations, fence posts, utilities)shall avoid
25 roots 4 inches or greater by relocating these holes to an area where roots do not exceed
26 4 inches.
27 j) Dumping of chemical, washing equipment, and/or stacking of loose debris on or near root
28 zones and near the creek is prohibited.
29 k) Any work near the creek shall be performed consistent with industry and environmental
30 standards in order to prevent damage to vegetation on the bank.
31 I) Installation of protective fencing and protective buffer around the base of native Oaks at
32 8"DBH.
33
34 51. Per Mitigation Measure 22 and Condition of approval 34 above, the outfall for the drainage pipes
35 into the natural steep drainage swales shall include energy dissipation material such as riprap to
36 protect against erosion.
37
38 Break: 7:12 p.m.
39 Reconvene: 7:22 p.m.
40
41 9B. Mountanos General Plan Amendment and Planned Development Rezoning/Precise
42 Development Plan (File 13-28-PC-CC). Consideration and possible recommendation to the City
43 Council on a request to amend the General Plan and rezone a parcel to facilitate the
44 development of a duplex apartment housing project located on a vacant parcel at 334 North Main
45 Street.
46
47 Commissioner Sanders recused herself from participating in the review of the proposed Mountanos
48 General Plan Amendment and Planned Development Rezoning/Precise Development Plan.
49
50 Planning Director Stump gave a staff report/PowerPoint presentation and:
51 • Noted related to the General Plan Amendment and referred to attachments 6 and 7 of the staff
52 report that the proposed General Plan Amendment involves replacing the current Downtown
53 Master Plan Area General Plan map with the Downtown Master Plan Area map from the 1992
54 adopted Downtown Revitalization Master Plan. What is assumed is that the General Plan map
55 intended to reflect the Revitalization Master Plan map, but a mapping error occurred. By using the
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 22, 2015
Page 16
1 1992 Downtown Revitalization Master Plan map, an additional 49 parcels would be added to the
2 map in the General Plan. By including these parcel such that any that were less than '/z acre in
3 size would become eligible for a future Planned Development project similar to the proposed
4 project.
5 • Staff conducted a survey and analysis of these parcels to determine how many of the parcels
6 were less than '/2 acre in size, and of those, how many had additional development potential in
7 terms of number of housing units. Of the 49 parcels 37 were determined to be under '/2 acre in
8 size and could potentially utilize the Planned Development tool to increase density and create
9 more housing opportunities to occur. A map correction will not only allow for consistency with the
10 Ukiah General Plan, particularly with regard to the Housing Element but allow the proposed
11 project to move forward.
12 • Page 7 of the staff report as it relates to the 37 parcels, indicates only one was vacant and is
13 owned by the City and only 4 were deemed to have additional development potential.
14 • The owner of a small vacant parcel in close proximity to the downtown is proposing to construct a
15 building with two separate 550 sq. ft. apartments over the individual garages.
16 • Based on the requirement of the C-1 (Community Commercial Zoning District) the parcel is too
17 small in area to allow such a development.
18 • The owner is pursuing lot size requirement relief though a Planned Development/Precise
19 Development application.
20 • The problem is that PD applications on parcels less than '/2 acre in size can only be pursued if a
21 number of criteria are satisfied and one of those is that the parcel falls within the Downtown
22 Master Plan area as shown on General Plan Figure V1.2-KK (attachment 6 of the staff report). As
23 noted above, it was determined this figure is inconsistent with the Downtown Master Plan Area
24 Map found in City Council 1992 adopted Downtown Revitalization Master Plan. This necessitates
25 a General Plan amendment to correct the map and allow this project to move forward along with
26 a General Plan amendment to change the land use designation from C (Commercial) to HDR
27 (High Density Residential).
28 • As provided for in the PowerPoint Presentation and in attachment 4 of the staff report discussed
29 the project description/supplemental information, showed colors/materials and site plans.
30 • Finds the project to be great and a benefit to the community.
31 • Staff recommends approval and is asking the Planning Commission to recommend the City
32 Council: 1) approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration; 2) adopt a Resolution amending the
33 General Plan; and, 3) Introduce/adopt a Planned Development Ordinance/Precise Development
34 Plan.
35
36 Commissioner Christensen:
37 • Which way will the garage door face?
