HomeMy WebLinkAbout09092015 - packet CITY OF UKIAH
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
September 9, 2015
6:00 P.M.
1. CALL TO ORDER 6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
UKIAH CIVIC CENTER, 300 SEMINARY AVENUE
2. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS WATT, HILLIKER,
CHRISTENSEN, SANDERS, CHAIR WHETZEL
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes from the August 12, 2015 meeting are included for review and
approval.
5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
The Planning Commission welcomes input from the audience. In order for
everyone to be heard, please limit your comments to three (3) minutes per
person and not more than ten (10) minutes per subject. The Brown Act
regulations do not allow action to be taken on audience comments.
6. APPEAL PROCESS
All determinations of the Planning Commission regarding major discretionary
planning permits are final unless a written appeal, stating the reasons for the
appeal, is filed with the City Clerk within ten (10) days of the date the decision
was made. An interested party may appeal only if he or she appeared and
stated his or her position during the hearing on the decision from which the
appeal is taken. For items on this agenda, the appeal must be received by
September 14, 2015 at 5:00 p.m.
7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION
8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE
9. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Gobbi Street Apartments Use Permit, 680 S. State Street,
(File No. 1174-PC-UP). Request for Planning Commission approval of a
Major Use Permit to construct a 26-unit multi-family housing development at
the corner of W. Gobbi Street and S. Oak Street, APN: 002-301-55.
Americans with Disabilities Act Accommodations.Please be advised that the City needs to be notified 72 hours in advance of a
meeting if any specific accommodations or interpreter services are needed in order for you to attend.The City complies with
ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities upon request. Please call (707)
463-6752 or(707)463-6207 to arrange accommodations.
10. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
11. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
12. AD]OURNMENT
Americans with Disabilities Act Accommodations.Please be advised that the City needs to be notified 72 hours in advance of a
meeting if any specific accommodations or interpreter services are needed in order for you to attend.The City complies with
ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities upon request. Please call (707)
463-6752 or(707)463-6207 to arrange accommodations.
1 UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 August 12, 2015
3 Minutes
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
6 Mike Whetzel, Chair
7 Christopher Watt
8 Mark Hilliker
9 Laura Christensen
10 Linda Sanders
11
12 STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
13 Charley Stump, Planning Director Listed below, Respectively
14 Kevin Thompson, Principal Planner
15 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
16
17 1. CALL TO ORDER
18 The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Whetzel at
19 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California.
20
21 2. ROLL CALL
22
23 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Everyone cited.
24
25 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—The minutes from the July 22, 2015 meeting are included for review
26 and approval.
27
28 M/S Christensen/Watt to approve July 22, 2015 minutes, as submitted. Motion carried (4-0) with Chair
29 Whetzel abstaining.
30
31 5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
32
33 6. APPEAL PROCESS — Chair Whetzel read the appeal process. For matters heard at this
34 meeting, the final date to appeal is August 24, 2015.
35
36 7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION - Confirmed by Commission.
37
38 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE- Confirmed by staff.
39
40 9. NEW BUSINESS
41 9A. Selection of Chairman and Vice-Chairman. Commission to select a Chairman and Vice-
42 Chairman for Fiscal Year 2015-2016.
43
44 M/S Watt/Christensen to nominate and elect Mike Whetzel as Chair. Motion carried 4-0 with Chair
45 Whetzel abstaining.
46
47 M/S Christensen/Sanders to nominate and elect Chris Watt as Vice Chair. Motion carried 4-0 with
48 Commissioner Watt abstaining.
49
50 PUBLIC HEARING
51 10A. Proposed Amendment to Zoning Ordinance per the requirements of Senate Bill No. 2
52 (SB2). Establishment of a zoning overlay district that will provide a location where a homeless
53 shelter can be established by right, with no discretionary approvals, per the requirements of SB2.
54 File No: 1105.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 2015
Page 1
1 Principal Planner Thompson:
2 • Gave a PowerPoint presentation/staff report as specifically addressed on pages 1-7 of the staff
3 report.
4 • Staff received one public comment from a person residing on Maple Avenue objecting to the
5 proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment.
6 • Staff requests the Planning Commission review and discuss the proposed Zoning Ordinance
7 amendment that would establish a zoning overlay district where a homeless shelter can be
8 established by right with no discretionary approvals per the requirements of SB2.
9 • Even without a Use Permit or discretionary decision making process regarding a homeless
10 shelter the City did establish home shelter operating standards in 2001 as provided for in
11 Resolution 2001-15 that establishes the use and development guidelines for the operation of
12 homeless shelters in the City of Ukiah. These standards would be in effect for any homeless
13 shelter whether it is allowed by right or requiring a Use Permit through the discretionary review
14 process. The guidelines include: use permit requirements, distances from schools and residential
15 areas, hours of operation, size, lighting and access and would apply to a homeless shelter
16 operating within the proposed homeless shelter overlay or as noted above, anywhere in town.
17 • Included in the proposal is an amendment to the initial Resolution as provided for in Resolution
18 2001-15 indicating that a Use Permit would not be required within the Homeless Shelter Overlay
19 zone.
20 • As required by SB2 and to implemenUcertify the Housing Element adopted in 2011 the City is
21 required to address the needs for homeless shelters and transitional and supportive housing as
22 provided for in policies H-2f and H-2n of the Ukiah Housing Element. Related to H-2f of the
23 Ukiah Housing Element: amend the zoning code to allow homeless facilities without the
24 requirement of a Use Permit in the M Manufacturing zoning designation. The zoning code shall
25 require a Site Development Permit and facilities pursuant to California Government Code
26 Section 65583. Related to H-2n of the Ukiah Housing Element, amend the zoning ordinance to
27 be consistent with SB2. All transitional and supportive housing shall be considered a residential
28 use of the same type (single family residential, duplex, multi-family, etc.,) shall be imposed.
29 • Approval of the proposed Homeless Shelter Overlay zone and corresponding Zoning Ordinance
30 Amendment would bring the City in compliance with SB2 and California State Department of
31 Housing (HCD) concerning certification of Ukiah's Housing Element.
32 • Staff recommends Planning Commission:
33 1) Recommend City Council adopt the Negative Declaration based on the findings in
34 attachment 2;
35 2) Recommend City Council introduce an ordinance by title only to create the Homeless Shelter
36 Overlay zone and accompanying text. (attachment 1 of the staff report)
37 3) Recommend City Council amend Resolution 2001-15 to include new Use Permit
38 requirements for homeless shelters. (attachment 4 of the staff report)
39
40 Commissioner Sanders:
41 • Referred to the proposed Homeless Shelter Overlay map and asked for confirmation of the
42 associated streets within the scope/radius of the subject area.
43 • Asked about the location of a pedestrian bridge on Orrs Street.
44 • Related to the biological section of the environmental document prepared for the project
45 discussed special status species living in Orrs Creek. It appears the proposed overlay zone for
46 development could conceivably go all the way to the riparian area. Is aware of community
47 concerns in terms of interest expressed in creating an `Orrs Creek greenway' and how this might
48 impact the possibility of creating such a pathway. Understands it would be the property owner of
49 the homeless shelter that would able to build out as far as the riparian area since currently the
50 City has no creek setback requirements.
51 • Requested clarification the intent of the rezone is to allow homeless shelters to occur in various
52 parts of our community and the best locations thereof where the purpose is to reduce the `project
53 conditions.'
54
55 Chair Whetzel:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 2015
Page 2
1 • A homeless shelter project would still have to comply with building permit requirements.
2
3 Commissioner Christensen:
4 • Asked about the existing zoning designations for the parcels in the proposed overlay zone that
5 currently would require approval of a use permit to allow a homeless shelter, particularly the
6 parcels zoned C-2 where the current use is religious and the Ford Street Project.
7
8 Chris Watt:
9 • Related to existing zoning, asked about what uses are allowed by right? Is there development
10 that can happen without a discretionary review permit? Related to current zoning requested
11 clarification a development could occur without discretionary review permit approval up to the
12 riparian corridor. Requested clarification by granting an overlay zone is not removing an
13 environmental protection because it does not exist in the first place for the process of getting the
14 development approved.
15 • The Resolution requested for amendment is in essence a ministerial standard for the site
16 development aspect. Is the extent of the ministerial standards for the Resolution being amended
17 the only standards being amended other than the necessary compliance with the building/fire
18 standards and/or other regular standards that apply to development?
19 • With approval of an overlay zone that allows homeless shelters by right inquired whether or not
20 there is a need to include additional layers of standards to provide environmental protection
21 and/or other related standards that may be applicable? In other words if the ministerial standard
22 is not `robust enough' to address and/or is not consistent with the negative declaration/initial
23 environmental study that was prepared for the overlay zone project is there a `weak link' that
24 could be challenged where the standards are not defensible?
25 • Related to the Findings to adopt a Negative Declaration for the Homeless Shelter Zoning Overlay
26 in attachment 2 of the staff report inquired about reason the items in 3A through G refers to `the
27 projecY and the subsequent findings 3H through P refers to `text and map.'
28 • Relevant to the change that a homeless shelter development would be allowed by right and
29 particularly with regard to Findings in the Negative Declaration for items 3F and G asked for
30 clarification such a development would not result in significant adverse impacts to biological
31 resources. Is the basis for the judgment about the project not resulting in significant adverse
32 impacts to biological resources such as wildlife or wetlands (Finding 3F) because no more is
33 essentially being allowed than what is allowed with regard to the current by right uses?
34
35 Principal Planner Thompson:
36 • Geographically showed the location of the corresponding streets in connection with the Railroad
37 tracks and Buddy Eller Center within the proposed overlay zone.
38 • Verified the location of the pedestrian bridge and Orrs Creek.
39 • Confirmed there is development in the overlay zone that can take place without a discretionary
40 review permit.
41
42 Planning Director Stump:
43 • Acknowledged there is a proposed project brewing from members of the community to develop a
44 trail along the Creek that borders the overlay zone.
45 • It is doubtful the proposed overlay project would change anything about the zoning rules in
46 connection with the current way riparian areas function. There is no homeless shelter
47 development planned for the overlay zone at this time. As such, is of the opinion cannot assume
48 that an overlay zone project in and of itself would impact something that is not certain. While it
49 would be nice to have pathway along the Creek the location is not known and a rezone in and of
50 itself would not likely have an effect where the trail would be located. If there was a development
51 attached to the rezone project there would likely be more of a discussion about the pathway,
52 particularly in the area being discussed.
53 • The intent of the proposed Homeless Shelter overlay zone is to allow a homeless shelter to be
54 constructed in the overlay zone without discretionary review.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 2015
Page 3
1 • Confirmed a homeless shelter development in the overlay zone with have to comply with building
2 permit requirements as well as Resolution 2001-15, i.e., Homeless Shelter Facility Use and
3 Development Guidelines.
4 • Related to the Ford Street Project and Buddy Eller Center the complex that is a transitional
5 housing facility was originally proposed to be located near the Orrs Creek riparian area where
6 planning staff recommended moving the building back. The applicants and Planning Commission
7 agreed with this recommendation such that the building was constructed well back behind the
8 riparian corridor. Protection of the Creek has always been a primary objective.
9 • The City has no creek setback requirements. Yes, under the currently zoning a use that is
10 allowed by right and does not require a Site Development Permit could occur up to the riparian
11 corridor.
12 • Confirmed no removal of any environmental protection will occur as a result of the proposed
13 overlay zone project.
14 • Confirmed the Resolution amendment is a ministerial standard for site development and that the
15 ministerial standards being amended in the Resolution are the only standards other than the
16 necessary compliance with building/fire and/or other regular standards that apply to
17 development.
18 • Is of the opinion related to the matter the ministerial standards for the overlay zone project might
19 not be defensible enough in the event the project was challenged that this would be a `stretch' of
20 the concept.
21 • Confirmed reference to `the project' and `text and map' amendment is essentially the same thing.
22 • Confirmed the project is a rezone such that in and of itself no more is being allowed than what is
23 already allowed by right for current uses.
24
25 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:22 p.m.
26
27 Pinky Kushner:
28 • It is important the City share in creek cleanup efforts and not just leave this effort to volunteers,
29 particularly because of the human waste and/or trash that is found in creeks and asked if there is
30 any possibility in connection with approving the proposed rezone that part of the project would
31 provide for waste cans and restroom facilities. Added, it is unpleasant to have to cleanup and
32 dispose of human waste and having restroom facilities would be helpful.
33
34 Public speaker name inaudible:
35 • Is of the opinion having a homeless shelter would actually help the situation with damage to Orrs
36 Creek because the operation would be conducted in an orderly fashion with established rules and
37 regulations.
38 • Asked for clarification regarding the boundaries for the proposed overlay zone project as shown
39 on the overlay zone map.
40
41 Leslie Smyth:
42 • Is concerned about eventual regulations related to drug and alcohol for a homeless shelter noting
43 there is a difference between a shelter and a shelter operated by Ford Street Project. For a
44 shelter not operated by Ford Street finds it extremely important there be enforced regulations or
45 problems with the Creek will continue.
46 • Acknowledged that problems with the Creek do exist disclosing that people camp under the Orrs
47 Creek Bridge and in areas of the Creek. Many of the people living in the creeks and under
48 bridges do not want to be in a shelter and/or conform to the rules.
49 • Having a shelter near Catholic Orthodox Church that exists on Brush Street may be a problem.
50 There are many young children from the Church congregation that play in the area. Children do
51 run into homeless paraphernalia in the area and this is a concern. The area is a natural shortcut
52 for people to get to the Buddy Eller Center.
53 • Understands homeless shelters present a very delicate situation and there are many people in
54 need of help. There is no simple solution to addressing the homeless and their corresponding
55 needs.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 2015
Page 4
1 Commissioner Watt:
2 • Requested clarification Ms. Smyth does not favor drug and/or alcohol be allowed in homeless
3 shelters and to include some type of provision that people must be clean and sober as a
4 requirement.
5
6 Leslie Smyth:
7 • Does not favor drug and alcohol being allowed in homeless shelters and that people using the
8 homeless facility must be clean and sober so as to eliminate associated problems. Having
9 restrooms available in the area would be helpful but it would take a huge commitment on the part
10 of the City to keep them clean.
11
12 Don Popalski:
13 • Is the City of Ukiah committed to building a homeless shelter? If not, questioned why we are
14 here to approve a Homeless Shelter Zoning Overlay?
15 • Were other sites/areas a consideration and if so, what are the locations?
16 • Requested clarification the City is required to provide an area in the City where a homeless
17 shelter can be established by right, but this does not mean the City of Ukiah has to build it.
18 • What would occur if property was donated?
19 • If a shelter is constructed how many beds would be available and what kind of restrictions would
20 be in place?
21 • Is concerned about having plans in place for a homeless winter shelter. While he understands
22 drug and alcohol use should not be allowed in a homeless shelter has concerns for those users
23 that need help and with having a place to sleep and keep warm this winter.
24
25 Jacque Williams, Executive Director, Ford Street Project:
26 • Recommends City staff and/or homeless advocates look into churches and/or similar
27 organizations that may be able to function as a shelter for the short term depending upon what
28 the restroom availability is.
29 • Is a Use Permit required for informal situations that would be for short periods of time?
30
31 Pinky Kushner:
32 • Asked about just approving the related industrial parcels within the overlay and exclude the heavy
33 commercial parcel within the overlay zone that is located near Orrs Creek. Is of the opinion area
34 at the south end of town would meet the criteria for a homeless shelter.
35 • One of the issues with the Wagenseller Neighborhood is that many planning related
36 projects/developments etc., happen in this neighborhood.
37 • The area south of town has services available such as the Greyhound bus stop and/or other
38 services that can be accommodating. Is of the opinion area at the south end of Ukiah would
39 appear to be a `more balanced' solution. It would be a benefit to the homeless to have two areas
40 identified where homeless shelters could be developed on either end of town rather than focusing
41 on one primary location.
42
43 Principal Planner Thompson:
44 • Confirmed the boundaries are those areas depicted within the black lines on the map.
45 • Confirmed the Planning Commission considered other site scenarios where the preference was
46 the overlay zoning district being considered tonight.
47 • The only other consideration was a site located on the southern end of Ukiah in and around the
48 Ukiah Municipal Airport in the M (Manufacturing)zoning district.
49 • The existing operating standards for a homeless shelter would apply and the type of restrictions
50 would depend upon what is being proposed and the best case scenario.
51 • Acknowledged the south end of town was a consideration in the Manufacturing zoning district but
52 it seemed to make more sense to have a potential shelter in the same location as the Buddy Eller
53 Center given the history of the homeless centers in Ukiah.
54
55 Chair Whetzel:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 2015
Page 5
1 • Is not aware the City is committed to building a homeless shelter.
2 • SB2 requires the establishment of a zoning overlay district that will provide a location where a
3 homeless shelter can be established by right with no discretionary review approvals. The zoning
4 ordinance amendment would establish an overlay district in the northwest section of Ukiah that
5 includes both commercially and industrially zoned properties. The ZO amendment also
6 represents the last remaining item required by the State Department of Housing and Community
7 Development(HCD)for certification of Ukiah's Housing Element.
8 • Confirmed the City is required to delineate a location for a homeless shelter but is not required to
9 build it.
10 • The property for a homeless shelter must be located in the City limits.
11 • Related to if a homeless shelter were to be constructed, the number of beds and restrictions
12 would be included in what was being proposed.
13 • Asked about the likelihood the City would construct its own homeless shelter.
14 • Acknowledged also that when the Planning Commission initially looked at potential locations for
15 homeless shelters established by right was of the opinion that the overlay zone approach was the
16 best solution since the Buddy Eller Center is located in this zone and has operated in the past as
17 a homeless shelter.
18
19 Planning Director Stump:
20 • Under City leadership there is participation from local homeless advocates to work on homeless
21 issues/problems, specifically a homeless shelter and more specifically a winter shelter.
22 Historically, the City has taken the lead on homeless winter shelters.
23 • Not likely the City would construct a homeless shelter.
24 • Affirmed a Use Permit would be necessary for less informal situations that function/serve as a
25 homeless shelter. The City has approved Use Permits in the past for homeless shelters and it
26 took a team effort to get emergency winter shelters approved rapidly to meet the deadlines of
27 impending weather conditions. The City is committed to helping in this regard.
28
29 Don Popalski:
30 • Requested clarification regarding churches providing shelters for the homeless. Conducted a
31 survey of the major churches in the community and found the information to be very disappointing
32 in that none of churches responded to the survey about providing for a short term/temporary
33 homeless shelter on church property. Is hopeful churches will open their hearts and allow for a
34 temporary winter shelter. Is concerned about what happens if no organization/agency is willing to
35 open up their doors.
36
37 Commissioner Christensen:
38 • Asked what prompted Mr. Popalski to conduct the survey. Was this because he is a concerned
39 citizen and/or a volunteer?
40
41 Don Popalski:
42 • Conducted to survey as a concerned citizen. Has served on an ad hoc committee to help
43 establish a winter shelter and wanted to see if churches would be amenable to providing housing
44 and safe parking.
45
46 Libby Gutherie, Executive Director of MCAVHN:
47 • Serves on the Sheltering Services Action Committee. It is not the intension of any agency
48 involved in this action committee or individuals that we would have a shelter without
49 rules/regulations and allow drug and alcohol use.
50 • Her agency works with homeless persons in the community who are not otherwise eligible for
51 other shelter services for one reason or another.
52
53 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 6:48 p.m.