38 • Questioned how the elevations were labeled/identified on the site plans.
39 • Requested clarification regarding attachment 6.
40
41 Commissioner Hilliker:
42 • Who is responsible for maintenance of the alleyway?
43 • Asked if certain improvements are necessary for the project?
44
45 Acting Chair Watt:
46 • Related to the inadvertent mapping error that involves correcting the Downtown Master Plan Area
47 map contained in the 1995 General Plan (Figure VI-2KK: Downtown Master Plan Area) to be
48 consistent with the 1992 City Council adopted Downtown Master Plan Area Map contained in the
49 Downtown Revitalization Master Plan and inquired whether the Commission is being asked to
50 recommend Council adopt and/or correct the entire area that is the subject of discussion as
51 shown on attachments 6 and 7 of the staff report since the inconsistency adversely affects the
52 proposed project because parcels smaller than '/2 acre are not eligible for the Planned
53 Development tool unless they are located in the Downtown Master Plan area.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 22, 2015
Page 17
1 • Related to the Resolution Amending the General Plan asked about the procedure that involves
2 the mapping correction. Requested clarification that essentially the Commission is recommending
3 the General Plan be amended to include the affected area.
4
5 Planning Director Stump:
6 • The garage doors will face Main Street and referred to the site plans in this regard.
7 • Confirmed there was an error on the site plans Commissioner Christensen was referencing with
8 regard to the east elevation. There were essentially two sets of site plans.
9 • It is a public alleyway. Does not believe anyone maintains this.
10 • There will be some improvements that need to be done such as access paving, curb/gutter/ADA
11 complaint work and drainage work and showed the location. There will no extensive work done to
12 the alleyway.
13 • Confirmed the project does involve correcting the Downtown Master Plan Area map contained in
14 the 1995 General Plan (Figure VI.2KK: Downtown Master Plan Area) to be consistent with the
15 1992 City Council adopted Downtown Master Plan Area Map contain in the Downtown
16 Revitalization Master Plan. Essentially the current General Plan figure will be replaced with the
17 map that contains the correct figure. The corresponding mapping inconsistency adversely affects
18 the proposed infill PD housing development project. The proposed General Plan Amendment also
19 changes the land use classification of the PD project from Commercial to High Density
20 Residential.
21 • The General Plan Resolution contains a mapping exhibit that shows the affected area as
22 referenced in attachment 7 of the staff report and confirmed the Commission is recommending
23 the General Plan be amended to include the affected area such that the 1992 Downtown Master
24 Plan map includes the applicanYs property so if the General Plan is amended to reflect this map,
25 the applicant can proceed with the PD project on the 5,128 square foot parcel on N. Main Street.
26 • Attachment 6 of the staff report represents the current General Plan map. The attachment 7 map
27 in the staff report will replace the attachment 6 map.
28
29 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 7:37 p.m.
30
31 Mark Mountanos:
32 • Is available to answer questions the Commission may have.
33
34 Commissioner Christensen:
35 • Asked if the housing units would be market rate?
36 • Referred to attachment 4 concerning a property management plan and asked about this since a
37 Management Plan for the project is required as a condition of approval.
38
39 Commissioner Hilliker:
40 • Are the garages intended for two cars?
41
42 Acting Chair Watt:
43 • How long does Mountanos Properties typically keep ownership of their rental units?
44
45 Mark Mountanos:
46 • Confirmed the housing units will be market rate.
47 • Related to a property management plan and explained that Mountanos Properties does their own
48 property management and this is done on a weekly basis where maintenance is done to all the
49 properties. Mountanos Properties has managed all of its properties for over 15 years and is of the
50 opinion a formal property management plan is not necessary.
51 • Confirmed the garages are two car garages and are not intended to be used as a storage facility.
52 • Mountanos Properties do not sell their properties.
53
54 Planning Director Stump:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 22, 2015
Page 18
1 • The Property Management Plan for the project does not have to be extensive and this is because
2 the applicant has effectively been managing his properties locally for a long time as opposed to
3 someone who is an absentee landowner.
4
5 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:41 p.m.