54
55 Commissioner Watt:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 2015
Page 6
1 • Are the operational standards in the Resolution something that a shelter built on the parcels in the
2 proposed overlay zone can comply with? The operation standards in the Resolution provides
3 descriptions about minimum distances to nearest residential development homeless facilities,
4 schools, public parks and/or other operational standards that may be a homeless shelter in the
5 proposed overlay zone cannot comply with. Important that a homeless shelter can be potentially
6 built on one of the parcels in the overlay zone that is able to meet the criteria in the Resolution
7 and is not a `deal breaker' because it cannot meet the criteria.
8 • Related to the operational standards, requested clarification that `minimum distance' refers to a
9 minimum separation from nearest residential development, school, public park, etc.
10
11 Principal Planner Thompson:
12 • Staff is confident there are locations in the proposed overlay zone that can meet the criteria of the
13 Resolution and if not, would look at exceptions.
14
15 Planning Director Stump:
16 • If someone wanted to come in and establish a shelter, but cannot comply with some of the
17 operating standards in the Resolution, best approach would be to amend the Resolution. The
18 operation standards in the Resolution were developed with the assistance of homeless advocates
19 in the community in 2001. Is of the opinion the operational standards are reasonable.
20 • Confirmed the intent of the language, `minimum distance' in the operational standards as
21 meaning that a homeless shelter must be located a minimum distance to nearest residential
22 development, school, park etc., so as not to create adverse impacts.
23
24 Commissioner Christensen:
25 • Requested clarification that making the recommendation to City Council concerning the adoption
26 of the proposed zoning ordinance and resolution does not preclude a homeless shelter from
27 being constructed at the south end of town on appropriately zoned property.
28
29 Principal Planner Thompson:
30 • Confirmed the proposed overlay project does not preclude the opportunity to construct a
31 homeless shelter at the south end of town in the appropriate zone with approval of a use permit.
32
33 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:44 p.m.
34
35 Leslie Smyth:
36 • Questioned why the rest of Ford Street Project is not included in the proposed overlay zone
37 project?
38
39 Principle Planner Thompson:
40 • During initial review of the project last May when the options for establishment of a homeless
41 shelter by right was first presented, the overlay zone and the corresponding parcels included in
42 the zone made the most sense.
43
44 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 6:45 p.m.
45
46 Commissioner Watt:
47 • Related to the development guidelines in the Resolution offer some different/mixed philosophies
48 such that the shelters must be big enough that anything will fit or something specific so that you
49 get a project that is tied tightly to the operational standards. As an observation, it appears there is
50 room in the Resolution for interpretation and this might be a good thing.
51
52 Chair Whetzel:
53 • The homeless situation is a `touchy' subject in Ukiah. It appears there is a lot of illegal homeless
54 camping going on in the community.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 2015
Page 7
1 • Supports approval of the proposed overlay zone project that would allow for homeless shelters by
2 right and satisfies the State's requirement for certification of Ukiah's Housing Element by
3 complying with SB2.
4
5 M/S Watt/Hilliker to recommend City Council adopt the Negative Declaration based on the Findings in
6 attachment 2, to introduce an ordinance by title only to create the Homeless Shelter Overlay zone and
7 accompanying text and amend Resolution 2001-15 to include new Use Permit requirements for Homeless
8 Shelters. Motion carried 4-0 with Commissioner Sanders voting NO.
9
10 Break: 6:50 p.m.
11 Reconvene: 6:55 p.m.
12
13 10B. Planning Permit Streamlining Workshop. Conduct a public workshop to discuss ideas and
14 receive input from the public regarding possible ways to streamline the planning permit review
15 process.
16
17 Planning Director Stump:
18 • Gave a staff report as provided for on pages 1-6 of the staff report and PowerPoint presentation
19 and talked about and/or provided examples of:
20 1) projects that require planning permits; 2) Minor and major planning permits; 3) existing
21 application process steps; 4) preliminary ideas for streamlining and addressing specific
22 standards for land uses and administrative permits and types thereof; 5) modification to the
23 square footage thresholds for major and minor permits as provided for in the table on page 5
24 of the staff report.
25 • Asked the Commission to conduct a public workshop for discussion of possible permit
26 streamlining and provide direction to staff.
27
28 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 7:12 p.m.
29
30 Chair Whezel:
31 • How would streamlining permit processing apply to `live music?'
32 • If a person complies with City standards related to live entertainment would approval be handled
33 administratively as opposed to discretionary review by the Planning Commission/Zoning
34 Administrator.
35 • Likes the concept of potentially being able to streamline certain types of permits without the
36 burden of having to go through discretionary review for some of the more simplified, smaller
37 projects.
38
39 Planning Director Stump:
40 • If Planning Commission/City Council is interested in allowing live entertainment without approval
41 of a use permit, would look at incorporating specific standards creating the rules where the
42 process would look at management plans etc., that are currently required. The applicant would
43 have to comply with the rules. One of the standard requirements might be that a potential
44 applicant has a management plan that is consistent with the regulations for live entertainment.
45 • If an applicant complies with City standards related to live entertainment, no use permit would be
46 required.
47 • Acknowledged it will take some work to modify some of the existing permit application
48 processes/steps and zoning code. Looking at the DZC and the intent of this document may be of
49 assistance to potentially change how some current permit applications are handled having the
50 potential to streamline them provided an applicant is able to comply with the applicable
51 standards.
52
53 Pinky Kushner:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 2015
Page 8
1 • Finds the list of permitted uses too board to breakdown and streamline. For instance, live
2 entertainment and daycare center uses require different standards. Would not particularly want to
3 allow live entertainment without discretionary use permit approval.
4 • An alternative approach to changing all the rules for the different use permits is for someone to
5 ask for a variance. Preference would be to make the permitting process more approachable such
6 that someone could ask for a variance more easily.
7 • Cited a complicated permitting process for a particular project that initially involved a subdivision,
8 issues involving surfacing near a creek bank and other associated problems including drainage
9 that could have simplified the process if certain specific standards applicable to the project had
10 been identified and/or in place. In evaluating the project if specific standards applicable to the
11 project were in place such as the issue of using permeable paving methodologies as opposed to
12 use of asphalt in areas close to creek banks the project may not have been delayed. This would
13 have been a way to streamline the process. To streamline the permitting process requires looking
14 at specific standards and what specific standards should apply to a project and/or use.
15 • Is not supportive of changing the entire permitting process but rather understanding/identifying
16 the specifics for a particular project. In other words, `this happens so therefore let's change this.'
17 • Talked about a structural issue to her home that was built in 1874 where it would have been
18 helpful to have allowances/standards in place for restoring old buildings.
19
20 Chair Whetrel:
21 • The intent of the workshop is to explore alternatives for streamlining the use permit process for
22 some types of uses so that some of the smaller and more simplified projects can be approved at
23 staff level rather than having the applicant go through a lengthy and costly discretionary review
24 process.
25
26 Commissioner Watt:
27 • Sees how the streamlining the processing of smaller projects could improve efficiency and reduce
28 costs and staff time.
29 • Asked if providing for development incentives is an integral part of the streamlining proposal
30 concept.
31 • Asked about if thought has been given to identifying the obstacles and/or development
32 restrictions/conditions that presently discourage development but could improve development in
33 the City. What are those types of projects that could evolve with a more streamlined process and
34 less obstacles?
35 • One approach may be to grant a variance in exchange for certain required project mitigation
36 measures.
37 • Developers with smaller projects are going to ask `how much `soft cost' and time is it going to take
38 project before they know they have project.' For larger projects that require extensive
39 analysis/studies, developers likely anticipate time and costs will be greater than it would be for a
40 smaller project. It is for those smaller projects that a delay in processing could mean the
41 difference of whether there is a project happening or not and this is where `streamlining' would be
42 of benefit.
43 • Are there projects that are consistent with the vision of the City coming forthwith and/or were
44 previously approved where a set of standards could or were developed that if inet the project
45 would not have to come to the Planning Commission but rather could be processed
46 administratively at staff level.
47 • Understands a lot of time is involved when projects have to go through the discretionary review
48 process particularly with the many special meetings involving staff and stakeholder groups so if
49 there is a way time and costs can be reduced with regard to processing permit applications we
50 should be looking at how to improve the process. It is important the standards established
51 allowing development to occur without discretionary review be `robust' enough to protect the best
52 interests of citizens but yet allow someone to do a project.
53 • Being able to extend 'certainty' to an applicant by way telling the applicant upfront what standards
54 they must meet for approval of a use permit is very important. In this way, the applicant can
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 2015
Page 9
1 determine early on whether or not the project is doable without investing a lot time and money
2 into a project that is not doable.
3
4 Planning Director Stump:
5 • Clarified related to the project Ms. Kushner spoke about above was not delayed. A use permit
6 was issued the day after the Planning Commission approved the project. Staff did an excellent
7 job processing the associated permit and it was processed in record time. There were other
8 unrelated factors that had nothing to do with the permitting process that delayed the project from
9 moving forward timely.
10 • Acknowledged the intent of the workshop is to look at the `specifics' for the streamlining of certain
11 project types. At this point the proposal is `too broad' and it will take some time and additional
12 workshops to determine the best and most effective approach to streamlining certain types of
13 projects. Staff is looking for ideas and direction and how best to proceed with streamlining of
14 smaller and/or more simplified projects.
15 • Clarified structural issues are subject to the California Building Code requirements. The
16 discussion tonight concerns zoning issues.
17 • The intent is to explore ideas about how streamlining can promote development and to evaluate
18 the effects thereof.
19 • Acknowledged the process and/or concept of streamlining projects becomes complicated when
20 thought is being given to potentially amending the City code, particularly in terms of consistency.
21 • Related to identifying project obstacles that could be eliminated to promote/improve development
22 was looked at extensively during formulation of the DZC and cited examples of certain incentives
23 that could be invoked to promote development.
24 • Confirmed staff is looking at establishing certain standards for developments that if appropriately
25 met would allow the development to occur without discretionary review by the Planning
26 Commission.
27 • Cited the Pep Senior Affordable Housing Project as an example of a highly organized project that
28 went smoothly through the discretionary review process where staff was able to tell the applicant
29 the applicable development standards would be flexible. The applicant was advised of the
30 adopted minimum development standards such as setback requirements and other like standards
31 that would apply early on in the process allowing the applicant to effectively plan accordingly.
32
33 Principal Planner Thompson:
34 • The types of administrative planning permits that could potentially be streamlined as addressed
35 on pages 4 and 5 of the staff in relation to the `Existing Application Processing Steps' as
36 provided for on page 3 of the staff report could become that development/project incentive.
37 • Noted, however, project requiring CEQA review and compliance thereof is something that cannot
38 be controlled. A large project is subject to CEQA review as mandatory project requirement and
39 can be a tedious and somewhat lengthy process depending upon the complexity of the project.
40
41 Commissioner Watt:
42 • If the development standards go through the CEQA process and have been vetted the project
43 now complies with CEQA because it was designed to the standard that was vetted by the
44 environmental quality Act.
45 • A legal review process is big deal because you have to be able to defend it in the event CEQA
46 review for a particular project is challenged.
47 • Once the standards are established for a particular use, this reduces time and costs for the
48 applicant and staff because once this process is done, it is done for the next process and/or
49 project.
50 • Supports reaching out to the property owners/developers in the area about their needs and what
51 they would like to see changed with regard to potential streamlining of permits.
52
53 Commissioner Sanders:
54 • Worked on formulating/shaping the DZC.
55 • Attended all the charrette meetings in 2007.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 2015
Page 10
1 • It took a while before the DZC was `flushed ouY and/or the concept understood/accepted by the
2 community as a valuable tool for development.
3 • Was a Planning Commissioner during the time when the DZC was being reviewed and adopted.
4 A lot of time was spent evaluating the standards in the DZC. During the process of evaluating the
5 standards for the different uses in the DZC the Planning Commission made certain the intent was
6 to encourage development and looked at how best this could be accomplished by creating
7 thresholds that if a particular developer met the standards for a specific land use a project could
8 streamline through the process. Zoning was looked at in each of the three DZC zones (GU, UC,
9 DC) to establish the necessary standards and determine whether a particular use should be
10 allowed by right, use allowed accessory to a principal use, use allowed with a minor use permit or
11 use allowed with a major use permit or use prohibited altogether where careful consideration was
12 given to each use in the different zones as to purpose, applicability and what was good for the
13 community, property owner and/or developer.
14 • Did receive feedback from some developers that found the DZC to be a helpful tool in that they
15 could figure out what the expectations would be for a particular development/project before they
16 got to the planning department.
17 • Formulating the DZC was a lengthy process and it took approximately five years before it went to
18 the Planning Commission for review and was approved by City Council.
19 • All meetings associated with the formulating/adopting the DZC were well attended. The public
20 had questions and concerns about the DZC.
21 • Now that time has passed and projects have come forward that are located in the DZC,
22 staff/Planning Commission has had discussions that the DZC might in some instances be difficult
23 to use such that some changes may be necessary.
24 • The workshop tonight is about looking at zoning and with reducing the number of projects that are
25 required to secure planning permits by developing specific standards for certain land uses and if
26 the project is consistent with the standards, no planning permit would be required. This has
27 already been accomplished in the DZC. Is the intent then to expand upon the DZC and if so finds
28 this to be a `disconnect.'
29 • Asked about whether people/developers express concern/complained when told about the
30 timeframe it takes to process a project and go through the Design Review Board etc.
31 • Finds that most of the project applicants are very complimentary of how staff and the Planning
32 Commission processed their permits.
33 • When controversy occurs about a project, `what is the measurement?' Is it an article in the
34 newspaper, a chronic complainer?
35
36 Chair Whetzel:
37 • Sees reason to possible modify the square footage thresholds for minor/major site development
38 permits.
39 • Related to the next step in a planning permit streamlining workshop would like staff to define what
40 we are looking for and/or provide example of what we are looking for with regard to streamlining
41 permits.
42 • Understands streamlining is for smaller, less complicated permit types.
43 • For Planning Commission review of the DZC recalls going step by step for each individual use
44 and corresponding standard to make certain this is what the citizens, property owners and
45 developers would want and benefit from.
46
47 Planning Director Stump:
48 • Confirmed the aforementioned statement is correct. CEQA review requires a tremendous amount
49 of work up front.
50 • Acknowledged going through the charrette and adoption process for the DZC is what we are
51 essentially doing with looking at the City zoning code and with streamlining the permitting process
52 and how best this can be accomplished.
53 • The goal is for a developer/applicant to understand upfront what he/she needs to do early on to
54 get a project approved. Applicants need a `foundation' in which to start evaluation of their projects
55 and this begins with having standards in place and that for smaller more simplified projects allow
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 2015
Page 11
1 for a streamlining of the permitting process by having standards in place that can speed the
2 process along without having to go through a lengthy discretionary review process for a small
3 project. Having specific standards to guide projects provides for that certainty applicants need to
4 properly and objectively evaluate their project.
5 • Cited the recently approved Chipotle restaurant project located within the boundaries of the DZC
6 that could have been a minor site development permit for approval at the Zoning Administration
7 level requiring much less review intensity, time and cost since the project met the development
8 standards in the DZC except for the three exceptions being requested that required Planning
9 Commission review as a major site development permit.
10 • The City does not typically have `big time' developers. Staff would certainly reach out to frequent
11 customers about what they would like to see changed with regard to potential streamlining of
12 permits. It would be beneficial to look at development standards in other cities to see how they
13 process permits and/or what they are doing in this regard.
14 • Staff is not suggesting expanding the DZC but rather to look at some of the products from the
15 new DZC that could be applied on a broader scale within the City by looking at development for
16 specific land uses in the DZC. The standards for specific land uses in the DZC are some of the
17 best sections. There are also parts of the DZC that are complex and difficult for staff to explain,
18 as well as sometimes difficult to understand. Related to the complex sections of the DZC staff is
19 developing material to explain to developers the necessary information developers need to have
20 that `certainty' when considering their projects. Such necessary information to provide certainty
21 may be what sort of frontage type, what can be built in the first layer, etc. There is a lot of
22 terminology/regulations in connection with form-based standards in the DZC that are not familiar
23 to most people/developers or to staff that have to be better understood and familiarized. As such,
24 some changes to the DZC may be necessary so the regulations are more user-friendly.
25 • Acknowledged some developers do complain about the timeframe for processing a permit and
26 costs. However, other developers, particularly outside developers are very pleased with pre-
27 application review, the timeframe to process the permit application and permit costs.
28 • The intent is to not necessarily change the process approach but rather create an administrative
29 staff level permit process for small projects that could reduce the time to process the permit
30 application from 6 to 8 weeks to 2 weeks or so, which could mean number of things such as
31 change the square footage threshold for Minor and Major Site Development permits similar to the
32 standards in the DZC that may allow some permits to be issued over the counter. Should explore
33 what types of `small' permits could actually be issued over the counter. There may be less
34 complaints about processing time and cost with issuing small permits over the counter.
35 • It may also be a chronic complainer clearly has no bearing and nothing to with the project. It is
36 sometimes difficult to assess/judge the merit of a complaint.
37 • Staff will take the concepts discussed above and further develop them as they relate to providing
38 incentives for property owners/developer that could involve the community and community assets
39 or possibly by mitigating certain problems.
40 • Would like to pursue being `creative' with the City code and provide for more detail and specifics
41 about what the City can do to streamline planning permits.
42
43 Public member, No name given:
44 • Is of the opinion best approach would be to address/revisit the issues where there have been
45 questions or problems with projects.
46 • Projects that go through the process smoothly and have no problems/issues likely do not need to
47 be reviewed.
48
49 Chair Whetzel:
50 • Cited the approved doggie daycare facility on S. State Street that was formerly a
51 residential/commercial plumbing business as an example of a project that could have benefited
52 from streamlining the permit application process provided they met the appropriate zoning
53 criteria rather than having to go through the lengthy process of discretionary review at the
54 Planning Commission level.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 2015
Page 12
1 • There are just some projects that `obviously' should be handled as an administrative permit or at
2 a lower less time consuming and costly decision making body.
3 • Would like to see a list of what can be done about permit streamlining.
4
5 Commissioner Watt:
6 • Refers to the concept of streamlining as ` the low hanging fruit/ pick it all' since we have already
7 laid the concepts out supports looking at the easy things/projects that could go through the
8 streamline process first and then look at some of the larger projects that could benefit from some
9 of the streamline concepts if this is possible.
10
11 Commissioner Christensen:
12 • Understands currently the decision making process relates to either a major or minor use permit
13 or site development permit at the Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator level. Asked
14 how the decision making processes might differ between the two decision making bodies and is
15 there a difference in cost or time if one or the other decision making body has to put the project
16 through the process.
17 • What triggers DRB review of a project? Sometimes the Planning Commission does not agree
18 with the DRB's design recommendations and overrides it and this is after the project has gone
19 through a lengthy permitting process.
20 • It may be that certain `steps' can be eliminated for some projects as a way of streamlining.
21
22 Planning Director Stump:
23 • Confirmed staff/Planning Commission will continue to work on possible zoning code
24 modifications so as to allow for streamlining of planning permits for some types of lands uses.
25 • Confirmed it is less time consuming and expensive to go through the Zoning Administrator. The
26 Zoning Administrator process is similar to the Planning Commission. Projects that are required to
27 go through the Planning Commission are larger and require more analysis, such that many of
28 these cases are subject to CEQA review where negative declarations/environmental studies
29 must be prepared. The large projects are more costly and take longer to process.
30 • The DRB is a recommending body. It is the purview of the Commission to override a DRB design
31 recommendation if they disagree because the Planning Commission is a decision-making body
32 and makes the final decision. Understands some cases are more difficult and while the Planning
33 Commission wants to support the DRB there are those times when the Commission may
34 disagree with a DRB recommendation. Acknowledged there are design professionals that serve
35 on the DRB and take what they do seriously. The DRB is required by City code to review and
36 make a recommendation on all Site Development Permit applications whether they go to the
37 Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission.
38 • Staff has talked about possibly eliminating some planning permit process steps to help simplify
39 the process and is of the opinion there is room to do this. Cited an example of a computer repair
40 shop that was converted to a hair salon where the entire fa�ade and front of the building
41 changed. Is of the opinion the building when it functioned as a computer repair shop was
42 aesthetically unattractive. The project came in as a fa�ade improvemenUrenovation project
43 where the proposed renovation was clearly an improvement to the appearance of the building.
44 The question is should this project have been acted upon by staff or should the project be send
45 to the DRB for review and a recommendation to the Zoning Administrator that takes more time
46 and more costly. Should we have a process where an applicant comes in with a great project like
47 the hair salon that can be acted upon by staff rather than going to the Zoning Administrator?
48
49 Principal Planner Thompson:
50 • Also, for a larger project an applicant may have Project exceptions to City development standards
51 that have to be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
52
53 Chair Whetzel:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 2015
Page 13
1 • Can the Planning Commission enact a process to be acted upon at staff level for projects that are
2 great such as the hair salon project where all design and/or other standards are met into the
3 planning permit streamlining process?
4 • If projects meet the design criteria and use standards there should be no reason to require an
5 applicant go through a lengthy permit process.
6
7 Planning Director Stump:
8 • Confirmed the Planning Commission can make a recommendation to Council to enact such a
9 process. Staff will look at ways this can be accomplished for further discussion.
10 • Situations we want to avoid would be if a commercial project comes forward, for instance, where
11 an applicant works with staff on the original design using the Commercial Development Design
12 Guidelines and the DRB and/or Planning Commission go off in a different design director such
13 that the project goes on appeal to Council and Council goes off in a completely different director
14 and the applicant is left confused.
15
16 Commissioner Watt:
17 • Asked about what would occur if a minor site development permit that would go to the Zoning
18 Administrator for approval goes to the DRB but the applicant objects to the design
19 recommendations?
20
21 Planning Director Stump:
22 • This is not a typical situation. What would occur is if the DRB makes a recommendation the
23 applicant simply does not like the Zoning Administrator conducts a hearing where the applicant
24 can object to what is being recommended and the Zoning Administrator can support the DRB's
25 recommendation but might not condition the project to have to comply with all that is being
26 recommended/required. The zoning Administrator advises the applicant that if he/she is
27 dissatisfied with the Zoning Administrator's decision the decision can be appealed directly to the
28 City Council and does not go to the Planning Commission. Cited a project where the applicant did
29 not agree with the DRB's recommendations and the Zoning Administrator determined the
30 applicant had indeed integrate/incorporate design concepts into the project well where color and
31 material samples were presented such that the Zoning Administrator approved the project
32 supported the DRB's recommendations in part but did not support all of the recommendations.
33 The DRB was advised of the project outcome in this regard for informational purposes.
34
35 Public member(name inaudible):
36 • Recently purchased a building for a restaurant business in Ukiah and would encourage the
37 staff/Commission to look at modifying the square footage thresholds for major/minor permits.
38 Finds there to be a huge discrepancy in the square footage for major/minor site development
39 permits in the various zoning districts. It would be helpful if certain incentives were in place in the
40 way of standards to assist property owners/developers understand and achieve their goal of
41 getting project approval that is less time consuming and costly having to go through the project
42 approval process.
43
44 Commissioner Watt:
45 • There are buildings having certain characteristics that may not be reflective of they we want the
46 City to look because it is abandoned, shoddy, or dilapidated would like to see some type of
47 incentive in place that could help turn the problem around. This may be related to streamlining,
48 deferred fees and/or other types of incentives where some processing steps could be bypassed
49 to help a property owner/developer make the building aesthetically pleasing and in compliance
50 with City design standards.
51 • Staff may want to look at fees schedule for permits, business licenses, etc.
52
53 Planning Director Stump:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 2015
Page 14
1 • Cited the computer repair business building that was converted to a hair salon again as an
2 example of a project that could have been streamlined through the process and explained how
3 so.
4
5 Pinky Kushner:
6 • Again would like to emphasize the importance of knowing/understanding the `specifics' with
7 regard to streamlining by defining the particulars about what streamlining is all about and what
8 uses/project types/zoning designations allow for streamlining. It may be beneficial to look at the
9 DZC as an example because the intent of this code is to more or less streamline projects
10 provided the applicant meets the corresponding standards for a particular zoning designation in
11 the DZC and the particular use. It may be that some of the uses in the DZC would be applicable
12 for streamlining across the board.
13
14 Matthew Gilbert:
15 • Likes that staff and the Commission are looking at ways/opportunities to streamline projects,
16 noting his particular project that was approved by the Planning Commission consumed a lot of
17 time and costs going through the discretionary review that may otherwise not have been
18 necessary.
19
20 Planning Director Stump:
21 • Has sufficient direction regarding streamlining of planning permits for next workshop.
22 • Related to next series of streamlining of planning permits, staff may want to get City Council's
23 input to make certain the direction staff/Planning Commission is going is something Council
24 supports.
25
26 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 8:09 p.m.
27
28 11. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
29 Planning Director Stump:
30 • There will be no Planning Commission meeting August 26, 2015.
31 • Advised of upcoming Planning Commission projects.
32
33 12. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
34 Commissioner Sanders:
35 • Asked about street trees to be planted for the approved Dharma Realm Buddhist University
36 project that was formerly Trinity School.
37
38 Commissioner Hilliker:
39 • Asked about the round-about on Bush Street and what decision making body has purview.
40
41 Commissioner Christensen:
42 • Asked about an email to Planning Director Stump regarding a matter.
43
44 Chair Whetzel:
45 • Bush Street is not the problem with regard to the proposed round-about project, citing City street
46 Despina that fronts the Ukiah High School as the problem.
47
48 Commissioner Watt:
49 • Advised of an upcoming meeting tomorrow night that the City is hosting at the Ukiah Conference
50 Center regarding the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. He will be helping out with the
51 meeting.
52
53 Planning Director Stump:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 2015
Page 15
1 • Will look into the conditions of approval for the Dharma Realm Buddhist University project
2 relevant to street trees and noted the applicant is very conscientious about compliance with all of
3 the conditions of approval.
4 • City Council with recommendation from the Traffic Engineering Committee would review the
5 round-about project on Bush Street.
6 • Will discuss the email with Commissioner Christensen.
7
8 13. ADJOURNMENT
9 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:16 p.m.
10
11 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 2015
Page 16
�ity �� Uki�1�
NOTICE OF CEQA EXEMPTION
TO: ❑ Office of Planning and Research FROM: City of Ukiah
1400 Tenth Street,Room 121 300 Seminary Avenue
Sacramento,CA 95814 Ukiah, CA 95482
X County Clerk
County of Mendocino
Courthouse
PROJECT TITLE: Gobbi Street Multi-Family Complex
PROJECT LOCATION: 680 South State Street,APN 002-301-55
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Major Use Permit to construct a 26 unit multi-family
development. The units will be contained in 7 two-story
buildings, site improvements include: a 30 space parking
lot, landscaped areas, and bike parking.
PUBLIC AGENCY APPROVING PROJECT: City of Ukiah (Zoning Administrator)
DATE OF APPROVAL: September 9, 2015
NAME OF PROJECT APPLICANT: Doug Guillion
CEQA EXEMPTION STATUS:
❑ Ministerial
❑ Declared Emergency
X Categorical Exemption: The proposed project is exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15332 "In-fill Development Projects", which
allows projects that are consistent with the General Plan and zoning, on sites with no wetlands,
endangered species and with access to utilities to be exempt from CEQA.
❑ Statutory Exemption Section
300 Seminary Avenue •Ukiah• CA • 95482-5400
Phone: (707)463-6200 • Fax: (707)463-6204 •www.ciryofukiah.com
�ity �� Uki�1�
REASONS WHY PROJECT IS EXEMPT:
A. The project is consistent with the General Plan designation of Commercial. Multi-family projects are
allowed with a Use Permit in the Commercial designation.
B. The project is consistent with the applicable Zoning Ordinance standards and land use designation.
C. The project site is 38,896 sq.ft. and is within the city limits of Ukiah. The site is considered infill,
surrounded on all sides by developed parcels including: retail, multi-family, and single family uses.
D. The project site is a former retail use that was demolished in 2009. The site contains no mature trees,
wetlands, or any habitat.
E. The project site is served with utilities by the City of Ukiah for electric, water, sewer, PG&E provides
natural gas. Utilities lines are located within both frontage streets (Oak and Gobbi) of the project, and
have adequate capacity to serve the project.
Lead Agency Contact Person Michelle Johnson,Assistant Planner
Phone Number (707)463-6206
Email miohnson@citvofukiah.com
This is to certify that the record of project approval is available to the General Public at:
Planning Department,Ukiah Civic Center,300 Seminary Avenue,Ukiah,CA 95482
September 9, 2015 Assistant Planner
Signature (Public Agency) (Date) (Title)
300 Seminary Avenue •Ukiah• CA • 95482-5400
Phone: (707)463-6200 • Fax: (707)463-6204 •www.ciryofukiah.com
ATTACHMENT 2
DRAFT FINDINGS-USE PERMIT
Recommendation for the Approval of the Major Use Permit: The Planning
Department's recommendation for approval of Major Use Permit No. 1174, to construct
a 26-unit multi-family project and associated improvements, is based, in part, on the
following findings:
1. The proposed multi-family residential development is consistent with the
goals and policies of the Ukiah General Plan because it has been designed
with careful consideration with the surrounding established neighborhood.
2. The proposed multi-family residential development is consistent with the use
and development standards for the Commercial 1 (C1) District, including:
density, maximum building height, and setbacks to property lines.
3. The proposed project's request for relief from the parking standards by three
spaces will not negatively impact the neighborhood due to infill location and
proximity to retail, groceries, transit, high number of one-bedroom units and
on-street parking spaces.
4. The proposed multi-family residential development will not be detrimental to
the public's health, safety, or general welfare since its development, as
conditioned, will be consistent with the requirements for construction in the
City of Ukiah.
5. The granting of the use permit not will cause significant adverse
environmental impacts. The site does not contain any wetlands, mature trees,
endangered species or habitat.
6. City services are available to serve the Project. The City has enacted
mandatory water conservation measures and the residents of the Project
would be required to comply with any water conservation measures in place.
The Project includes drought tolerant landscaping and water conserving
irrigation. The Project has been reviewed by Public Works Department,
Electric Utility, Fire Marshal, and Building Official and there are adequate
services and utilities to serve the Project.
7. The proposed Project would be similar in use, intensity, and density to the
surrounding neighborhood. The City's noise ordinance would apply to this
Project both during construction and after occupancy. Conditions of approval
have been applied to the Project to address construction related noise
impacts.
Gobbi Street Multi-Family Project
Use Permit
680 South State Street
File No:Munis 1174
Planning Commission 08092015
8. The Project is subject to the requirements of the California Green Building
Code Standards which includes specific requirements (materials and light
fixtures) to reduce energy consumption.
9. The in-fill project site is surrounded by existing residential development and
commercial uses. The project site is not known to contain any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and therefore the Project would
have no impact on candidate, sensitive, or special status species.
There are no riparian areas or riparian habitat on the in-fill subject parcels or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies,
or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish
and Wildlife Service. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on these
resources.
The infill site is partially paved and contains no wetlands, marshes, vernal
pools, or other water courses on the parcels included in the Project.
Therefore, the Project would have no impact on these resources.
No migratory path for wildlife species, no connection with any wildlife habitat,
no water courses are located on the parcels included in this Project.
10.The size and height of the project is consistent with other structures in the
neighborhood. The Project was reviewed by the Design Review Board who
found the Project to be consistent and compatible with other residential
development in the neighborhood and appropriate for the individual parcels
included in the Project. Based on the above, the Project is consistent with
this requirement.
11. The proposed Project's location, size, height and intensity are harmonious
with the existing neighborhood, including other existing multi-family projects
directly across Oak Street and to the north of the project along Oak Street.
12.The proposed Project provides two access points one on Gobbi Street and
one on Oak Street, further the site has existing sidewalk entire frontage
providing convenient vehicle and pedestrian traffic patterns.
13.Notice of the Public Hearing was provided in the following manner:
■ mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the parcels included in the
Project on August 21, 2015;
■ published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on August 23, 2015;
■ posted on the Project site on August 21, 2015;
■ posted at the Civic Center (glass case) on August 21, 2015;
Gobbi Street Multi-Family Project
Use Permit
680 South State Street
File No:Munis 1174
Planning Commission 08092015
ATTACHMENT 3
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The following Conditions of Approval shall be made a
permanent part of Major Use Permit No. , shall remain in force regardless of property
ownership, and shall be implemented in order for this entitlement to remain valid:
Planninq Conditions, Kevin Thompson (707) 462-6207
1. This approval is not effective until the 10 day appeal period applicable to this Use
Permit has expired without the filing of a timely appeal. If a timely appeal is filed,
the project is subject to the outcome of the appeal and shall be revised as
necessary to comply with any modifications, conditions, or requirements that
were imposed as part of the appeal.
2. All Conditions of Approval shall be printed on all sets of building permit project
plans pertaining to any site preparation work or construction associated with the
development of the multi-family project and ancillary site improvements approved
by the Major Use Permit.
3. All use, construction and the location thereof, or occupancy shall conform to the
application and to any supporting documents submitted therewith, including any
maps, sketches, or plot plans accompanying the application or submitted by
applicant in support thereof.
4. Any construction shall comply with the "Standard Specifications" for such type of
construction now existing or which may hereafter be promulgated by the
Engineering Department of the City of Ukiah; except where higher standards are
imposed by law, rule, or regulation or by action of the Planning Commission such
standards shall be met.
5. Building permits shall be issued within two years after the effective date of the
Use Permit or same shall be null and void.
6. If any use permitted shall cease for six (6) consecutive months, then the right to
any Use Permit permitting such use shall terminate and such Use Permit shall be
revocable by the granting body
7. If any condition is violated or if any required approval is not obtained, then the
Use Permit granted shall be null and void; otherwise to continue in full force and
effect indefinitely until otherwise terminated and shall run with the land.
Gobbi Street Multi-Family Project
Use Permit
680 South State Street
File No:Munis 1174
Planning Commission 08092015
9. The approved Use Permit may be revoked through the City's revocation process
if the approved project related to the permit is not being conducted in compliance
with the stipulations and conditions of approval; or if the project is not established
within two (2) years of the effective date of approval; or if the established use for
which the permit was granted has ceased or has been suspended for twenty-four
(24) consecutive months.
10.Except as otherwise specifically noted, any Use Permit shall be granted only for
the specific purposes stated in the action approving such Use Permit and shall
not be construed as eliminating or modifying any building, use, or zone
requirements except as to such specific purposes.
11.Prior to the issuance of a building Permit, a Final Landscaping Plan shall be
submitted for review and approval by the Director of Planning and Community
Development or his/her designee. All required landscaping shall be planted prior
to final inspection, and shall be maintained in a viable condition to the satisfaction
of the Department of Planning and Community Development. The final
Landscaping Plan shall incorporate designs derived from Low Impact
Development Standards.
12. All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, road
construction, and building construction shall institute a practice of routinely
watering exposed soil to control dust, particularly during windy days.
13. All inactive, soil piles on the project site shall be completely covered at all times
to control fugitive dust.
14.A11 activities involving site preparation, excavation filling, grading, and actual
construction shall include a program of washing off trucks leaving the
construction site to control the transport of mud and dust onto public streets.
15.Low emission mobile construction equipment, such as tractors, scrapers, and
bulldozers shall be used for earth moving operations.
16. All earth moving and grading activities shall be suspended if wind speeds (as
instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour.
17. If, during site preparation or construction activities any historic or prehistoric
cultural resources are unearthed and discovered, all work shall immediately be
halted, and the City notified of the discovery. The applicant shall be required to
fund the hiring of a qualified professional archaeologist to perForm a field
reconnaissance and to develop a precise-mitigation program if deemed
necessary.
18. Areas to be graded for building construction shall be cleared of artificial fills,
vegetation, roots, and loose soil containing organic matter. SurFace strippings or
Gobbi Street Multi-Family Project
Use Permit
680 South State Street
File No:Munis 1174
Planning Commission 08092015
other soils containing organic materials cannot be used as fill except in
landscape areas.
19. A professional/certified engineer shall routinely inspect all grading work on the
project site. Field density tests must be taken during grading in order to evaluate
the adequacy of the contractor's work. After grading is completed and the soil
engineer has finished the observation of the work; no further excavation or filling
shall be done except with the approval of and observation of the soil engineer in
consultation with City Public Works Department Staff. The contractor shall be
responsible to prevent erosion and water damage of the graded areas and
adjoining areas during construction.
20. All grading activities on the site shall be conducted consistent with a Grading
Plan for all disturbed areas which shall be submitted to the City Public Work
Director/City Engineer for review and approval prior to the commencement of any
grading activities.
21.Prior to the commencement of grading or other site improvement activities
associated with the construction of the dwelling unit and/or accessory structures,
the applicant shall prepare and submit a Mitigation Compliance Plan verifying
when and how the required mitigation measures will be complied with. The
applicant shall fund and/or contract with qualified professionals such as civil and
geotechnical engineers and landscape architects and/or specialists to verify
compliance with all mitigation measures, and to prepare field reports for submittal
to the City.
From the Buildinq Official (707.467.5718)
22.A grading permit is required (this will include obtaining a California storm water
permit and Mendocino County Air Quality Management District permit for dust
control).
23.A Geotechnical Report is required.
24.In addition to any particular condition which might be imposed; any construction
shall comply with all building, fire, electric, plumbing, occupancy, and structural
laws, rules, regulations, and ordinances in effect at the time the Building Permit is
approved and issued.
25.Hours of- construction shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through
Saturday, except for owner occupied single-family construction which can also
occur from 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Sunday provided no heavy construction
equipment or vehicles are utilized.
From the Fire Marshal (Kevin Jennings 707.463.6271)
Gobbi Street Multi-Family Project
Use Permit
680 South State Street
File No:Munis 1174
Planning Commission 08092015
26.Residential Fire Sprinkler system will be required.
27.Smoke & Carbon Monoxide detectors will be required.
From the Public Works Department (Ben Kaqeyama 707.463.6284)
28.Prior to construction of site improvements, a final grading and drainage plan, and
an erosion and sediment control plan, prepared by a Civil Engineer, shall be
submitted for review and approval by the Department of Public Works. The plan
shall include the detailed design of the proposed storm water best management
practices (BMPs). Drainage improvements shall be in compliance with the City
of Ukiah's Phase I Storm Water Permit and the Low Impact Development
Technical Design Manual (LID Manual). A final drainage report and Standard
Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) shall be provided to support the
design of the proposed drainage system.
29.The project engineer shall provide direct oversight and inspection during project
construction, with special attention to implementation of best management
practices for sediment and erosion control, and the proper grading, installation,
and landscaping of the stormwater BMPs. Upon completion of the work, a report
shall be submitted by the project engineer to the Department of Public Works
stating that the improvements have been completed in accordance with the
approved plans and conditions of approval, shall function as intended, and all
areas have been permanently stabilized to prevent sediment and erosion.
30.Maintenance and inspection of all post-construction best management practices
(BMPs) are the responsibility of the property owner. In accordance with the LID
Manual, a legally binding, signed maintenance agreement approved by the City
of Ukiah is required for the proposed stormwater treatment planters and all post-
construction BMPs, and shall be recorded prior to final approval of the building
permit.