6
7 Commissioner Christensen:
8 • Asked how the proposed mapping change to the General Plan map might impact some of the
9 other properties in the affected area that are less than '/z acre in size.
10 • Is mixed-use allowed in a PD?
11
12 Acting Chair Watt:
13 • What difference does the map correction do compared to the way it is now?
14 • Requested clarification that the map correction is essentially correcting what was limiting
15 development potential.
16 • Requested clarification the mapping correction has already been contemplated by the
17 environmental analysis for the adopted Downtown Revitalization Master Plan.
18 • Are there meeting minutes available relative to the 1995 adoption of the General Plan that
19 contemplated the subject areas being discussed tonight in Attachment 7 of the staff report.
20 • Were there any presentations given to Council and/or the Planning Commission at that time that
21 specifically addressed Figure VI.2-KK concerning the General Plan map that was adopted.
22 • Are we concerned at all that the environmental analysis of the General Plan would not have
23 covered the Downtown Master Plan Area map contained in the 1995 General Plan (Figure VI.2-
24 KK: Downtown Master Plan Area) or does the Mitigated Negative Declaration provide defense for
25 this?
26
27 Planning Director Stump:
28 • The hope/intent is that such properties would be able to take advantage of the Planned
29 Development tool with the opportunity to increase density. As such, each parcel was looked at as
30 to what the development potential would be taking into consideration site constraints etc., and
31 from this documentation asked the question how many additional units could be built in the
32 subject area as a result of the map change. As specifically addressed on page 7 of the staff
33 report, staff determined 23 additional housing units could potentially be constructed on these
34 parcels via the Planned Development process.
35 • Confirmed mixed-use would be acceptable in a PD.
36 • The difference is that in order to do a PD on a parcel less than '/z acre in size it has to be within
37 the boundaries of the map as shown in attachment 7.
38 • Confirmed the map correction allows the opportunity for potential development that is presently
39 limited and that which also limits the flexibility to create a development, which is what a PD
40 does/allows.
41 • The Downtown Revitalization Master Plan was adopted by Council in 1992 and no associated
42 environmental document can be found that was prepared for this plan. Staff reviewed the 1995
43 General Plan files to see if it could be determined why Figure VI.2-KK (attachment 6 of the staff
44 report) included in the Downtown Master Plan Area is inconsistent with Downtown Revitalization
45 Master Plan map and no determination could be made.
46 • Staff could find no associated minutes.
47 • Has no knowledge of any presentations.
48 • It may be the matter was just an inadvertent mapping error. There may have been specific
49 discussion concerning Figure VI.2-KK in the Downtown Master Plan Area General Plan map.
50 • Confirmed the Mitigated Negative Declaration does provide the necessary defense.
51
52 M/S Hilliker/Christensen to recommend City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration as
53 provided for in attachment 3 of the staff report. Motion carried (4-0).
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 22, 2015
Page 19
1 M/S Christensen/Hilliker to recommend City Council adopt a Resolution amending the General Plan as
2 provided for in attachment 1 of the staff report. Motion carried (4-0).
3
4 M/S Hilliker/Christensen to recommend City Council Introduce/Adopt a Planned Development
5 Ordinance/Precise Development Plan as provided for in attachment 2 of the staff report. Motion carried
6 (4-0).
7
8 10. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
9 Planning Director Stump:
10 • Provided an update on current planning projects and upcoming projects for Commission review.
11
12 Commissioner Hilliker:
13 • Asked about soil contamination concerning a property now owned by the City on N. Main Street
14 that was formerly a trailer park.
15
16 Commissioner Sanders:
17 • Related to the recommended actions the Commission just voted on for agenda item 9B inquired
18 how this action corresponds/'lines up'with the DZC?
19
20 Planning Director Stump
21 • There could have been soil contamination but the bigger issue was relocation of the tenants by
22 the former property owner to accommodate a housing development that did not happen.
23 • The area discussed in agenda item 9B is located outside the DZC boundaries so the DZC
24 standards do not apply.
25
26 11. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
27 Commissioner Hilliker:
28 • Observed a portion of Ford Street was closed so that sidewalk improvements, etc., could be done
29 for the housing project on Ford Street that the Planning Commission approved.