31.Sidewalk and driveway improvements within the street right-of-way shall meet
accessibility requirements. Prior to construction, improvement plans shall be prepared by
a Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works for all improvements
within the street rights-0f-way. Public sidewalks located outside of the street right-of-way
will require a sidewalk easement dedicated to the City.
32.Street trees shall be spaced approximately every 30', along Gobbi Street and
Oak Street, within tree wells, a landscape strip, or within 5' of the back of
sidewalk. Street trees shall be installed in accordance with City Standard
Drawing No 601. Tree types shall be approved by the City Engineer. Existing
trees in unsatisfactory condition shall be replaced.
Gobbi Street Multi-Family Project
Use Permit
680 South State Street
File No:Munis 1174
Planning Commission 08092015
33.Any existing curb, gutter and sidewalk in disrepair adjacent to the subject property shall
be repaired. All work shall be done in conformance with the City of Ukiah Standard
Drawings 101 and 102 or as directed by the City Engineer.
34.A11 work within the public right-of-way shall be performed by a licensed and
properly insured contractor. The contractor shall obtain an encroachment permit
for work within this area or otherwise affecting this area. Encroachment permit
fee shall be $45 plus 3% of estimated construction costs.
35.A11 areas of circulation shall be paved with a minimum of 2" of AC on 6" of Base
or other suitable all-weather surface approved by the City Engineer. This includes
the proposed driveways and parking areas. If heavy truck traffic is anticipated from
the solid waste company, delivery trucks, or other heavy vehicles, the pavement
section shall be calculated appropriately to ensure that it can withstand the
loading.
36. Existing sewer laterals planned to be utilized as part of this project shall be
cleaned and tested, and repaired or replaced if required. Sewer connection fees
shall be paid at the time of building permit issuance.
37.Capital Improvement fees for water service are based on the water meter size. A
fee schedule for water meter sizes is available upon request. Additionally, there
is a cost for City crews to construct the water main taps for the proposed water
services to serve the project.
38.Irrigation services shall have approved backflow devices.
Gobbi Street Multi-Family Project
Use Permit
680 South State Street
File No:Munis 1174
Planning Commission 08092015
��ty � u�iah City of Ukiah, CA
Design Review Board
1
2 MINUTES
3
4 Regular Meeting July 9, 2015
5
6 Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue
7 1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Liden called the Design Review Board meeting to order at
8 3:00 p.m. in Conference Room #3.
9
10 2. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Tom Liden, Alan Nicholson,
11 Colin Morrow
12
13 Absent: Nick Thayer and Howie Hawkes
14
15 Staff Present: Charley Stump, Planning Director
16 Kevin Thompson, Principal Planner
17 Michelle Johnson, Assistant Planner
18 Shannon Riley, Project&Grant Administrator
19
20 Others present: Steve Honeycutt, Guillon Inc., Project Manager
21 Matt Gallaway, Project Architect
22
23
24 3. CORRESPONDENCE:
25
26 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes from the May 14, 2015 meeting are available
27 for review and approval.
28
29 M/S Nicholson/Morrow to approve May 14, 2015 minutes, as submitted. Motion carried (3-0) of
30 members present.
31
32 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
33
34 The DRB is required by the City Code to review and make a recommendation on all Site
35 Development Permit applications.
36
37 6. NEW BUSINESS:
38 6A. Gobbi Street Complex 680 South State Street, (File No.: 1111): Request for
39 Preliminary Review and Recommendation of a Major Use Permit & Site Development
40 Permit for a proposed 26 unit multi-unit residential development on the NE corner of W.
41 Gobbi Street and Oak Street. 680 S. State Street(APN 002-301-55).
42
43 Principal Planner Thompson:
44 • Project is multi-unit residential development consisting of 26 units (8-two bed units and
45 18-one bed units), 38 vehicle parking spaces, 4 bicycle parking spaces and landscaping.
46 • Property is zoned C-1 and is a permitted use that requires use permit approval.
47 • Applicant is seeking some project exceptions related to onsite parking and landscape
48 coverage.
49 • The project is located in Airport Compatibility Zone C and the Mendocino Airport Land
50 Use Commission (ALUC) will make a recommendation/determination whether or not the
51 project complies with the Airport Compatibility Zone C in terms of density.
Design Review Board July 9, 2015
Page 1
1 • Requests the DRB comment on the design aspects as it relates to site layout and
2 elevations.
3
4 Steve Honeycutt:
5 • Asked about the process for approval of the project and requested clarification the intent
6 of the today's DRB meeting is a preliminary look at the project.
7
8 Principal Planner Thompson:
9 • Confirmed the process and noted the DRB will first review the project from a preliminary
10 perspective and later review of a formal application with a recommendation to Planning
11 Commission for approval.
12
13 Matt Gallaway:
14 • Acknowledged there is a housing need in Ukiah, particularly rental units.
15 • Has previously meet with planning staff to generally discuss the project objectives where
16 some project concerns were raised related to compliance with City parking and
17 landscaping standards such that modifications were made to the site plans.
18 • Related to the issue of parking and compliance with City parking requirements the intent
19 is to utilize on-street parking along the South Oak Street side of the project. To take
20 advantage of on-street parking accommodations designed the front of the units on the S.
21 Oak Street side so they face the street.
22 • From a design perspective relevant to onsite drainage and compliance with the Low
23 Impact Development (LID) standards the City has adopted has provided for mitigation
24 measures to effectively address all storm water runoff on the site. With input from the
25 project landscape architect and project civil engineer is of the opinion runoff from the site
26 can be effectively mitigated with the installation of bio-swales. Drainage/geotechnical
27 studies will be conducted for the project such that the preliminary/conceptual approach
28 and end result will likely be to handle the runoff with bio-swales.
29 • The design of the units is `straight forward' where the intent was to design for comparable
30 market rate without `over-designing.'
31 • The project location is `prime' for residential use particularly with the opportunity for the
32 applicant to gain positive accreditation for designing/providing sustainable and/or LEED
33 certified housing-related components. The C-1 zoning district allows for multi-unit
34 residential development.
35 • The proposed project is proximate to so many service locations in town.
36 • Would like to use brick as a material treatment that would also architecturally
37 complement the design of existing the Rite Aid building.
38
39 Steve Honeycutt:
40 • Most project applicants wrestle with maintaining cost effectiveness and complying with
41 corresponding market rates.
42 • The intent is to maximize the number of residential units such that the project pencils out
43 financially and provides more housing opportunities for the community.
44 • If the proposed housing project works well the plan is to do more projects of this nature.
45 • While the intent is to provide for a nice design that fits well in the neighborhood must be
46 practical in terms of cost effectiveness when it comes to the selection of materials and
47 treatments. It is possible to provide for a nice project without `maximum financial effect.'
48
49 Chair Liden:
50 • Asked about the rental fees and how they will be determined.
51
52 Steve Honeycutt:
53 • Rental fees have not yet been determined and/or finalized. The applicant will have the
54 information when the DRB has a formal review of the proposed project.
Design Review Board July 9, 2015
Page 2
1 Member Nicholson:
2 • Is of the opinion the proposed project appears to be well-thought out and is an
3 appropriate project for the City and neighborhood.
4 • Related to the landscaping plan, likes the tree and plant selection. Asked about the
5 concept for the bio-swale and storm water retention plan for the project.
6 • Requested clarification that all of the drainage can be effectively addressed through the
7 use of bio-swales as opposed to having a manmade retention system.
8 • Is fine with the building orientation and the fit on the site; Finds the roof pitch `too normal'
9 compared to other recently approved projects, such as the PEP Senior Housing project
10 that incorporated craftsman architecture into the design. It is not to say the design should
11 have more arts and crafts to it but the roof pitch of 5 and 12 feet seems to be
12 uninteresting. Is of the opinion the roofline needs 'more character' such that it is
13 emphasized slightly in a more interesting way and in keeping with the anticipated budget.
14 • Is fine with the design of the fa�ade and asked about the window design/treatment and
15 would they be recessed?
16 • Preference is the darker color, higher contrast palate for the buildings.
17 • Design-wise, nice that the doors have character and are distinct having color variety
18 other than typical/ordinary color schemes.
19
20 Member Morrow:
21 • Requested clarification if the other doors that are different colors are patio doors? Are the
22 doors intended to be a mix of colors?
23 • Has consideration been given to the roof color? Asked if a darker roof would be a
24 consideration? A darker colored roof would emphasize the difference in the color
25 schemes for the buildings allowing for a nice presentation.
26 • Inquired about the color renderings shown in terms of color accuracy.
27 • Questioned the proposed four bicycle parking spaces for the whole complex and finds
28 this `anemic' since the residential project is in a central location that is close to services
29 and retail establishments where people can travel to and from by bicycle. Such bicycle
30 parking accommodations may be acceptable for a restaurant but not for a residential
31 facility where many more people may have bicycles. Would like to see more bicycle
32 parking for the complex.
33
34 Chair Liden:
35 • Likes concept of green doors.
36 • Concerned the color palates talked about may not be distinctive enough and could fade
37 overtime and become about the same color. Related to the color board samples, color
38 scheme should be distinctive and have contrast.
39 • Is of the opinion the storing of bicycles and/or other items on balconies is not visibly
40 attractive. Supports having personal storage area available. An alternative to a garage
41 would be to have small storage units for tenants to put items such as bicycles.
42
43 Matt Gallaway:
44 • In general, primary site indications are that the existing site is relatively flat. There is a
45 rather large drop-off from the sidewalk on the S. Oak Street side to the property and
46 explained the drainage plans for this area and use of bio-swales before discharge into
47 the City's storm drain system. Some permeable paving may be provided to assist with
48 drainage on the site. A final drainage plan will be provided.
49 • Confirmed drainage on the site will likely be through the use of bio-swales but other
50 methodologies/systems will be looked at in connection with the `priority IisY for
51 compliance with the City's adopted LID Technical Design Manual standard. Will likely be
52 okay without the mechanical component of diverting the rain water leaders using
53 downspouts and gutters but further review is necessary in this regard.
Design Review Board July 9, 2015
Page 3
1 • Is of the opinion there is not a significant increase that needs to be made to change the
2 pitch. The arts and crafts type of design typically has lower sloping rooflines.
3 Understands while presentation is important a composition roof limits how the roofline
4 can be contoured in terms of pitch. A pitch of 3 and 12 feet is as low as the roof can go
5 with a composition roof where the preference is to begin with a pitch as low as 5 and 12
6 feet.
7 • It is possible to change the pitch to create more of an interesting roofline pitch.
8
9 Steve Honeycutt:
10 • Is fine with adding character to the roofline provided the `A' look does conflict with the
11 increased height.
12 • Related to the `California gables' asked if the DRB is looking to increase their widths or
13 just increase the pitch of the roof?
14 • Preference is for the windows to include trim from an aesthetic perspective.
15 Acknowledged the proposed windows are plain.
16
17 Matt Gallaway:
18 • Both the pitch of the roof and widths of the California gables would be increased thus
19 increasing the visibility.
20 • Talked about the two-tone color palate. Would like the body of the building to be a darker
21 color and the trim a lighter color. Referred to item `E' on the color board and
22 recommended incorporating a trim element around the brick. The color scheme and
23 application thereof, trim, use of brick and window treatment and/or other design
24 articulations should make the building 'pop' and have more character.
25 • Explained how the color palate would be applied to give contrast.
26 • Likes a green color for the doors as an accent color. Right now as presented the doors
27 are `portabella brown.'
28 • Confirmed the main entry doors are downstairs and are of different colors.
29 • The applicant is not particularly supportive of the green color for the doors.
30 • Preference would be a mix of colors for the doors. The site drawings show two different
31 door colors.
32 • To preserve and enrich color tone for the buildings intent is to use acrylic and/or latex
33 topcoat on the plaster.
34 • Explained the third color palate sample was actually the original proposed and ended up
35 more `peachy' than anticipated and this is not the color palate desired.
36 • Looked at roof colors and also thought about the idea of changing the color scheme from
37 roof to roof and/or from unit to unit. Having the roof the same color would allow for a more
38 integrated/unifying appearance. Preference is the charcoal color for the roof.
39 • Related to the various color palates being discussed, the preference is to use a two-tone
40 color scheme for the base color with a darker roof color. The color renderings do not
41 produce a true color palate.
42 • Related to bicycle parking/storage, applicant looked at common and storage areas and
43 the discussion was that if some balconies were provided and/or lower level patios this
44 might allow people to feel more comfortable storing a bicycle or barbecue. It is likely
45 bicycles would be stored inside the residential unit. Has no problem adding a few more
46 bicycle parking spaces.
47 • Related to the topic of storage areas such as in garages and noted there is not sufficient
48 width on the site to provide for a `park under approach' for a garage and still be able to
49 maintain the number of units necessary for the project to pencil out financially. The `park
50 under approach' for a garage is a consideration for other sites the applicant is looking at
51 in Ukiah.
52
53 Steve Honeycutt:
Design Review Board July 9, 2015
Page 4
1 • Some of the other potential residential sites being looked at in Ukiah are not as walkable
2 and/or as well-located as the proposed project site. Would hope that bicycles would be
3 stored inside the units.
4 • Consideration is being given to providing for adequate screening and tree placement.
5 Acknowledged providing for sufficient landscaping is very important and will be
6 addressed in the final landscape plans.
7 • Related to the issue of street trees, noted the project will eliminate two street trees and
8 showed the location where replacement alternative(s) species could be planted.
9
10 There was applicant/DRB discussion about the locations for street trees and/or replacement
11 locations and appropriate tree species as shown on the site plans.
12
13 Chair Liden:
14 • Referred to pages 5 and 6 of the staff report, Site Development Permit findings and
15 asked if the DRB had any comments.
16
17 There was DRB discussion concerning lighting accommodations on the site, such as wall
18 sconces
19
20 Matt Gallaway:
21 • The matter of lighting has not been fully worked out. Preference would be to install
22 lighting that does not have a lot of presence and prefers lighting systems show the effect
23 of lighting without seeing the visual source of the light. Once a wall sconce is installed, it
24 establishes the `vernacular of the architecture.' Preference is down-lit soffit lighting. Will
25 need to decide on some type of parking lot light fixture/system
26 • There are developments credits available for the installation of solar and there has been
27 discussion about implementing a solar structure along the north side of the site and with
28 the type of site design and building orientation this can occur.
29
30 Shannon Riley:
31 • The City of Ukiah Public Utilities Director may be able to assist with questions about solar
32 systems and credits earned for installation.
33
34 Member Morrow:
35 • Asked about the reason why one roof is higher.
36
37 Matt Gallaway:
38 • The roof is higher because the unit is larger such that the roof is wider.
39
40 Shannon Riley:
41 • Related to bicycle parking and corresponding accommodations it is her experience as a
42 business owner in the downtown that even though a sizeable bike rack may be installed
43 for convenience purposes people tend to park closest to their visibility citing an example.
44 Recommends the project provide for adequate space to park a bicycle such as the patio
45 area.
46
47 Matt Gallaway:
48 • It may be beneficial to distribute space throughout the site where it may be convenient for
49 people to park their bicycles.
50
51 Steve Honeycutt:
52 • It may be that once drainage for the site has been studied and worked out this could
53 affecUchange the landscaping plans.
54
Design Review Board July 9, 2015
Page 5
1 DRB consensus:
2 • Related to color palate, preference is higher contrast having a second accent color that
3 does not necessarily have to be the green palate that was discussed above.
4 • Proposed roof pitch is not a good fit and recommends the architect change the pitch to be
5 more architecturally pleasing.
6 • Add more bicycle parking.
7 • Possibly look at potential storage areas and/or allow for space on the site where people
8 can park their bicycles.
9 • Is okay with the proposed lighting concept and allow applicant to exercise discretion in
10 this regard.
11 • Add another street tree to the north side of the site near the entry driveway on Oak
12 Street.
13 • Preference is darker roof color.
14 • Recommends the project move forward in the approval process.
15
16 Principal Planner Thompson:
17 • The DRB will have the opportunity to review the formal application and site plans.
18
19 7. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD:
20
21 8. MATTERS FROM STAFF:
22
23 9. SET NEXT MEETING
24 The next regular meeting will be Thursday, August 13, 2015.
25
26 10. ADJOURNMENT
27 The meeting adjourned at 3:56 p.m.
28
29
30 Cathy Elawadly, Transcriptionist
31
32
33
34
35
36
Design Review Board July 9, 2015
Page 6
��ty � u�iah City of Ukiah, CA
Design Review Board
1
2 MINUTES
3
4 Regular Meeting August 13, 2015
5
6 Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue
7 1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Liden called the Design Review Board meeting to order at
8 3:00 p.m. in Conference Room #3.
9
10 2. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Tom Liden, Nick Thayer, Alan Nicholson,
11 Howie Hawkes
12
13 Absent: Colin Morrow
14
15 Staff Present: Kevin Thompson, Principal Planner
16 Michelle Johnson, Assistant Planner
17
18 Others present: Steve Honeycutt
19
20 3. CORRESPONDENCE:
21
22 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes from the July 9, 2015 meeting are available for
23 review and approval.
24
25 M/S Nicholson/Thayer to approve July 9, 2015 minutes, as submitted Member Hawkes
26 abstaining. Motion carried (3-0)of inembers present.
27
28 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
29
30 The DRB is required by the City Code to review and make a recommendation on all Site
31 Development Permit applications.
32
33 6. NEW BUSINESS:
34 6A. Gobbi Street Complex 680 South State Street, (File No.: 1111): Request for
35 Preliminary Review and Recommendation of a Major Use Permit & Site Development
36 Permit for a proposed 26 unit multi-unit residential development on the NE corner of W.
37 Gobbi Street and Oak Street. 680 S. State Street(APN 002-301-55).
38
39 Associate Planner Johnson provided the DRB with the following documents:
40 • Comments from Member Morrow dated August 13, 2015, incorporated into the minutes
41 as attachment 1.
42 • Revised plans dated August 13, 2015, incorporated into the minutes as attachment 2.
43
44 Steve Honeycutt, Applicant
45 • Acknowledged attachment 1 of the staff report for reference purposes represents the
46 project architecYs response to DRB meeting comments of July 9, 2015.
47 • Thanked the DRB for their corroborative efforts concerning the design aspects of the
48 proposed project.
49 • Since the last DRB review of the project, applicant has engaged in percolation tests and
50 a geotechnical report/study. The test indicates there is 15 feet of very high type clay, low
51 perk soil. As such, drainage is somewhat compromised in trying to find effective ways to
Design Review Board August 13, 2015
Page 1
1 manage/contain runoff onsite. With the present soil conditions only some of the storm
2 water runoff can be managed/contained on the site. Something has to give because not
3 all the water can drain into the soil for the interim should there be a significant amount of
4 rain, particularly at one time. Because of the soil conditions, it takes longer for water to
5 drain into the ground on the site.
6 • Public Works staff and civil engineers Rau and Associates have reviewed the drainage
7 issue where a different approach is being taken to address the situation than originally
8 assessed/evaluated where the intent is to initiate/integrate the right kind of water
9 retention treatment at 100% effectiveness.
10 • What is presently occurring with regard to water falling on the site and whether it is
11 reaching a pervious surface or not is only going down into the surface 2 to 21/2 feet
12 before reaching mostly an impervious layer. As such came up with a system that relies
13 more on `under drains' that is basically referred to as a `manifold system' for draining at
14 the clay layer. The intent is to drain the site and take water through the soil and through
15 the aggregate cleaning the water up along the way as per the adopted LID Technical
16 Design Manual requirements/guidelines. This methodology has been accomplished. Rau
17 and Associates will submit the formal drainage report shortly.