30
31 12. ADJOURNMENT
32 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:41 p.m.
33
34
35 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
36
37
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 22, 2015
Page 20
�.�lt�hmem� . � ._._�
Michelle Johnsnn
Fromc Miehelle 1 ohnson
Sent: Wed7esday,July 22,2015 d:Ld Nh��
To: ':maviation�pa[rfie.neY;'lau raem�sB[glohal.�eY;'mshi Ili kerr�comcast.neY;
'W�ttt��lAt033so�ia�s.mm';'kaderli�junn_�om�
Su6jeek: ,4dditional Candrtions of Approval Plann ng Comrnise,ion p7222QiS
bfiportance: High
Good afternoon Cornmissioners,
I have included two additional Conditions o#Appraval in regards ta the proposcd pool, and
ane in regards ta the 4ak Trees; I will have a hard copy available ak #anighYs meeting. In
additlon Kevin lennfngs wfll 6e available far questions at tanight's meeting.
1. "Prior to draining the pool, the praperty owner shall consult with the City �vilding
Official to determine if the draining of the�ool is necessary,and if it is that all state and
Incal la+,vs are camplied with and the draining is perfarmed in a +,uay that does not
impact neighboring properties or the natural environment.
2, "Prior ta the issuanre af a huilding permit, an updated Geotechnical Report rnust be
su6mikted that indudes analysis and reeommendatians for the proposed.
3, "Tree/pratection#❑r native�aks of aBH a#8"require:
a. Care shall be taken when digging under groufld near the 6ase of the trees to he
protcctcd and preserved,
b, All digging within 6-feet af the 6ase of the trees shall 6e done by hand,
c. Any hales dug for construction {sucN as fnundations, fente posts, utilities] shaEl
avoid roots�inches or greater 6y relncating these holes tq an area where roots
do nok exteed A in�hes.
r1, 6umping n#chemical,washing equipment, and}or stacking of loase debris on ar
'� near roat xones and near#he ereek is prnhi6ited.
, e. Any vuark near #he creek shall be perfarmed cnnsistent with industry and
envirvnmental standards in order to preuent damage to uegetatinn on the bank.
f. Installation af pratective fencing and protective bufFer around the base af native
Oaks at S"DSH.��
See you tanight,
-Michelle
i
1
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 22, 2015
Page 21
�4�9�hm�n,v_° �•
July 2D,2[f15
Jk ah�la nning�epartrnent
This letter Is�ncermng the proposed I lul3 resldcn�lpoa!onJinx orive.
My�on�ern is lhe addilion of a permit!o hui�d a pp41,whicn whe�oo�utructed musk wntaln water,
Where is this wat�r tv come from7lt was sald Hull has a"wefl"on thc prn�erty,and a pnol an h�filled
.l:l liing":hls"wazer.Thls water Is partaf the"�amrnnns"a resnuror.which fhP rnmmunirysfrarws.
:alitornia is in a dr�o�,ght,ar�d has heen far a flum4er pf ygars,wa[ci sueked f•4m Underglound scurces
has reduoed groundwaLer hasieis,aquafers and suh-�rrain wa[er ypurqes.
As ppnple r.ry cr are fnrasd 2o rwdur.a fhePr wat?r[xnsWmption across talifornle,i�clrc4e thls is not�he
appropriate timc to start issuing perrnits for prit�ate s'ngle farnily reside�al popls.Even iF the prnpertY
owner s:ates he will not he filling[he pq41�t thi;tlflle-I bCIIeVC Ot]OC 8 PCf115�t 45 15LI1Cd B�1'S011 h38!he
righ�_.0 act upnn lhee ilem permiLled_
RECEIVEQ
si��e-ely. Jl1L 212015
� � CLT3'OF UKLLII
SLIL6EY{;f PL�I'IdIVG i38PhR77AFYT
Be�ky Thune
uklah resldcnt
1
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 22, 2015
Page 22
Michel�e JoE�nsan
From: {hariey Stump
Se�� Wednesday,Jul}'�z,�C�LS 7=5fi Rh�
Ta: Kev�n Thvmason:Mi�helleJohnson
Su�J�sY FVl:hillside develapmer�t
FYI
Charlry St�mp,�ireetar
Plannin�and Communi[y 6evelopment
c�ty oruw�r,
300 Seminary Auenue,Llkiah,CR 95482
�707]�fi3-6z19}[Slu�p�sliy�ukiah.ivm.
pla n ni ne.@tdvofu&iah.�oe�
---4R3ina1 Message----
F rom:[harley�stum p
$ent:Wednesday,July 21,2015 7:55 AM
To:'Pinky livahner'
Su4iect:RE=hilisi�e deveioomenS
Thanks,Rinky. IF a hillside hegins er�odingfrom a leaking poal,I'd imagine thase ooncemed vmuld find the leak and
repa I r It. I J ust d�d a qulck look at th e Yal ley and io u nd over 25 pools i n hillsid e areas-some a hrn e other res ide nces.
The 6uilding O#ficiaF and I hava not h�ard of any hillSid2 fdI�U�S 4r 4th2r ISS�°5 41[f1C Vdl�e}�dUP I6�edklfl$D4415,
.additionally,to our knatvledge,pools are Infrequcntry arained. 7he only r�asan co drai�them is ho make a repair. They
arenattypicallyarF•equentlydrainedFardeanins. Weare�nawar=_pfanypvaldrainingi55uesa55ociatedwithtt�e
other hlllside pools in[he 4alley. I'll ask aro•.�nd and see iF I can ar,y sp��ifi�infarrnation.
C.h�flpV Srllmp,UI�1PitOf
Planning and Comm�nity develapment
City of Uklah
300 Seiniriary Averiue,Ukiahi,CA 95482
(7f}7J-06i-fi�19{r.atiimnm7r.it+mfukiah,�qm
pla nni ne��itrolukiah,eom
•�••�Ori�irial Me�Mge-----
Frnm:PinkyKi�shnPr fmaihn:ninka&ushne��n�_�,c6m�
Se n[:W ed ne sday,J u ly 22,2015 7:33 kM
Ta:Cha�ey SturnP
5•d6jri l=Re=lii Ilsidr developrrienL
Charley,
i know th3i i8me 3nCh1[eCLS u5e 3 p4o1 bs b 5la6ilicer for a fiillside. My mam did that fnr a house she dasigned{huill in
Chattamaga,where wz iiwrd. W1y quPStinn really pertain5 tn a leaks and water discharge5 generally, "hegins IPaking'
Leaks are somet�mes hard ko detecC,yet they can erode a hil side. klw,what a6out when the pool is"emptied"Far
cleanin@? P
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 22, 2015
Page 23
Cathy Elawadly
Fram; 6en Hih�hman�dhihshrrian��st7c�o��l.net�
5ent: 44e�'nesday_July 22,Z{]1 5 S'P4 Mi
To= Ceihy Ela•rradly
guhject: praposed buil�ingori Jaiiix
Hella,
I'm wflting t4 say that wh�le I am not specifcal�y opposed to another horna being buitt vn Janix,
InCffl�6ed density in the waotled hills�nrilh anly on4 muie o(egress is of conoem in the fire season
and 6eyand_I hape Ch2tthere crauld ha snmr ather route forthe residenks s�nd gueSLS o1[}lls long,
long'upper Stantlley StraaY'area.
As a resident nf siandley 5t.{925 W.St�ndl�y.between Hope and�arnes Stree#s,in ather words,
"lowar StandleyJ,I noke[h�t the[�afflC d0nslry��Id speed afe qulte in#ense_Paople corne'ofF the hili'
at hig'�speeds and disreg&rd[he posted speed Ilm�t slgns.Thls Is problernatic in the 6est of times,
�nd I believa khat wer�there a nahlydl d'ISaster,suCh as a fir�or earthquske,ther�e cnuld 6e seriaus
pro6lems for rescue warkers and residants.
Thac7k yau faf consldefing the length af this str�t and the numbers of people populat�ng the hill and
areas wes#of oora.