18 • The revised landscape plan does not show all that is being done to address drainage on
19 the site.
20 • Again, water will be captured on the site via an under drainage system using wide
21 permeable gutter pans and valley gutters. After the water has percolated down to the clay
22 layer it will be picked up and moved to storage locations and demonstrated how this
23 works on the drainage plans. The intent is also to slow the water down detain it before it
24 discharges into the City's storm water drainage system and demonstrated the location on
25 the plans.
26 • Further explained the drainage system that will feature permeable gutter pans with the
27 curb itself consisting of solid concrete which is what is necessary for durability all in
28 connection with an underground drainage system that helps the site drain properly.
29
30 Member Nicholson:
31 • Asked about the aggregate soil.
32
33 Steve Honeycutt:
34 • Is working with a geotechnical engineer and other professional to formulate soil that will
35 consist of two types, one which will be less permeable for use structurally for the building
36 pads themselves with the other soil being more permeable and includes some of the local
37 red sand that holds 35 to 40% of its weight in water without being `crushable' so as to get
38 adequate compatibility/structural integrity and water retention all at the same time. More
39 importantly is to attain permeability laterally and demonstrated how this works. What is
40 trying to be achieved with regard to the drainage on the site is to have practical
41 functioning processes work with the downspouts that drain into bio-retention swales. The
42 original concept of using bio-swales and maximizing surface vegetation to clean up the
43 water has not changed.
44 • The subject property sits higher than the Rite Aid property. As such, retaining walls
45 and/or other drainage systems are necessary to keep water on the site and move it into
46 the sumps for collection and showed the location thereof. A storm water leaching system
47 is another component of the drainage system that is used in connection with gutters and
48 downspouts. Sump pumps can be used for discharge into subsoil as an alternative to a
49 piping system that transports storm water to a discharge point.
50 • Explained when water comes off the downspout it goes into turf grass and into a sump
51 where it is collected/stored before going into the City's storm drain system. All runoff is
52 treated/cleaned up 100% to rid of sand, suspended solids, and the breaking down of
53 hydro-carbons as they come across and go in the permeable pavements and
54 substructure with the aggregates before it goes into the City's storm drain system. The
55 end result with regard to the drainage system is both qualitative and quantitative
Design Review Board August 13, 2015
Page 2
1 functioning. There will be no significant changes in the landscaping except for what was
2 modified relevant to Member Thayer's comments as addressed in the applicant's
3 response to the DRB comments in attachment 1 of the staff report.
4 • There was discussion today with staff and civil engineers about landscaping on the site
5 relative to the structural soil type and ability to provide for permeable tree wells, etc., and
6 showed the specific locations on the site plans. There was also discussion about other
7 issues on the site including low areas as shown on the site plans as being a retention
8 area and how best to relieve it from excessive runoff particularly with the soil type. The
9 civil engineers are looking at specific problem areas with regard to drainage issues and
10 soil with some potential plan deviations in order to fine tune the drainage system to make
11 certain all system components work interchangeably and are effectively coordinated such
12 that the system works/coincides with the landscaping and infrastructure/utilities. Noted
13 the site has size limitations where good planning and design is necessary so that
14 building, utilities, drainage systems, landscape all coordinate properly and fit on the site.
15 • The aesthetic design change from the original plan is the deletion of the pavers where the
16 intent is to not let this affect the overall quality of the site. The pavers have been replaced
17 with permeable areas and showed the location.
18 • The site will have decorative features at the entrances to help define the project and
19 showed the location.
20
21 Member Nicholson:
22 • What comprises the permeable material?
23 • Asked if permeable concrete would be for both the sidewalk and the parking area.
24
25 Member Hawkes:
26 • Related to drainage will there be any pumping required?
27 • Do you expect the runoff from to be the same after the project is completed as it is now?
28 • Parking lots have hydro-carbons.
29
30 Member Thayer:
31 • It may be that water simply cannot go into the ground because of soil conditions where
32 tree planting does help.
33 • Acknowledged the proposed drainage plan is a good model for modern site development.
34 • Requested clarification all the paving that was described as asphalt is now permeable
35 concrete.
36 • Requested clarification as to how the drainage system works with regard to runoff from
37 the pavement and vegetative collection and clean-up such that essentially surface water
38 is taken off the pavement while receiving water from other site sources into the vegetative
39 retention areas.
40 • Suggests evaluating `poured in place' permeable concrete versus permeable pavers that
41 are individually placed because the concrete may need to be cleaned such that this
42 becomes an element of maintenance. Not that the paver itself could not become clogged
43 with some material on the top it is that the pores are so small in poured in place concrete
44 that it has to be vacuumed. This is a problem for parking lots having poured in place
45 concrete because it has to be vacuumed to get the pores cleaned.
46
47 Steve Honeycutt:
48 • The permeable material is concrete. What is essentially occurring with regard to drainage
49 is the clean-up of the hydro-carbon, leaves, suspended solids, etc., as the water goes
50 underneath through the permeable pavement down to the aggregate layer.
51 • The sidewalks are 5-feet wide so there would be no benefit to having permeable
52 sidewalks/pavers because there is `permeation' on both sides of the sidewalk.
53 • Confirmed no pumping will be required where the hope is with the aggregation process
54 and functioning under drains water can be effectively captured, processed, and stored in
Design Review Board August 13, 2015
Page 3
1 the event of `second storm.' Is confident with the measures in place with regard to the
2 drainage system, as discussed above, should be able to effectively contain the excess
3 water on site, process it properly with a final discharge into the City's storm water drain
4 system. Further discussed how the drainage systems functions and the discharge
5 locations.
6 • The intent is to detain the water onsite for as long as possible and have as much possible
7 `perk' in the soil.
8 • It was estimated when Payless store was in operation there was 95°/o runoff from the site.
9 When the building was torn down and being a Type D soil runoff was reduced to 89%. So
10 89% of the water that currently falls on the site leaves the site. When the proposed
11 project is complete the percentage of runoff will be much less, cleaner and slowed down.
12 • Composition roofs release sand residuals with the rainwater runoff over time that has to
13 be caught out of each downspout via a retention/vegetative swale area before going into
14 the rest of the system.
15 • Clarified the project will feature vertical concrete and a permeable valley gutter pan. The
16 parking area will be asphalt and there are two stamped concrete strips at the entrance.
17 • Talked about runoff, vegetative collection, retention and clean-up with regard to drainage.
18 • The problem with permeable pavers is that they have to be removed to do any cleaning.
19
20 Member Thayer:
21 • Related to permeable pavers the whole logic behind segmented pre-cast concrete pavers
22 of any kind is that they can be removed.
23 • From a maintenance and cost perspective would recommend pavers taking into
24 consideration the scale of the project.
25
26 Chair Liden:
27 • Related to drainage, with a project like this would the City require some kind of a
28 maintenance/inspection schedule to make certain `everything is clean' since many of the
29 areas will get clogged that may include drainage pipes.
30
31 Member Hawkes:
32 • Is pleased to see the applicant is embracing the permeable soil options.
33
34 Member Thayer:
35 • Under new State regulations developers can no longer continue to do development
36 without compliance with State drainage regulations as it pertains to the City's recently
37 adopted LID Technical Design Manual standards.
38
39 Steve Honeycutt:
40 • Preference would be the concrete because the hope is the project will feature larger boyd
41 ready-mix concrete.
42 • Pavers will be incorporated to slow water runoff.
43 • No maintenance schedule is required. Related to sediments from the roof, etc., would be
44 pretty well `cleaned ouY before it reaches the drainage pipes because the sediment has
45 to go through soil matrix of vegetation and aggregate before it reaches the drainage
46 pipes so sediments would have been flushed out.
47 • Regular maintenance should not be an issue because Gullion, Inc. intends to continue to
48 own and maintain the property into the future. Maintenance and operation is not
49 something Gullion, Inc. takes lightly.
50 • There are machines that can perForm maintenance specific to drainage systems.
51
52 Assistant Planner Johnson:
53 • Will check with Public Works about maintenance/inspection requirements in association
54 with the building permit relative to the drainage system that is costly to install where the
Design Review Board August 13, 2015
Page 4
1 intent is to have it function properly for years to come. Another approach would be to
2 research other areas/cities to see what they do concerning maintenance since drainage
3 has now become a `spot-on' issue for projects.
4
5 Member Thayer:
6 • Related to maintenance/inspection of drainage systems, there are performance
7 guarantees that are generally held with a bond where someone has to do the inspections.
8 • Acknowledged the proposed drainage system for the project is collectively better than
9 any standard development idea.
10
11 Chair Liden:
12 • Supports having a maintenance schedule in place.
13 • His concern related to the drainage system is not so much quality but rather quantity
14 such that the system continues to function well into the future.
15
16 Steve Honeycutt:
17 • What would be relatively easy to measure is water quality at the outlet. Other than this, it
18 would be difficult to look at underground functions.
19 • Related to quantity and quality, the site is currently clogged where the objective is to
20 clean it up and slow down the water runoff.
21
22 Member Thayer:
23 • It is difficult to know the life span of the material that will be used for the drainage system
24 where the only thing to do is to vacuum and do regular maintenance to surface areas.
25
26 Steve Honeycutt:
27 • Has always been skeptical of pervious concrete. There is always going to be a clogging
28 issue related to dust and breakdown of leaves, etc.
29
30 Chair Liden:
31 • Clogging can also occur in the perforated piping.
32
33 Steve Honeycutt:
34 • It is best to think in terms of a leach line and all of the suspended solids the drainage
35 system will deal with. If the system is treated properly, it will continue to function. The
36 project will have less and much cleaner water as a result of the proposed drainage
37 system designed for the site.
38 • The design objective was not to sacrifice the aesthetics of the pavers, but rather to
39 formulate better treatment and retention.
40
41 Chair Liden:
42 • Asked if the DRB had questions regarding the project architecYs comments as provided
43 for in attachment 1 of the staff report.
44
45 Member Nicholson:
46 • Asked about the proposed color scheme and contrast intent.
47 • What is the intent of the sidewalk area (corner area) at the intersection of Gobbi Street
48 and Oak Street.
49
50 Member Thayer:
51 • Recommends planting Regal Mist Pink Nuhly in the corner.
52 • Likes that the roof pitch increased.
53 • Acknowledged there is Chinese Pstache along S. Oak Street.
54 • Is fine with the tree planting list.
Design Review Board August 13, 2015
Page 5
1 • Asked if there are trees in the intervening space between the property line and the
2 parking lot.
3 • Would like trees in the parking lot if this could happen.
4 • Related to bio-infiltration sod mix that is a blend of different sod as selected on the
5 landscape plans the practical reality is one-half of those species will die. As such,
6 recommends an alternative species native to the northern hemisphere that can be
7 drought tolerant and more of a mow-free blend of sod for use as a bio-infiltration material.
8 This material is simply rolled out and gets established quickly and no weeding is required.
9 The concern is if this material is in between the median strips for the parking area it is
10 going to get stepped on so best to use low species type that are mow free. This species
11 should not be the native version and named the `Fesque' types associated with this
12 version. Taller species are available. The intent would be for the material to look like a
13 `parkway.' Fesque types should be more heat and drought tolerant and would not need
14 the same level of care because the sod is intended for a parkway and/or indentation
15 strips. Likes bio-infiltration sod and Delta Blue Grass that has a mow-free product and
16 can be native or non-native. Showed the location on the site plans where this non-native
17 blend of Fesques would work best. The cost is approximately $.42 a square foot. Is of
18 the opinion the aforementioned sod would perform better than what is proposed for the
19 median strips.
20 • Noted the Crape Myrtle that is defined on the eastern boundary is pretty much located
21 near the water collection box and suggested another place on the site. Sees that other
22 Crape Myrtle bushes are proposed in other locations.
23
24 Chair Liden:
25 • Likes the proposed color scheme.
26 • The roof height proportionately fits well within the contours of other roofs in the
27 neighborhood and the western hills.
28 • Asked about the storage facilities on the site. People need adequate space to store
29 things/belongings. Storing items on balconies is not aesthetically pleasing.
30 • Very important for projects to provide for adequate storage facilities onsite.
31
32 Member Nicholson:
33 • Previously talked about relocating a tree on the site and referred to the location on S.
34 Oak Street. Asked about whether or not relocation is a possibility.
35 • Requested clarification the sidewalks will be regular concrete.
36 • Asked if the Planning Department is pleased with the proposed project?
37
38 Steve Honeycutt:
39 • The units will feature multiple door colors.
40 • Referred to the color samples and talked about the base and trim color scheme that
41 works well with a dark roof. There are three color palates on the accent walls.
42 • The corner area can be irrigated where the preference is to plant drought tolerant
43 vegetation.
44 • Related to the building aesthetics, roof pitch increased to a 7 and 12-foot pitch. The
45 higher pitch will provide for better ventilation for the upstairs residential units.
46 • At the recommendation of DRB made the roof a darker color.
47 • Because the site is constrained with underground electrical/storm drain systems it is not
48 possible to plant another tree for the project and showed the location where one would be
49 feasible.
50 • Confirmed there will be no trees in the intervening space between the property line and
51 the parking lot. This area contains mostly shrubs with mulch.
52 • Confirmed there is one existing street tree at each entry on Gobbi Street and Oak Street.
53 There was discussion about adding another street tree and showed the location but it is
Design Review Board August 13, 2015
Page 6
1 not possible due to utility/storm drain systems. Confirmed one tree will be removed and
2 showed the location.
3 • Is of the opinion the soil mixes that will be put on the site will help enhance the growth
4 and sustainability of the landscaping.
5 • Confirmed the only changes to the proposed project from the DRB's previous review of
6 the project are the response to the DRB comments and the matter of the pavers. The
7 intent is to make good use of each area of land and cited examples thereof.
8 • Identified the location of the gutter pans where reference is typically given to curb,
9 sidewalk and gutter pan that actually carries the water. The gutter pan in this case is the
10 permeable concrete.
11 • Looked into doing more mini-storage projects in the community and noted Ukiah has
12 many mini-storage facilities.
13 • The stairwells can be used for storage purposes as well as closets etc. There is not
14 sufficient space on the site to provide for mini-storage facilities.
15
16 There was more discussion concerning the color palate and brick material, parking lot and what
17 the best approach would be in terms of landscaping for the 'corner area.'
18
19 Principal Planner Thompson:
20 • Is fine with the progress being made, particularly with regard to the proposed solution to
21 the drainage issue on the site.
22
23 There was discussion regarding the perimeter fencing.
24
25 Member Nicholson summarized the DRB's project comments/recommendations:
26 • Likes the project.
27 • DRB has added landscape specifications material for the corner area.
28 • Appears bio-retention is being sufficiently addressed such that water retention on the site
29 should not be problematic.
30 • The color schemes for the buildings are fine.
31 • Gladding brick is acceptable.
32 • Proposed parking layout is acceptable.
33 • The revised changes to the site plans are fine.
34 • Related to the site plans, the delineation between the private versus public parking is a
35 nice addition.
36 • Related to comments from Member Thayer pertinent to the landscaping could be some
37 potential conflicts with the bio-retention swales in the initial landscaping plan with the
38 hope the property owner will consider the comments.
39
40 M/S Nicholson/Thayer to recommend Planning Commission approval concerning the design
41 aspects of the proposed Gobbi Street Complex located at 680 South State Street as discussed
42 above.
43
44 Discussion:
45 Steve Honeycutt:
46 • The intent is to coordinate between the recently developed LID Technical Manual
47 standards by moving plants/vegetation around as appropriate while maintaining the initial
48 landscape concept.
49
50 Motion carried 4-0.
51
52 7. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD:
53
54 8. MATTERS FROM STAFF:
Design Review Board August 13, 2015
Page 7
1 9. SET NEXT MEETING
2 The next regular meeting will be Thursday, September 10, 2015.
3
4 10. ADJOURNMENT
5 The meeting adjourned at 3:55 p.m.
6
7
8 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
9
10
11
12
13
14
Design Review Board August 13, 2015
Page 8
AttachmEnt # �
---�-�..�._..�
Michelle Johnson
From: Colin Morrow <colin@morrowlegal.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 223 PM
To: Michelle Johnson; alan@andesignstudio.com; Howell Hawkes (howie@pacific.net);Tom
Liden (tomliden@pacific.net); Nicholas Thayer(mail@lateafternoon.com)
Subject: Re:August 13th Design Review Board Meeting_Gobbi Street Complex Ukiah
I have had something pop up that is going to prevent me from making it to this meeting. Overall, I am supportive and am
pleased with the applicant's effort to address our concerns. I am glad to see the fleshing out of storage for the units.
The only new concern I might have is have is the question of how the project might effect the view of the hillside when
one looks west from State St. If it is blocked by the rite aid there is no issue, but if it rises significantly above,that would
effect that view.
Sorry to have to miss this meeting.
Colin
On 8/7/2015 4:24 PM, Michelle Johnson wrote:
Good afternoon,
This is a reminder of the Design Review Board Meeting Thursday August 13`h at 3:00 p.m.; Conference
Room 3,at the City of Ukiah Civic Center. If you are unable to attend please let me know as soon as
possible.The packets went out in the mail today Friday August 7`h; however I have attached a copy of
the Staff Report for your convenience. Please let me know if you do not receive your packet by Tuesday
August 11tn
Have a great weekend.
-Michelle
Michelle Johnson
Assistant Planner
City of Ukiah
Planning and Community Development Department
300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah,CA 95482
(707)463-6206
www.citvofukiah.com
RECEIVEp
AUG 13 2015
Colin Morrow Ci'CYOFUICIAH
The Law Office of Colin Morrow H�I.DI1�1G/PLANIVINGDEPARTMENT
308 S. School St., Ste. J
Ukiah, CA 95482
Phone: 707-380-1070
Fax: 707-234-8025
Email; colin@morrowlegal.com
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient (s) .
It may contain confidential and privileged information.
Unauthorized review, use� disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
1
:��-. � .
', '; ',' ���� ��.
""� ... �
, �, „�a�i
� �
� __ �.- ����"� �
tC f __ ---' ��� .�����'!�*�� ! � � � �-- - � ,
� _._.— �=—_=='��'�„�- '_ — � ` - � i
I .��.�q�pw,�ow�'�` � p � _ � ` I I
� r �%."�_�;� _ _ — — �I�I , �\-���-ri.
�� � � 1 f '���; 1 � •���� I I - ��W.�,���i: � _ _
.�— � � ��� �.� -.�. �.f.-=.--:;:: i
T �� i ;�� �r p•; �, �.;._.,:.::.:_..:....;.•-.,:•.:...p._---
II � i ��a,� ,.,r_„� �._ ..:: .� ::� " '-' •-.- ' '
� � �/��I► J i �•�i'_i����'i i��•.������
�i!:.'' �•�fi•.•.��...•��r' �
,,,,v /I i� II a�►'tl-�l ������:_.�.:i�'�i��!i��''•�-e:"'�o'�'.L�'��iy:�����i!.�-•�'"� �
�1�Y 11 . '� � ' .-..�.r�:�:���:�e-:•=`:'''����
���:�:c�.
( ' �, �`�/� � ��i.-.•�':'�:�i°: i��:�i°:°'i�si��!•�"•_'v'' ' �.
1ii . , . ;,�Ai► �j;,��I;�i!� �G e��a���'�:�ij�_���_.�_ �;
f '1. �� �~ �•!:i!:�:�!• •��i!'i
_ 1� �I �����'�1I
� ���'V�,i:�� ����`� '7�
.��
11=, ��--�°�� :''s' -
■ i �L��;- ;,;.. , �
� •••,.•� \
�'',•.',� �
� � M
I +�i i� �
�^��i��� (
.��i� ■ . u e•••u• ,�,�-,f,/; ,��:
, ��� �:?:;:;'s ���,�r►:;. �;:•:
r , .::�.s�. ���.:�:• � /�al Y.:�:
Y ���
■� . ��_�;.:�''`����� � ���� �\
. . ���► -
'� �� li� 'c�;;,�s,a �� � , ,
� �' �� � I�����` �''.'z';��.+��: :
, � � w� i � �� -;;;;���� �
,,� �� , �o;:.:
. a .,,,_ - �.t� �' �„` '
�"� 4 I � �! � I ���� ''•'•'•" 1
� � � � � � ��__������ � �..
�. �� �� ;o:..;.�., i�,,, � �,
_ I � I' � , �:�;;�;;'� � ,I i
.
� r � � II `:;o���; ,., �
A [.� / • ' 1 �
� ■1��� : /III���� � � � � i
�.� � �������r� � �������r� , —�� �� �
� ry. � �
� � t
� �
I �� � � '' �
! ■� ��, �� ` ;' �� �
, . 11�1; � -, � . �
. •. �' " � � '
. � " ' i � i
i � I � I / i•i: ?� � I
� ' � • I
' r ■ I � , ' i
. • . f 'I��I� � - - _'��� ;; ?
.. . � - � y� °:::; � � ! �
■ •;! '��t; ► ; li
='°; � 4r,m u :�,,;; �. ; ; �
• I `�+����;`� •'::'�; i•- ` I
�'��'�',:� '�`�=:: --�allllll�l r� ' _ �
' �Illlllr'I ��■ " / • . ,��.;. _ _�I �� �
• ' '`''`;•`' � �'�:I�I�I E —
i � : ���''"'� ��__:_.;; L {
• � � -�t::?� �,;: _ �
;; ,
�� �'�'� ----, / wt•e°:�;,; —_
� � �� -- —� ��
��.,; s'�•;, �
n �� ;'� .:: �i
u . � !:.
�,—�I � 'i�'i��'� �71
rv ' L1► :;�ei:':' � .
� tT� ■ � � :;v;t; L,�
r+� a�j��
Y � � ■~ � � I '+••,•+1�+�`�...
. T • �, I � ` � - �I������Y � � , ,�
�I :� ?� V'�
� ,, ��;,��,I�I , Il�jlll ,,. ,���,
- .- � �_� -� _ � [�
; :� � _
. ::: � ;:.,.
_ , —� .' �w..��;' _ � :
■ ' r� - ��;;�� �', �
:���►:.,�; �I s
. ■ � \'�ti� � ° � - _
- ■ ■ I �� � . � „
� � _a ��� i
� �„ � � �
■ _ � , ..�, --- � � � - -----� �
�� , :::,,� ' � - l 1 � �__,,;,�
• •_._.:,_. � - .;, � .,��,::.�;:;�
; ( � _ _,� _ ��. -���-�- ��::.:..��
• IJ , v1�►y����� --- ''-�
� � � �" ��a� ,�� i ,.�,. �
M
� ■ �- -, � �d _2�� � 1 �
. � q �� �
■ , � I � ,�� ,
� „ )'`;°��,�';' ' k :�r
� e �� � �- �
. � . . .il��'�f-
� „� Ji� �i - - �I
� ,,;/�;� � �
� ! �� �
=
.
, � � u .. I ,J : : �■-, , I : � ► . .
• . i r,� , �
� � i
. i I� _1. i �.
� -- �
� I � ----��
. ��o � �
� -.�-� �� � �
- . • R'' � ��__.,_,�.;----- - --
'1► � �'..;.�--_--'r- ���
� , . ��� .�v- �
( •.- �� ►��,...--� ���i•;��v y � �
�� �����' � � Y ►i - �����
—
- ,R. � - r'_ !��.�-_�.�— ,•, �s- ' �
• � � ' � �_ �
" � . � �� ' ����� ,_
�_�;��__�w�x��►,i�— w
– - �
! =
1 �
P ; E�ML�I�IV�T IMN�P Y D P A F T
o = � 3 � d C
� � f_ v � `r- '� N � � m � � ea` f 3 � ❑
c � cmzb�n ocm=b� o a°, ��� c g °�NO�� s > c D 3a�S3 �
n 3 n n u n o n n u u � mro��u n a �Sv.�o, a n 3 � ldI1N ,o
m u� u n n n u m � n n n u m ,o °' _—�
a N 3 33 �m m ° �3 ���A ° ? rn � .
f $ $" "��a,'^,� ;°, 4 7� �.e� ; ° n � °' �-.l
�� 6 � � 3rn m 3mg�� cdi � iB �'8H „ N d C ', . � ;„ �
�"$ c Srnmrn f S+emU � � a3 m � ° e'an �^ $ S � (� " o.
gd33�� � d c '�d � '�� Q a�� �i a �^°�� m n`�'i O /rn'� � �. � � ����.
q� �� � �� � �� �� a a m � �S��, a � l / ' � � _ '�:jF� i� J
• •a _�� „ �o �� � D � }� �-.� '' �,
� a�c �e�c I
o � r
� d o � � � ys' Sm" m � m,�.3m m � ^ ! � �f O 1
•<v w � �9� o � �.. o D ,/ (n Q �
� � o o � o o Q� o m V � �r i �
c o � o'� ro n y c � tl. � � �- ' 1 � �,.;
: � n� 7 S � 3 o Q � , 1 l e �I . :.
C"
� � � � � , � , , � �1_ i 4
0 0 3 � � $' � � �
8> � � �, � � � i - �
a� � �
�> m o°i �' � � � " �
� T � � a � �
� N . a � T
kN � , � i; D
j � � N � I� � / I : �
� N �a m x 0 �` � � s I � "O
� a n �
c ��` N '� � � 7C
a �' ' �
= a Z
� N � � ,''',if �,
�� •:' w �.s. '�)
I :'ii .
N � � N � �;�� �
� �I 1
��00��0� �� � � 0 � N � W � rn �° � J
� �' / A
U Cn A [J N O 4 )�. .;�� O�
O � � �� � ° Z �O 1 e
4
r r I� �"�:�i�:, I s�..
v � m m m T m �n v z m rn r.� IL� J � '.*:�:�: � :i I .
,v n n n D p n O � O Q ^ ; i:y •��;�y
� N O � � � m Q �� m my2m n D� �O � � rn V� �� A • �I��'
� = m n Z Z � (1 m m a� U+A m �,v 0� n� � m N rn I a �:�� �
m r^ Ci1 G� � rn m C � ,v`�^ D �° �� � m n � � ;�1' �
� Cl D (1 (1 Z m Z� y r -� �y A Z � z i, 7 :
n r^ �v, Z ZZ rn vZ zA m -� � �7� �� 'T
� O ic � � m y O� O f o = �n O� O =1 Q �� �i� - . °�
z <.+ � O z z=, D y O "� Z z O
O m G� � o c o a= � m� p �z =� -+ o, � ' y
� m � rp m(1 Z 'vrn � mm D�? 0 � Z 'v. '
m � m �Q O (� p(l �n • .
Z m � � n � � p. m 3 m nv�D m � �o a ^�p�
^+ � N � i" � N� D OD 9� � � o � O . N. 1� !W�
o. Z v 0 Z vZ � C�SC m� � *� Q � o ,
O m � D T O� � m` v D ,t- ° a i'� I k���.
� � /-� r � �� a �j n m a � ° � �� �
= Q � O (n �Z N Q N Z < � �.£ �'�. V � N �y�.�.
2 � iy � O v m �n tn �.
= n � � m� .'a T� � rn '�`. . (J � 'G P
N � � � �H � ?� Q �
p m Z � mZ Z =rn z O �
� � N
D r^ vD Z� � D � ••';.�. ..
m D N O�^ O D :� :�F.
Z y � Z N �•'�,,.
Z Z rn �m y � J
m m N
Z � �T Q= tZi� N p a � N O,
O O � A N �..
a r^ O_ � P N �
� � � z" `O_ = N r
� � m o� � a � o � _.` N J 133211S 1890� 1S3M
a Z m � T J T �
� > � � N � NpRTH
0 4 Z
4 m
0
`�' �, y (�m D (^� O < � <
y � 1 �S � � �ZO�D G"A_�pm W � I�� O �r � � � � O � V 2 Q � • ♦ • N O �
o ° � D p o � z�z32o�°� � '•�' z , T m r Z As � r Z
o � p � a � -A—o �rn � � >�n3������ Oo ����o��o � �,c o� Ao o� <� o� Z$ i� o� N o � � om xD o �
� � ^ �i � �c =1 /� r O fl �+?v O v�Z O i�O O s �� C�i �m m� m� �a �^ �`> O"' z ��. " n �Z
� rz Z l 1 O�c�J O m� v Z {m � J <O „,O m � Nm �o pA nb' pAz op ZO z p`^ ��„y Z
i c Q � r m fl�v� . 4� YZ f z z T Z � zGl z n m � /'1 �° pp Q r1
g O P,, a O �' Z D o��� v^', C!1 =�OOo��m�o � n-y^'No o �A °� �o o� 40 9� An m vi 5 0 '-� i
3 5 � r � p (� D z N 3 m 2 m�c n O- 9� TO `t� �� � o„ •nx z �
0 0 . z z��f O ��., � ��m,,,.,�z y a� �O ,.,� yc� DD o,,, � r o Z; nm p r
� - m (� �a a n-��°D z� c< ti� z Z = � c�T �y � ^J� c�s mZ m
� m O � �C� H � -V N 2 m ^ � D 0 JC mX � � Z 1
� � C �>_> m�p„=,Dm� V� 3= {:��o �� Ay �„ Z �a �yp �� � � CJ) 5 nz c, � CJ)
� '��` m m m � ,,,O °n Z�z o ' Gi`� c� �n �o �9 z� o z� �� p � p� �° o —I
°s � °� t m 9 � �o o Z mA��cp�ZO � �v o��� K� or =s �* �° � �� � ° � Z,; io �
o 'y ' � � � n F f�r3„~�N� `� c c N" �� � ou m°- �o �° z n =�`z �z
� N o� � � �� b 3 ozomZZ � g � s Z �� � _� � 4 � m m� �
� � Z o o Zp���A�O� Z � � � � � 9 � c� m '
x n C/1 0 o v�S> �a� =O Z � x O �; � p �
" o v a D f��D~�� O � 0 0 b
D � �Z.,O� >��m^'r^'„ —I
0 o m � �Z�p��� T - �,
^' D 'o p pnnm��; O
z � Oc� �C�T'��
� �cOy-�im�Zi+ O
� � AF OD�bD�ynD��O
m " T ��nnmO�yZp
I n � �O ��ZZ�
n r., � rn ° _ �Gfy3 c��
d E Z Z y ti m I.t m�A
ae ae ae � ZD=z�m03`G
� �vCi �Z3D
rn �vy'�Op=(lD� a o v f `G F `G o `L � p � O � z
DZJro_ � vc.
m0('1-���<yN .,, �„
p � D�r r^G)ln 0.v A a Gl � Gl fli Gl G1 Gl Gl � �n N N N N
O O D CmO�ti�ZC ao � � � � � � � D � N G) Gl � m
� n � Z a � ��ZQO(lp�n�yn � - N a � P J m � � �
�ti Zx�mZ m N O u� O
� � a a = Z ��'D^-niF��Op '�N '�' P c � �
D a
� � cZi 4l OZ � mii+D�m�v�m . . . , i . � . � v�
�m g � g
�F�'•� � � g C� A��z�r��`� 8mo � o = o �
n � '�'�� ° � � -�mom�<�m ac� � � A �
� � _-' O � �2T� A� ��y � o C o �c
� � -� Z �mnn��3�� mN° �
b � �� _�,•,!3 � v zmv�r„-�� f:, o
� o �o m ��.� _ � � = �°�m� Z >
a n �+�5 p m� �o
� � ; m ��
� '� N a 0
��
PHELIMINAHY e�� p�cqN�Ey�y eoum p�c�w�,
LANOSCAPE �D o
P�N �� e-13-2015 GULLION, INC. �•� BRIAN FIRTH LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT,INC.
eEVnwx � � 627 BROADWAY,SUITE 220,CHICO,CALIFORNIA 95928
ooae�e axo oaK srnEer
nenswN PHONE:(530)899-1130/FAX:(530)899-1920
U�.J 0 -- uKUH,c�ssu: 9 9
� xtyppN A.P.NUM\FRt oo2•]a1d6 www BFLAdesi n com www.{acebook com/BFLAdesi n
- - r.�?.a.projeci num�er: �S.QQ� p�anchec{r/slalus num{ier: �q.ppppp ,
II � � ��� �n�
� �
I � �
��� ---
w �� -- �
� � ��
� � ,
�. --_
��,, �, _ _ . � -- - - E � �E � �� c�
I � � �
J ����� ��_� �
EL: 4.22
� '------� � � - -
� � -- � ��
�� -- -- �
X X X � � PROPOSED RETAINING WALL � o �`� �n
�- -----�
w
�
o �» W . . . .
�---------- a
I N . , » r1 18 9' - - . .•. .'•'•�. . . . ~
�
. . . . I �
. . . . a
. . . . . . � � �
N 11 26 33 W = _ __ ��' ' ° Q y
. . .•�•. •�� a ..:�-. .=�--:'.•.•.•.•.•.• I
0
.�: a � �
�
_ 2.
�
a 8
�
a
•�• -
�1
a
. . . . ::��:
-r
a
:�.• -
�
:��
r
�
TRAS9-#�
:�: =�==::
�
�
. . . . . . . . d
p - - . � . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ � .
J
� . . . . . . .
-
� a
a
� .
0
�
a a , , a �
. I
.�.�'�'.'.'.'.'.+.
a
;�;•'•'� EL: 5. 1�(P) , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � I
. . L-� . . . . . . . � aa
�. `��:�l.5.�+�.•(.P.}. ° a -�� � I � c�n
a ° �; a a ° ° �°
t � . . . . . . . . . . EaL: 6�1 ; (E) y
� PARKIN � e I �
a a d a a 618.0 a � �
i ° EL:616. 2 (P) . + . ` + N ITS . ` � I �
.•. a
���:'� I w � � ° � a 2�o g � a 2 UNITS 2 NITS ° ° � � ��
a e a ,z
a F F=6 1 7.6 R I �'
� � ° ° � . . . . . . . . .
a a ° a FF=617.3 FF=617.3 FF=617. I � '�
I aa n, 4 UNITS °a ` a� a � I
•�•+- I 1.�_ e
?�. EL: 615. 1 P ` ° 617.75 a °
STA: "CL-0 5, I1 8'�LT FF=616.9 ° a � �
a EL: 1 E
•�M oo,00 �-
��� � I
0
�°�°° UNDERSTAIR UNDERSTAIR �
�• � ti2�� �°�oo F-STORAGE STORAGE� , , , , �`�
a
I w I EL: 616.86 (P) EL:616.89 (P) s>>25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' o (E)I �
�E..:•�1.'.25.•�P.). -��7�
"� 61��� EL: 617.05 (P) I �
•:•. EL• 615.3 (P) , , p� EL: 617.39 EL: 617.47 (P) E 16.94 (P) L: 616.81 (P) a a � �
'� STA: CL- " 2+08.06= EL:616.81 (P) EL:617.41 P a
�'*� �, b�� EL: 6 (
•�' STA: C 1+00.00 .�
EL: 615.75 ) 'w�` cn
`� EL: 617.21 P o0000 00 " U'
� )
00000
/ o0
000
00
I
000
0000
�1�
000
F-
00000000
��: . - �- �
EL: 615.84 � - -
w � ° EL: 617.23 (P) EL: 6. P) ,,., = I
,� � � o
3+00 �
3 :.:. ,�c�• � o � � EL: 616.99 (P) 2 EL: 617.13 (P) '''
• EL:616.97 P '
v • + , , � �, � EL:616.20 (P) or a
' � �'' L:615.4 � " ' ' " •
�
_ ; �5 ., " ao �
I' � o �o o � � I
� � - � � o� r � �-
Q �i � r =
I � •'•' p� o --
w � ba'. ��O' � N R�MOVED
Q `� Q'•�•� I 6 � ° T EE '-
�~ � � � � � � °° ° ° a V i- �( LL
� �' I',
� r h �`� cv � . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "° EL:6� 6 (E)�
> 6� � � �' �o � _ ° a
cn � w ,� � . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �
o I 6 I
� `
� '.�+•. EL:61 (E) �-
X o � .�t.:f9.8.Q.6.•(P o000 ° L: 6�' �E) I
h (P) � . .•. EL: 618. � ��°�oo°oo a °a
3 w 6,�6• EL: 6 .(P�•� •���� 3 �P� a °��o�ooa EL:617 (P) ° = I
. . , .
. . . . . . .
•
. . . . . . . . . . oa
. .
.
. . . .•
.•
.-
� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ao
.
-
. . . , . . .
. .
0
. .;.•. . . , . .•
o EL: 616.5 (P) . . . ..•+•. .•. a d 2 VN�TS ° I �-
.�.
. . . . ��`
.•
. .
. .
.
.
.
� •.•. .•. � h ,•,•�•,•�• • P�,• a . . . . . .• •7� . . . . 6 �E)
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . _
. .
.
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. .
. . .
1 � ��
� , � �0�� � � ° a L: 617°69 �P) a ° ° a EL: C17a a (p� a, . . EL: 618.05° a �a L: 618.08a(P� a � � a� FF=617.6 ° a ����
� +�. .�� . � d a p d . . �
EL: 616.87 ) °
0� • 7. P a a � a a a
z 12• 14. a °' �L:61�.�1 Fd a BIKE a 'a' , (E,� I
� � d
� p � - L•�6�'�:84' 'P �ARKIRJ a �-
� +;i.: �O Q .� � .{. � . a' � i-
� � Q
� a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I
.
6
.
. .
.1..
. . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . ,
. . . . . . .
x e •
�
� w �
o a
.�. . .
�
a �g 2`�.•.•'•'•'•'•'•'•'•`•�•�•`•�•�•+•�•�•+•�•.•�•�•�•�•�•'•'•'•'•. o
o I' 6 , I
N EL: 617.16 (P) � a . . . . . . . . a . . . . . . . . ' a .�.�..�.�.�.�.
� '1�'h a ° ° . . . . . . . . � a ° a° a • �'.'. . .'. . a° I �-
� �1 a Q a • �-�• a ,�
3 � 2 •0 �a ° ° ° ° I
v � I ° � . . . a O
a 4 uNiTS � a
� ° - ho a .
°o N �+� � ��� ° 25 � ° , . . . � � �-
6�a� ° 2 UNITS 6,a.5� 2 UNITS ° �
� .
� � ' FF=619.2
o � '.�. i �', a a a �
m � , FF= . �a -.a FF=618.7 . . 2 V N S � 2 V N�TS . . . . z
�
5
�
w a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. . . •
N O � I
N ° ° °
� .'.:. ' • . ',' .
.'.'.
z • �' . . . FF-�_�7. a FF=617.9 ° �
: : '
.
.•
J - EL:618.06 (P) .•` ' 6 � aa ° UN AIR UNDERSTAIR ' a °a ' ' ' '�* -- - �
� • c� . .
� N . . + , I s . .-�-
• o .-
^ � .
• • • STORAGE STORAGE � - •� •
. ...
_ . . - . . .:.