Sincareiy,
Leslie Kirkpalrlck
i
1
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 22, 2015
Page 24
' � �5��'QChR7rii� . �
Citw af UkiAh
LTI�IAH FIRY;ll�YARThZEN`I'
PROJECT RE�IE��' C�MMENTS
PRf].IF.('T: [se Permit for 5in�le Yaoiilg 1Resideoce-Hillnidc
APF Ni}.r hTuniy#707
LCH:AT[{}N: 315.Tanix 11r-
DATF.: 2±Sf 2015
RES'IEF'4EDB4': 1{euin.Ichnin�,Di�;siunChicfJ FireMarahal
Fire fJepartm�nf Project Revicrw Camrr3endx ure bcst recamrne�datio�.s bclsed up����
tiaa anfnx'rMalaan s+rb��td7c.c�rrnd do r,o1 c:oM.eritatte hirlding co�dl�io�ls'ox appxuuul uf
e�ri}'r�.sp�cd of 2h�pl ojct:t. .Sj3eca�c con�t�cr�5,r�c�u+l�htends unc2 u{tprokuLr ur-e
ennd�teFed ore2y upnr�recetpt pf P�RNS iM COM,jt#k'f+Or�wifh u��App2icatinn fnr Ruitding
Per•mir. ('mm�rersr,r s�c�as IacaalaM afsrreernumbers, dnnr cFe ex�t.ri�s,�pe
exitt�t��F�ers,frr�;dun�s&ne��urkin�;areas, Ff�r.[ricnf s6tf+to�[rccc�.5s,sc�rrre lnck
fiax,�re a�armr, .cmnke detectors and orher raasliire i�yuircm�nts�vitt Fie anraotated
wher�cnn.strucrian pfans are ret�ie4ved far u permi€_Lncrrrians sho�rrr are,for co�acep�
orrfy,,4cra+Ml.loe.aaiarrs wi2[b�fr�ld iderrtifiee�ha+fhe F�r�I'YPVEiif70TJ BtLYPfizt,
f'mjcct icvi.w Fccs frrr dvs i,fe pcm,u nr:salculaied and rstained arJd x�ill tc app'i�d st dM tin>>OCzpprukal of lhe
Building Pc,rtn`t Any opplica6lc�lan rrvicw tinie chrrg2s incuned t3uring Pre-P�njec[R:view arc includod wil�i Plnn
KCYICw�KC:Llll�ll�'LI1C�J1I�l1U°PCR1LlL.�PPIl:.O[1�11�11'�C:99.
Commant$.
i. Project is Ivcated wilhin our local Hfgh Fir�Sereriiy Zpr�and as such shal€
cornpky with specific requirements as ilsted within tf�e Ca_Fire Cpde,2073
editian.ChaP#srd9 Sec4ans 49a7—4907.
3. Na improvernenffi ta existing access rdadway wil!6e requirad_
3. Res9denae Identlflaatian,New and existing 4uildings Bhall have appra+red
addre�s numbers pl�fnly legible and visihle frvm tf�e street.CFC Sec.5Q5.
4. F{nax Bqx f Gate AGCess.Thls IS a��ted"privata°residential area and la
locstad hehind a priv�te�CCe3s wkh An�ppl'opria#e lockfor Fire i}epartrnent
access.This aecass shall be mafnmined.Changes in atatus o#this gaee ahall
he immediat�ly 4roughtto the attentlon of#Ne City Fire EYlarshall.
7nere may be mure recommendatio�s when plans are submitted far review as pan of the
6uilding permit prooess_However fnr the purposa of"Project Review"the afare mentivned
recommer�dations have 6een su6mifked.
1
2
3
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 22, 2015
Page 25
r
�RC C�MME�TS
17ATT'; Fcbniary 11,2015
ri.�,���nc�Pr•.�r�iTk: ?a4
Ul4'�r.EL'tlPl'L1C.'�N'1: fared Hull ��
PROI'ERTY!4DU1t�SS: 315]ani.[]r.
IR��4: llac�id W'illoughhy[fSuildin�Clffcifil)
13ui]dir��Ircrm;ls 1;•ill b:rcquircd fartktc ronsu�ctiQna�'tf�e pn�pascd SPDwith
�tta�•]Y��ars(�es �
TI1C[C]lIOWLRg C4flllt3E]][5�l'B 1f][.8[i�BC[.Ci�l�d thc upplicAnt m rcalixin�some o:tk�e it�rr:s
rcquircd to b:.incorporF.tn�intlta 6uildiu�m�r]Plans y1•hcn submicled farthc Lui:dina
�emi i i.Th i�i 4 ncsi r�p1Hn chrck fnr tltic perinit.
• �'+4��«<(;P�Rni4 muy be rrc{uiecd,
• A�JCOIrC�1lLC[l�IC4p4C[J3 te�LLLxLI,
+ 1l urpeurs lha�:omc af Ihe constniction dnes r�rt rRGK�cor.rcnt:onaJ
ca»sin��:iun maaircrnrnts and��•ill rcqu:i�a L'sliforr.ia l:.ccns:�?�rhiccc[
andfor an F.nginaer ui dzsi�n,
+ Thc henic x�ll Ix]�x:�red�E�_l��T.T�;�Vrry High Firc Scverit}•la�ie whiieh
reyuires 4peci[ic huilding roateiia:s:s}•s�ems snrllurasscmbliis nsed i�rl�a
exterinraesi�n and const�ctionofdia huildic�g;n lhc�L'ildland-L�:bar.
le�.zrfa�e f'ire Arcu,ItEeniify thcsc rcquilcmen�s un ihc p;uns 41�hca
su6initting tnr the huilrlin�p;.rmi�,
1
2
3
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 22, 2015
Page 26
i •
Michelle lohnsnn
prom limmy 44zan4
Sl11S: FIh1f5C 5}r.FCh rua ry 65,2�15 71C AM
Ta h4ichelle fohnson
$uhject: Proje�[Review COfT1s+lRtPB RBEeffel:ML1N[5•t'7�7{5irtgle Family Residente� 315 lanix
fariv�r-lared kullj
H�M��4h�llr,
[�r+er�in��he Uss Yermit f�r Siaalo Family Rcsidco-:r az31S Isn3x B�i4k(Iarml![ull!,IFG CIEChI[dC�IC�Cd[LE9 OLL}'O1L:[Uy�p�td[
:+nthis pr�jocc tvizw.The City�oFLfkiali Fl�r�;�i�,�4mrn�dces va��?aci�sa]]}•fccd�e pmpascd pareel.Tk��lnr,�Y ihi�.�c
DeL•rl�pmeol is�is+ocely xnnd 6;•raa��ocmas ar�i s€condsry Fsci]icizR chaz xrc irz�ed hy 1hs Hnll-Piffero s�bdivisiau{u�s�rrt}�
�u�iara.'1'ha i:[}I Ih.11 r.l.x:rnr f t:il;i�r.s r.nd:�I[he hnhom o-the hill,at eur pad mount sia�iccli(PM�RIL:1} ��rom 1hia�iat on d�a
prLvsry�endsccandar}•facilitics ar=nrivut�[}�ntsn:e�i a�sA rrarri,�rr�l h,�nrhers 2,ng sxoadfn��ancz«oua made m che�LLtirflm:r'�
scniee pnneP nill ba mude bya�hsrs.
3hould}�u hare anyqu�civ��fte]tiee w�oncact mc.
Tkisuks.l���ue
Iim Lozana
�lectricol L•snm:..�'F]¢nner
C;�y of ilk;al�
1320 Airpon Road
Uloal�{:i ys.t�{x
Pil:"q7.4F?53?6
F]{=70?hd?-.".3 i]
il;,rmc•dr.iloufuk-;ih rnm
1
1
2
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 22, 2015
Page 27
Michclle Jnhnsan
Fram: 7rent Taylor
Se�� N,onday,Jufy 2�7,26f5 2A0 PA,�
Ta: h�lichelle Jahnso n
Suh}aet: RC:TrafficJanix prive ar.d Sundley Street
i H�t and H�i7 to a m�il boK an x�ndley ncar�ts entcrsecuon witf��anin orive on 1o/is/io
11n1ur}�Crashon.anir:Driretl�hereadrluerranof�ofJariix�rivcromingdolvnt7ehil on5{1{12.