X � .• • . . •. �� : .04 (P) � p� --- --- ---
, a .
. •• .
.-
...
� 5'. . � � �`b' E 61 2 P L: 9.30 (P) °a • 5 � -- --- -- . . ,� : a� � �E��
z �. �� . � � . .
o � � � . . .
����
cv • • ' • 6 -- a .
e� '.`�.'.
-da . J +`.
• . . .
. • •�
.' .'.
++ d �,� d '�'� .' ,:s`,'�
. • •�
v `.•. . "• , EL: 6T7�9� ) a . �v
I p • a
' --
� . . . . . . . . . . . . . a -� a a � a a I
a
. . . .
� +, . . -�-36.68 - - . . . . . . . .
,
. , . . .
1
• --
d------ . . . .' k 8 • F-
.
. . . . .i. . . . . . . . . . . . ..-.-.- ____ a d d C
Q . . . . . . . . .
._ � EL: 618.24 'R " . .•. s_.__. . . . . + . ------ . . . . . . � � ° . . . . . - --_ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . __ , ° . :":��`-� °
. . . .
.
. .
. . . . . . . . .
.
. . .
. . . . d
.
- - . . . -- - ------ . . . . . . . . .
� . . .'
a •
.�
. . -. . . . . . . . . .'
. . . . .
.
.
. .'
. . . . . .'
.
.'
�� . . . � . . . n �- ' ------ .-.-. -� ------------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - --------- a . . . . . . . . . . ---------- --------- �_�_ . . . . . . . . . a
. . . . . . .
.
.
. .'
--
3 .'.'. .'.'!`.'.'.' . . . ... '.'.'.'.'.`.'. . . . a d a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • - - - - • . �
. . .
.`
. . . .
.
.'
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
. . .
.
. . . .'
.
.
.'
� . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .
.
. . . .
.
- • . . . . . . .
. . c O
.
.
. . . . . . ,-. .-. T. �-. w�: �s
. . . . •
-p . . . . . . . . . . . : - --- ----- . . . . . . . . . . . a d . . . . . . . . . a ° a 4
. . .
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . � . . .
. . . . . �. � . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . '�
, . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a
. . . . : . . . . . �.� �. . . . . . -------d - �.--.�.�. a
a Q . '� '��' �
N � a- --- � ---
_ �
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
,
--- - 'I
� 3 e a d a - f� - a _ . . . . . • • - -- _ .: a d
. .
. . . . . . . .
.- a ���.-�_ . ° H
�J.� ,' .
d . . . . . . . . . .
.- . . . .
. �,
d . . . . . . . . . '
..�. � .
N � � � a EL:°6�$a82 Q a � a a � a d � a ° n a a . . . . ..+. .`. . .a. d. . �.±. �.a.�. .. . .� °c a � \ I
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . .
. �,.- � . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .�.� .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
, . . . . . . .`. `.�. .�.�
.�.'.�.�.'.'.'.'
.�.�.�.�.r , � Q
X Z a �� d � ' � ° a � �E� a ° � a 40 a d d � a s � -a a d � N� a �� a d N�� � ° � � I
�
� o a a d ° � a C: 1+24. 9 ' L`: 618.69a (E :618.F�5 ) ° °° � ° m a a ° a ° E�: 618.4 (E� ° �L: 618.1 E a a ° - L-�1��02H�E a ��ELa617.��(E) a :61�82 (E) a a d d a ° ° EL: 61�.48, (E) ' . �
o Q a a � a ' a a ' a EL:�18.�1 (�F) a E 61 E) a a a_ ��-� H� ' a
a a a . .
`� � _ ° ° ° ° a ° a a a ° ° EL:�'1��0� E a H� , aH� H� a o EL:61�.1� (�}' a ° aa EL:�17.99 (E) � d � �° EL:617.6,5 (E) ° ° a a
I H � a a EL:�18.33 (E a a0 � a a a o ° a
� I
� � c d °
� ------------------ ° a °a a a
-- �
------- �
- ----- -
------------- - -,
_ �
�
� � � - �
E�?�V�_�_�_�_�_==Z====
3 00� , REM �
_ _
�
i�����__�_�_�_�_�-�-�-�-�-�_�_�_�-
�° ° - - - - - - - - - - -
�===i= a
�' � s ��____ �
L '� J L � � � _�
�
�
=
O � -----
10 20
�
--
0
� � ' - �
-
_ �
-
----------------------------------------------------- --------- � �
�
�,� SCALE IN FEET
a� ��
� � DATE REVISION: BY: COMPUTER N0: SERVER Z:\R15038 VER I FY SCALE G U I LLO N, I N C. G R A D I N G P LA N Date: JULY 2015 �
� CLI ENT: DRAWI NG: Scale: AS SHOWN SHEET
�
o�o �° PATH: \DRAWINGS\SURVEY o �/2 � 2 3 2550 LAKEWEST DRIVE, SUITE 50 � ��� �
"' • Drawn: M.A.W.
� � FILE: R15038_PS-IXIST_COND.dwg CH�C�, CA 95928 AND ASSOCIATES INC.
� BAR REPRESENTS THREE INCHES ON ORIGINAL
� N PSVIEW: �w
� USE OF THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING THE INCORPORATED LOCATION:N.E. CO R N ER GO B B I ST. �X. S. OAK ST CIVIL ENGINEERS • LAND SURVEYORS PROJECT: Checked: G.C.R. � �
� t MSVP: DESIGNS, IS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE FOR THIS PROJECT Reviewed: G.C.R. � � a
� o AND SHALL NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT U K IAH CA 100 NORTH PINE STREET • (707) 462-6536 • UKIAH, CA 95482 S ITE D EVELO P M ENT
x � MSVIEW: THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF RAU AND ASSOCIATES INC. � �ob ►vo. R 15038 SHEETS
PROJECT DATA: LOT COVERAGE:
LANDSCAPED AREA �-------� TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED=
° NON-PERVIOUS � �BALCONY ABOVE TOTAL CONSTRUCTED AREA 18,370 SQ. FT. TOTAL BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA = 9185 SQ. FT.
��� � � i ; -�P � o ° SEE LANDSCAPE � �
N (E) TREES TO STANDARD STALLS = 20
� � �a�'�s REMAIN CONC. SIDEWALK DRAWWG L_______J ACCESSIBLE STALLS = 2 HEIGHT: 2 STORIES -
�.�,,;n�st � - _
,� t�nain•cir PROJECT SITE : _ 26 UNITS; 8 TWO BED UNITS, 18 SINGLE BED UNITS LOT AREA = 38246 SQ. FT.
COMPACT STALLS - 7 �
m Regei Eihemns llkiah 6 NORTH EAST PARKING �FF SITE PARKING = 9 PAR(�EL AREA 38,869 SQ. FT. (.0.89 A(�RES) O �
��� � � CORNER OF GOBBI - � ST�AMPED �ONC. �AC CONCRETE BUILDING OUTLINE PARCEL ZONING: C-1 LOT COVERAGE = 24.096 � �
n � se� �� AND SOUTH OAK (3268 SQ. FT.)
2 SPACES REQUIRED PER (2) BEDROOM
�
STREETS r - - - � UNIT = 16 STALLS REQUIRED AND 1 SPACE �
w c �'CaDIRbI-St
N � d a I I ROOF ABOVE PER DUPLEX UNIT = 18 STALLS REQUIRED �
� ` LANDSCA EEE PERVIOUS CONC. L _ _ _ J PER UKIAH CITY CODE SOS9198 FOR A FIRE FLOW ANALYSIS: FLOOR AREA RATIO: _
� .ter�reff�s m DRAWINGS - - - - PROPERTY LINE TOTAL OF 34 PARKING SPACES REQUIRED. �
� @ Wilnessesafllkiah'"' E?, a LOCATED IN TOTAL CONSTRUCTED AREA: 18,$7O SQ. FT. TOTAL BUILDING AREA = 18.370 SQ. FT. �U
o �. � o ACCESSIBLE STALLS REQUIRED PER CBC �
��o-b,��•�WeIlsFargo�ank 5 � � - � CONDENSER SETBACK PER 3705.5 BUILDING TYPE DECLARED AS: VB
o � a TABLE 11B-2082 = 2, (2) PROVIDED
� = UNIT C.F.C. TABLE B105.1 REQUIRES 2500 GPM LOT AREA = 38246 SQ. FT. U
� � o b - — — — — — — — — — — — — — - EASEMENT 3 HYDRANTS REQUIRED FOR FLOW. �
�6 V� - POLE MOUNTED LIGHT �� WALL MOUNTED LIGHT HYDRANTS PROVIDED FOR COVERAGE = x GPM. OK. FLOOR AREA RATIO = .48 '
� o E11ie s hluu Nut Y� er Ln @ � � �
&VegeEarisn co�� " � SEE C.J.S. LIGHTING DWGS. � SEE C.J.S. LIGHTING DWGS. NEW FENCE, SEE TOTAL PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: 36
n c� � + J� X — X — X — X — X O
°, � e,t��. LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS �
������ � INDICATES DOWNSPOUT � PATH OF TRAVEL TO TOTAL PARKING SPACES PROVIDED: 38 � ��
PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY
�
L/1
�
VICINITY MAP BALCONY LEGEND _ — X --=X X � - � PROJECT DATA .� �
I ABOVE `� �'�,_-�X� X �- " � X a a U � �
x'=X�i� x =' X�X'= ,� � x � x —� x-,— x ____ X =, X — x � x= x —' x ,—.x =z�:x —� x�"— x — x =z� x � x;=x —, X —z=' x — x ='x —, X — x =' X—��x'=z — x � x= x — x,—:x = x '� �� O r-{ �—�I
� --� ° � I
� � �' � �� U1 N /''��
' . . ,. . � . . . . � � . . .' � . . � . . . D �° � �� � . � , . � � � . � . � � . � . � � . � . . � . . � . . � . . � . . � . � . , . . � . . � . . . . � . . � . � . � � . � . � � � . . � . � . . . . � . . � . � . . � � . � . � � . � . � � . � . . , . . � . . . � . . , � . � . � � . � . � � . � . . � . . � . . . � - . � . � . , . . � . . . . � � � . � . � � . � . � � . � . . , . . � . . . � . . � . . . , . � � . � . � � � . . . � � \ V
— ,=��--�� ���� — �� T �_ �� I� a � � � �
� �I � '� I D D — - - - - � o — _'- - � D . � •� (�T m
Ix �, � ° � � � - - J a °� o p a o _ � _ _ _r—� — � —'�— ° � — �� � - - - - - - - - - - - - - � � � r _ - - - - - - - - - - - � � a � U1 � �C
D
�I � � °D I NEWb�RASH EN�LOSURE D D � ° � � ° � � — — — J D o � � L� — — — J II� � L� II�° ° � � -�-' � `� �
�S . ,. . . ' . , .I . . �I. ' . , . . o�D � � v D . 4 , . 4 D v,� � D I� � . � I. �o II� �I I' � . � . I DII� �I I . ' . . I � Q � � W (� O
I � I � p BIKE RACK, �� � ' �' 22'-0�� g�_ �� �I 22'-0" I I ° IIC �I � I a a �, � +� �'� �
% I ' � o a � o SEE AP 5T-0 I � o IIC � I ' I � �I I � a � � � � �p .0
D o LANDSC E i i ii��i i r 2 U N ITS a ii� �i i � a a � H � � � o ,.�
iI � �� o � o D 4 D DRAWINGS o� ' � 2 U N ITS o ��� �i 2 U N ITS � � D �i� �� 2 U N ITS _ � � ,
�I o D o D D . . � � � 0 1� �I � � o II� �I � � m �� N U d� f'd
� � D ° ° � o a G 1 � � � N F2 0��� �� F1 � � E2 ����� E1 , � a a a m �, � , c-� �
I o (N) V�QN ACC�SSIBL
X � a _ _ _ I I (7�z � � � � � � UPSTaRS � I I 0 �n 0 � •
P A R K I N Go S P A C E ♦ � 4 U N I T S
� D p I� T IR M G3 �PSTAIRS � o I I F4 �PSTAIRS ° F 3 UPSTAIRS � � E 4 a D E 3 UPSTAIRS I I a a � � � �� (�
I I � � � � G 4 U P S A S
" I I ° (N) S T A L L A C C E S S I B I L I T Y � �� � � � I � �
o � ° �
� , m � SYMBOL, SEE h/A0.3 � o °'� I I � � �' D ° � � oD � � � ~ � 1"I U �
I . � . � p 1 a I I ' � I� � �I . , . I� D I � � . � . . � I, o �
Q
�X � ° �1I I � � � � � T �� � � � � �� W
STORM DRAIN, TYP., �p � �° � U N D E R S T A I R U N D E R S T A I R � � I � � � �� �� �� � � I I , o0 o a I
I' I D SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS a z � �o 00 � pI I STORAGE STORAGE I � — — �r — T — � — — �- _ — — — .- — �— � — � — � , � ° � �C T * �
" � I � �� I I � I I I - - -,- -, - - - - T — - - - - � � �- - - - - - - - - - � - - - - - - - - - � a \� �PWAY 'ti�,
D � . � . . � . , . . �
615.30 (P) �/► , I I ' � ' v , ' 4 4 �D 4 D 4 4 a �� � �` �
I I 11� Q 4 ' � . � �
� � . �� .I � � . � . � . . � _ . � _ . . . � . . . � . _ . � � . .
x I (N) ACCESSIBLE � o � 4 4 v p � � o � � � � �°� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� a
I I D � � .. � � � � � � � � � � � � ��. 5 � � � � � D ° D � � �P o � �
a Q I� � Q
' . , �! � T.� .� � � � � � � � � � � � � � D 4 4 4 D ' 4 D 4 4 D ` � . . � . . . . � . � . , . � . � . , . � . I m � N �
� LOADWG ZONE � � ° � �o' � — - - � a � - - D I� ° �' I o I � zi c� � o
, o
' `� � i � �i � � — — — —l^ — — — D 4 BALCONY o [�
% (N) TRUNCATED DOMES, t /� =
�
. . � . . . � Q L -- . � , . � . � . . � . . , . . � . . � . � � �,I � � Q p � � �/'16oVE � . � . � . . � . � . � . . � . � . . � D �000�oo�� � � . . . . . . . � . � . � . � . , � . . � . � . � . . � a d �/��'Y��bW �� P�C/
I 4
I SEE i/A0.3 1 ' � v � p? D I °°o o °o o� D � � � S�
D 1�
D � � . � �v . . . � � D o�o 0 0�0 o c p � " , �
%. . . � . � . � . � V 15.4J �P� . . , � � . . � , D , . � v � � � � � v�� � � � � � � � � D� o D 4 4 o v D v � p Q 0 p D _..- .�
. � . . p � . . � � � � � � � � �
D `
� . � � . � . . D � D v o o a p �D � � � �
I � o o � ° ��I � �
� � ° D -
�% ° — ° D � � v p a o p D N k � � -
� D Q -
n _
I -
o Y o
A N
LCO -
B A . _
03
�I ' � i� k ABOVE (N) VAN ACCESSIBLE - �- �
K I / 5'x5' LANDING AT EACH APN: OOZ'3O1 '�� PARKING SPACE �
� / �, A0.3 EXTERIOR DOOR, SLOPE NOT - + �
, � � � ` O
I � � a° °= ° TO EXCEED 296 IN EITHER (N) TRUNCATED DOMES, (N) STALL ACCESSIBILITY
- / - W
-, h/A . � � � O
% I �� � DIRECTION, TYP. AT EACH UNIT SEE i/A0.3 SYMBOL, SEE 03 p o �a � REMOVED z O
I I I ° � 9�,� ENTRY/EXIT, SEE b/A02 r � =
po v o _ a
rX � I o o, ��• - - - - - - - - � — �— �' TREE •
D �
a� WELL � `__ �
� � I � ,.�9� J J �G � ° �� a� _�C �¢.
r
I N
I � a '9,90 Q.�` �, _ _ _ _ _ _ � � 1O � .�
I �GS 9� o `�o, oQP � �� �� — al ° a '� '� �
I o a a a �
� ' � � .o, ,��, oo �' � � u
I ° � � � �
" � � � � � ��' � � � � � � � � � � � � ooa � ��
I o 0 9 000 00 �IC.�� � � I � a °a �� o v�
°� °° � IIC 22-0' I I ;� �
0 00
'I � . m i1 ou TYP. . p,, . � � . � . . � . . � o 00 0 , . . � � � . � . . a :: f�
. . . �o° �, . . . � . . � . � , - ' a Q . � \
1% � �9 r D . . � . ' � . . D �o o°o° � , . , II� �I I� � ' �II � a � ��
, �a ° ° BALCONY D o O O � u� �l 2 N ITS � v
I I 0 �
� . O a � 4 . � . � . � . II� I . , I
X � ' O � , � . � . �
� . . m I . ABQVE O � a �o � . . � . . . - .
D O 3� � U
. . � �n � . . � . � . . O p � , . � v . � . . � a
O D IIG I
I � � . � . � . . . ' � . . , . o � o v o v a � � �� D � D D D BIKE RACK� � . � . II� I N D� I. . . I 4 � �
. . D � D v. . .D 4� 4 4 � 4 4 D 4 . 4 � � � D . . � . � � . � . . � . . � . . . . . I�CC � �� I
% , . , . � . D D � � p D v oD �p a Q v o p D . . . . � � . . . � .
� ' ° ° D _ _� _ ��j o T�o �p o ~ _ _ _ _ 4 RETAINING LANDSCAPE ° � DZUPSTAIRS I ° a
�� � � � n p � -� � � - - - - ��- - - - - � �— ° � � � � � � � � � � � ° � � � � � WALL � � � � � � � � � � � DR�WINGS � � � �' �' � � � � �I ° �C � r
I
w I p � � Qa I D D L _ _ — , � � a � d � N
l w I ° � � a HVACSCREEN �� � � � �4� � � � � � � � �', � � Z � � �t!
x
I o � � a WALL, TYP. o o _ _ O _ W .
I `/ � 4 � � � � � � � � � . � . , . , . � . . � . . � . . � . � . . . � . � � � ^ � � .
I � � � � � � a a— � J- � a� °� v oc a o r
'X � � I I � J � � L�-L - - - - - - — � — - - - � � a Z � f~/) � N �
0 0 � � �� 0 � �� � a � O N
�I � � � I o I a ���°�I � J �o � � L � � J � QO a � '�
% � p a o i A 1 A 2 � i � a i i c i i ° i i� � i �i ° m � o " W �
� 4 � o � I C �� � a a a O Z = m �
� � ° � A 3 UPSTAIRS 4 U N I T S � a u c �� � � � � J Q a �
% A 4 UPSTAIRS � ° o ° a � m � 7 v
, D 2 UNITS u� �� 2 U N I T � � ��c�� � � —
� � � � � �' , i 8 a ��� �� � ' 2 U N ITS ��� �� � � W o ' � .o
�x J D D � i i i i�a� B 2 i i u� �i 2 U N ITS � ° i a o � � �,
� w �� o a o D � B 1 ��� �� � � /� D u� �� /� � � o y � a �
I I ° � �D � TAIR I o o '� B3 �PSTAIRS �all� g4 UPSTAIRS I I V 1 01� �I VZ � o I a � � �
EXISTING % UNDERSTAIR UNDERS
ELECTRICAL � � � STORAGE STORAGE� � � I � C3 UPSTAIRS — J� C4 UPSTAIRS � � a �;
TO REMAW i D I I ° I a Q � � o � a � °a ° a a
v �I I � � � �
x � Do � a i
5�_b" ' II � n P � I a° a I + • •
. . . . . . . . � � � ������ � � � � I. � . .I. 4 D 4 D 4 4 V 4 • . , . � . � . � . 4 4 4
� � � � I . � .� . . � � � � � �� � . � . . . , . � � . .