From:Michelle]ohnson
$ent:Plonday,]uly 20,2015 10:43 RP+]
Tp;Trenk Taylor
9uhject:Traffic Janix�riva and Standfev Stiaet
Importance:H'qh
Csand m 6rn in�1'rent,
I ain g0i�g SO Pldnning�qmmi55�9n q�1+V�dfl2Sddy JUI}�22�tl W�th 18Ytd I lull requesl for AppraJal�huild a Single Fami{+{
Horrie aL 315]dnix�riv�.Gary Nix�a;ne in tfiis morning with concens r�gara�ng Ii4fYd5ed Sr�ff�p��xdfldl°_y and lanlx;
CI1r3fIP.Y fP[�lIP.STP.{I I f.I1P.CICIf1 Wl'I7 WDllii}.SP.P f7I1pfF I1r3VF�P�B�YVphIC�L'ntt.dCFlt5�Nh2YB 12FlIk2rYd5landly5treet
meetas identiflcd onthe map Uclow.
t� - ,
x
; �`bs,. wxs+�
3 T��
�an�K
� ���h�
, F,.-:..
Tfiank ya�far youT help wi:h this.
-Mi�helle
�.�cs.��1i.'?Li' rf}/�i:i5:�'Yf
l5S515[3f1`.4��df1 M1Pf
[Ity af�kati
Rl:;�ini�y;ir�d Gnmriu:i:ly�:wrtlup�nun•,Orp:;r;rrrt
3ff7 Semirary?,errnic,likiah,CA 95?82
1
1
2
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 22, 2015
Page 28
Int�r�ffice Memor�ndum � y `�
_ ���.
To� Michene.lohnson,AssistantPlanner
Frorn:Ben Kageyam�,�4niqr Cfvi1 EnglnOer
aate: March 3,2fl15
Re: PmJect ReUlew Car-irnittee Rafarral File#Td��Jse Petml[for Singls
Family Residence—Hills9de;�oc�`,pd at 31�Janlx D:ive
The pepartmerit of Publlc Worlss}ias reviev�ed the applie.atinn inrthe a6ove rw�d
prnject a�d has the followir�comment
Yaur atterition:s directed to canditions of appraval ior Majar Use Permik
No.p6-44{Thomas),whicn are also applicahle�o this pmject,Note t�e
previaus gecrt9r.hnieal report has been updsted 6y�JG 8 Assqciates on
January 3,2�13,
9:Wlnnnin�SD174E1 S.lanii�rlre_!In9�e Fam11y Reeitlenelal fIP.PC1Projet��4�RI'F119�7UT.lafa4 Hull 5lnpla f5mlly Reiidmcc�3�SAOe
]
1
2
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 22, 2015
Page 29
Michelle Jahnsvn
Fram: Brn KagCy�m�
Sent Monday,July�0,2C15 1��9 PM
Tp: Mi�helle Joh�son
5W6]ec7; �=-Traffic lanix f}ri4e�nd StanrlleySS'eet
Ther=_sho.�ld be no Issue urlkh ad�nga s�n�le�amily hometvilhl�anzppravcdsubdivisien prcje�t..an n�t awareofany
tfdfflC Sa�tY issues dl Lfis interse�tiuii_
f1°n
Benl3m:n Kagayam�,?.C.
Sen�ar Ciw.i Fng�neer
�iSv�r Ukiah_Puh:ic Warks�cp�rlmcrl
��a��a,3a�i28d
From:hlichelle]ohreon
Sent:Monday,.7uly 2a,Z015 14:5z AM1t
ra:sen liaaeyama
5ulr�acC 7rafflc J3nlx Ori++e and Standley Street
amporeance:Mlgh
Goo�morning Bru,
I am gcing ta�lannin�Commission an 44ednesdayJuly 22`�tivith Jarad Full request for hpproval ta huild a Single Fam�ly
I lome at 31S Janiu:�riv�.C�ary IVix{ame in khis mornin�with:onCerns regarding inereasCd traFfi�on Standley and Janix;
Charley reyuesled I cf�eck iii vri:fi yuu lu see if lf�ere is potential t�a#fi�issues Whgre Janix���$XdfldlV Stfeet R12Et 35
icentified nn iFe map he]oiv.
'r.: ' '' , .
d
S
� �'y.� L�ee9rn
� � �
��.
�an�x �
a
7 r..:�'
�{ h:•
7hank you�r ypur help wi�h this.
-M�:helle
1
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 22, 2015
Page 30