' ' �D - - - - - � - - - - - � — r �- - rt � r I � � � � � � � � � � � I � a a � � ' •
. . � . . . .I � . . � . . . � , . . . � . . � . . , . . � . . . I . . , . . � I � � � � � � � � � � � � .� �.� �. � .� �.J —.�� � . � � _ _� � _ _rt D _ _ . . . . � . � . . a o
� . . . . � . � � Q p . . � . � . . . � . .�, � . � , � � . . � . . . . . . . � . . . . ' , . . � . . � . �� � � � �.� � � , , � � . . � / a � � �
. � . , . . � . . � . � . � � . . _ _-. —� _- ...-I � � . � . � ��. . � . . � . . � —� � . � � . . � . . � � . . � . . D �. . � . , . . � . . � . � � . � . . . . � . . . . . � . . � . . � . . ,� . � � �,. �. �,� �� �� . . . . . . � . . � . . . , . a 4 d Q
a oD ' 4 � � a � � O
. p � � UP 1 � a UP 1 I o a v a PROPERTY LINE //
I _� � �
- - _ STEP STEP � � Q a° ° a O a � � N
�
4 a. .-...I I �I.- I -...T I—i .-_. � . . . . . . — � � � . � � —� ' ' . � � � � � , � � � � � � 4 4 �f O
a � (n �l
a a a a a - - : , — I _ a a a ° a a BALCONY ° � ° ° ° a ° a ° a ° WATER BALCONY � a � � a a � BALCONY ° a ° a a � ° Z �
_ _ -
° � a ° a a a = � _ i . a a � a ° a � a ABOVE � °a ° a d ° ° a METERS a ABOVE a � 4 4 ° a a a ABOVE � � � � °a a ° a a �
� a � a 4 a a � 4 4 a 4 4 � � a 4 4 4 Q 4 4 d
4 � 4 � 4 Q � 4 4 � 4
4 4 4 4 4 � 4 a � Q 4 a � 4 � 4 Q a 4 a d � � � d � � 4 �4 4 Q 4 a � a Q
a � a ° aa a a a a O a a a a 4 � a a ° a 4 a ° ° a a O a a ° O a � � 4 � ° a °a 4
� 4 4 4 � O 4� 4 � 4 4 Q � O Q � 4
W ~
REMOVED TREE WELL OFF SITE PARKING ~ �
(E) TREE WELL "' �
Z N d O O O
Y
� a W F � y y v,
� J � � � � � � � � o v N m o 0 0
SOUTH OAK STREET
N
� a ■
� �
d
W
F
N
� �
-
� �
SCALE: 1�� - ,o�-o�� �,20� A R C H I T E C T U RA L S I T E P LA N
28'-0"
��������
2'-0" 26'-0" -
� �
o � •
9'-1" 3'-8" 3'-10" 3'-10" 5'-7" �
POP OUT AT GOBBI ST. �
FACING, SEE INTERIOR �
ELEVATIONS s
— — — — — — — �
- tf1
Zo �
- � � W,o �0 _ � �
0
� s
o � q �
M 0 � � U
0
� r BATH O � �
° � 9'-0" C� . � � KITCHEN �
� � M
�
c� wH �, 9'-0" CLG. � o �
N I /\ I N � ��--� \ V
�
2'-6" � � ' '� O o0
CV N � � o0
" �J O °
o � � �
r� � � �
CV � � �
�; wHo�E o '� � m
'-0" 6'-2" 1'-9 1/2' HOUSE FAN N r ,� U1 � �
� 3 v2 LIVING ROOM N � � � � �
„ �
� / 9'-0" L . I N � � •� � 0
° � / � � � cd U1 � O 0
N � I � �+� � �i
,9` _ � � � � � U
/ / �? I o0 0 � �, �
� �
/ � °0 � I ��
I � � � � v m �
L/� 0 �
CV
� � � � � m
N � ,� v �
� TT � i � T � i � TT � i � T �
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ABO ONY \�E�� Y * e,�
� - - - � L1J I LL � I � L1 � I L � _ � �,�,P �� �'o
_� � �
L - - - - - J Q �P � � Q
m � N U
Q N O
� U �� �
��,�y�l b W �F' P�v
SCALE: 3�� - ,�_o�� �4, M O D U L E T I T L E
SCALE: 1/4�� - ,�_o�� �48, 1 B E D ROO M D U P L EX F LOO R P LAN �� , , � S�
. .
52'-0" 0
O
10'-0" 12'-0" 8'-0" 12'-0" 10'-0" 0
O
.
1'-1" �
1'-6" 3'-0" 1'-0" 2'-0" 2'-6" 3'-2" 5'-8" 3'-2" 3'-2" 5'-8" 3'-2" 2'-2 1/2" 2'-2 1/2" 3'-0" 1'-6" r
�
a�
�
�
�
� � �
Q _ II II N ° INSULATED WOOD FRAMED EXTERIOR WALL. -�
_ � II _ _ _ II � _ USE 2x6" D.F. STUDS AT 16" O.C. EXTERIOR N
rll II FINISH TO BE BRICK VENEER OR PLASTER OVER v
wH � I I� �I � O 60 MIN. HOUSE WRAP & OVER PLYWOOD. ,�
o �" � � �" WH � INTERIOR FINISH TO BE 1/2" GYP. BD. INSULATE �'
/ / I I� �I � � � PER ENERGY COMPLIANCE SHEETS. ,�
/ / / I� �I B A �
N � IIL JI � �
� � / � III II � \ � INSULATED WOOD FRAMED EXTERIOR PLUMBING �
� / � III II � � \ � WALL. USE 2x6" D.F. STUDS AT 16" O.C. EXTERIOR �
BATH / � I I r �I � BATH FINISH TO BE BRICK VENEER OR PLASTER OVER � N W 0
6 0 M I N. H O U S E W R A P & O V E R P L Y W O O D. W N
d � � ~ N L�!
9'-0" CLG. I� �I 9'-0" CLG.
/� _ � I I� �I _ ER EONERGY COMPL ANCE SHEETS. INSULATE > > W r r
� % r I I I_ I I � � � � � a�o r°�
.
� III II � WO y � N �
� r ° I I� �I r INTERIOR WOOD FRAMED WALL. USE 2x4" D.F. d � .. O Q a� o �
� c� I I r �I n � STUDS AT 24 O.C.. 1/2 GYP. BD. FINISH EA FACE. J W p � v W �
� w� I \ I �I� �I I / I �p � a m � � o �
z = m �
o � � � � U �I� �I wHo�E � � � `� o � � � a a � +,
`� ° � WHOLE III II HOUSE FAN � o °c�° 2x6" INTERIOR WALLS FOR PLUMBING AS W Z m m � Z a�
N HOUSE F N ao II I� - - - �II N INDICATED ON DRAWINGS. y j � � d
�O
�
'_8" " 2'-10" 2'-8 1/2" 2'-10" 8'-3" 8'- I" 8'-2" 3'-4" 2'-4 1/2" 2'-10" 11 1 2" W a �'
�� — �U— — — — �� 8" �� � ' 0
REF 8 ��2�� LIVI OM 3 1�2 4 1/2 REF. ATTIC ACCESS a m �
� � �
2'-0�� 3,_6�� 2�_6��
O - - �� � O �
o � ► �
� o � O O o �
�
� 0 0 � — • �
KITCHEN TCFIEN � a o
W 9'-0" CLG. `_�' '-0" CLG. HVAC UNIT - SEE ENERGY COMPLIANCE SHEETS. ~ Q N
P � i � o
�
� � � � ° � � �
�
�o _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ �o _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ � INDICATESTILEORVCTFLOORING
W ~
BALCONY INDICATES CABINET ABOVE �°u ° �
ABOVE 3 � F � y y �!+
6'-0" 2'-1" 3'-10�� 2�_1�� ��_2�, 5�_8�� ��_2�� ��_2�� 5�_8�� ��_2�� 2�_��� � �� � �� � �� o � � � W W W
3-10 2-1 6-0 v� m oc oc oc
ALL DOORS SHALL BE LOCATED 4" AWAY FROM NEAREST PERPENDICULAR WALL. THIS ALLOWS FOR
TYPICAL CASING INSTALLATION TO A KING STUD AND TRIMMER FRAMING CONDITION. TYPICAL
14'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 14'-0" UNLESS DIMENSIONED OTHERWISE ON THIS DRAWING. �
HIDDEN LINES INDICATES CEILING FEATURE AS NOTED ON DRAWING. TYPICAL PLATE HEIGHT IS 9'-3/4" �
52'-0" UNLESS OTHERWISE, SEE ROOF FRAMING PLAN. � Z
"LEVEL" INDICATES A SLOPE NOT TO EXCEED 2.196 AS DEFINED BY THE C.R.C. TO ALLOW FOR � d �
DRAINAGE. 296 EQUATES TO 1/4" FALL IN 12" RUN.
WINDOW OPERATION VARIES - SEE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS. �
•
� �
SCALE: 1/4�� - ,�-o�� �48� 1 BEDROOM 4-PLEX FLOOR PLAN LEGEND
������
� �
O � •
�
�
�
�
s
�
_�
�
�
�
s
�
.
� v
o �
� �
�
�
. � �
v � o�o
O ,� ,�
� �; �
'� � m
� � � �
� � � � �
� o
� � .� U
�� -I, �
C� U1 0 �O .�
� O
� � , �
� � � � �
� °' U m �
tn � o � �!
� � � O
� � � m
,� v �
���T � e,
�,� �p,W A Y � ��,o
v � � �
� �P o �
Q . � � Q
57'-0" m � N �
p o
zi c� �' o
J` ��i� ��' ��
4'-10" 11'-6" 24'-4" 11'-6" 4'-10" �i� �b W S.�p.
5"
J � � *
1'-0 1/2"
� �� � �� � �, � �� �� � �� � �� � �, 1'-31/2" 1'-31/2" � �� � �� � �� �'-91/2' � �� � �, � ��
3-10 3-10 3-10 1-6 8 3-4 1-10 3-0 3-0 1-10 3-4 3-10 3-10 3-10 � �
�— - - - - - - - - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - - —�
O
O
O
0 o p
r � - 0
- � .
WH � \ WH r
O � _ = 0
_ ° CLOSET �. / �� �� � \ CLOSET //
\ � � III I I � �/ / / �--�
/D � \ � `� � � 4�' / // // W/ �
�� �� � �
� �
�
M - - -------- MAS � �\ � _ DINING DINING / ,� / � - - -------- �, �
� LAUNDRY � � \ ° C�OSET � y'-�" ��U. y'-�" LLU. CLOSET LAUNDRY �" �
�
, ,,,, .,, „ , ,,,, ,,, „ ,�
y-v ��u y-v ��u. �
a�
N ��'"
v
LL CO HAL �
I � 9�_p�� �� o CLO. CLO. 0 CLG. / I �
� �� �
I \ � �j, REF REF � I �
^
6'0o w
r "� � � � � r r
� W
" 1-�� � � 1'-0" 10 1/2" ��7 1�" 7� � 2-��/2� � � �� 1'- 1/ ' � � ��1� 1 ° � � „ 3 2� � � � �� ��� ,� 7�l " 4 1/2"� � �� 1�-0� M INSULATED WOOD FRAMED EXTERIOR WALL. Z � N
2-10 2-0 I \,�-1b 1-10 3'-10 �4'� 3-6 2 0 2 0' 3-6 � " 3-6 1-10 � 2'-4 2�10`�/ I 2-0 1-6 2-10 � N
``' I C U A T I � `'' F I N S Hx B R C K V E N E E R O R ,PLOA S T E R O V R 6 0 � � � W � �
N _ �X ESS_ w• •F• KITCHEN KITCHEN �H�F� ACC��_ � \\ T MIN. HOUSE WRAP & OVER PLYWOOD. INTERIOR m �— � F � � r
8'-0" CLG. 8'-0" CLG. ao W —
� _ FINISH TO BE 1/2" GYP. BD. INSULATE PER � H y � N �;
ENERGY COMPLIANCE SHEETS. � Z � � o ,�
_ � CLOSET / _ \ CLOSET _ a � O � � � �
° � � � � �
� ST ORA G E N -��' o '� '� '� '� ST ORA G E � a O Z = m �
� o P NTRY_� � DW � � DW � PANT Y o ``' CO INTERIOR WOOD FRAMED WALL. USE 2x4" D.F. — O � a Q � +,
� BATH � � oo a o � BATH � � � �
`'' , � ��2„ 9'-0° CLG. �� ' ' 9'-0° CLG. STUDS AT 24" O.C.. 1/2" GYP. BD. FINISH EA FACE. W W 1i1i1 m � Z •°�
_ � m O d �
N � }..�
� � � W � m � a �
I 3 6 1/ . O O O O O O O O " 2x6" INTERIOR WALLS FOR PLUMBING AS � O cd
r — — — — � p, ,�`L � — — — — � INDICATED ON DRAWINGS. a �R ron
L - - - - � `�'p, �� � - - - - � V �
�\`L p;
�' II II CLOSET ����\ CLOSET II III N � � �
� �
oD r � O °` LIVING ROOM LIVING ROOM r � �
°O � � � � oo HVAC UNIT - SEE ENERGY COMPLIANCE SHEETS.
� — — — — � 11�� 3�_p�� 9'-0" CLG. 9'-0" CLG. � — — — — �
�
II_ _ _ _ _ II II_ _ _ _ _ JI r
�I - - - - �I / -1 � � \ ��- - - - - -�� � Q N
II II / / V � � II II J ti
II �P II �' II �P II c� �
u u /�� � °0 � � \ u u
� �/ �� �� �� � INDICATES TILE OR VCT FLOORING
/ \ �
W ~
- - � Q �
� � INDICATES CABINET ABOVE W � W z z z
- - I Z � v� d O O O
3 C� F � N N N
C C1 N o� oC � oC
9�� 6� �� ALL DOORS SHALL BE LOCATED 4" AWAY FROM NEAREST PERPENDICULAR WALL. THIS ALLOWS FOR
❑ TYPICAL CASING INSTALLATION TO A KING STUD AND TRIMMER FRAMING CONDITION. TYPICAL
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - �
UNLESS DIMENSIONED OTHERWISE ON THIS DRAWING.
3'-4" 3'-7" 3'-10" 3'-7" 3'-4" 2'-0" 5'-8" 5'-8" 2'-0" 3'-4" 3'-7" 3'-10" 3'-7" 9" 3'-4" �� � Z
HIDDEN LINES INDICATES CEILING FEATURE AS NOTED ON DRAWING. TYPICAL PLATE HEIGHT IS 9'-3/4" W
9 7 3/4" 7 3/4" UNLESS OTHERWISE, SEE ROOF FRAMING PLAN. � d �
�_ �� �_ �� 1-0'1/�2 �_ �� �_ �� �
4 1 0 1 1 0 2 5 4 1 1 0 4 1 0 "LEVEL" INDICATES A SLOPE NOT TO EXCEED 2.196 AS DEFINED BY THE C.R.C. TO ALLOW FOR W O
DRAINAGE. 296 EQUATES TO 1/4" FALL IN 12" RUN. ' �
�_ �� WINDOW OPERATION VARIES - SEE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS. �
57 0 ,
� �
SCALE: 1/4�� - ,�-o�� �48� TWO BEDROOM LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN LEGEND
������
� �
O � •
�
�
�
�
s
�
_�
�
�
�
s
�
.
� v
o �
� �
�
�
. � �
v � o�o
O ,� ,�
� �; �
'� � m
� � � �
� � � � �
� o
� � .� U
�� -I, �
C� U1 0 �O .�
� O
� � , �
� � � � �
� °' U m �
tn � o � �!
� � � O
� � � m
,� v �
���T � e,
�,� �p,W A Y � ��,o
v � � �
� �P o �
Q � � Q
m � N U
Q N � �
57'-0" �i�,�y�1 bW ��,�P�
4'-10" 11'-6" 24'-4" 11'-6" 4'-10" `�� � -� * S
3'-10" 3'-10" 3'-10" 2'-0" 3'-4" 2'-0" 3'-0" 3'-10" 3'-0" 2'-0" 3'-4" 1'-10" 3'-10" 3'-10" 3'-10" � �
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - — - - - - —
BALCONY OO
ABOVE 0
- - O
° O
� - .
— ` — �
r
�
o \ o °�
� \ � �
IN IN �
LIVING ROOM '�0° �G. � � '-0" G. � LIVING ROOM �
�
9'-0" CLG. 9'-0" CLG. �
CARPET �
v
1' 1/ " �
� 4'-10" '_0 1/2" 5'-9 1/2" 2'-10 1/2" '_7" 2'-4" 3'-6" 2'-0" 2'-0" 3'-6" 2'-4" 3'-3 1/ " 2'-10 1/2" 5'-9 1/2" 2'-10" 5'-4" �
v
� � �
�
.�
�
1'TCIHEIN KIT�'HIE
N — '-0" CL.G. EF RE � - �
o CLOSET 0 \ / 8'-0" (�LG. W� \ / 0 CLOSET � INSULATED WOOD FRAMED EXTERIOR WALL. Z � 0
N _ � _ _ O /D O _ _ _ - USE 2x6" D.F. STUDS AT 16" O.C. EXTERIOR — � N
_ _ _ _ o / \ 0 O O 0 / \ o _ _ � _ I FINISH TO BE BRICK VENEER OR PLASTER OVER J O � W � �
I I �I � � I I 60 MIN. HOUSE WRAP & OVER PLYWOOD. � � W r r
II � O O O O I - - � — INTERIOR FINISH TO BE 1/2" GYP. BD. INSULATE m N F � �
PER ENERGY COMPLIANCE SHEETS. �C � v� � '
� � BL1Tt1 10 1/2�� r 1i ° r-2° BATH I � W Z �c � o �
� — � - - 4'-2" 3'-11 1/2' 3'- " 4'-2" I _ i1' � Q
o �-u'° i:L�a. ' � y'-u°' C L�a. r o a � � v � �
� � � I I O. � . � I — � c`� � I N T E R I O R W O O D F R A M E D W A L L. U S E 2 x 4" D.F. J p � = m
,. � W �
� I I _ _ _ _ �\ �,�\`L ° - - � — I I `'' STUDS AT 24" O.C.. 1/2" GYP. BD. FINISH EA FACE. a O � a Q � �
II WH I I N WW W m � Z •°v'
� �� I I
N ' _ �_ _ `"" � ��,° �° ❑ O _ _ _ o m M d o
ANT Y r
W �
— � 2x6" INTERIOR WALLS FOR PLUMBING AS W � � a �
HAL �,\ti P NTR FIALL I oc
'� � CLOSET CLOSET CLOSET CLOSET i� INDICATED ON DRAWINGS. O cd
N 3'-0" 3'-10" 9'-0" CLG. �l; a � 9'-0" CLG. c�, Q � -an
� 8'-4 1/2" -
�.\`L
� �� - • � •
� CLOSET CLOSET � HVAC UNIT - SEE ENERGY COMPLIANCE SHEETS.
N ti �\� N _
�� } � �
11" 4'-0" 1'-6" / / � � A A � Q o
� � � � � Q �
ABOVE MA M• ABOVE J ti
STAIR �/ �/ � ''� � � - ' � � \� STAIR � °
STORAGE � / � � V � STORAGE
00 ' / � �� � � � � � � � °0 INDICATES TILE OR VCT FLOORING
� � / V � � �
// ��
W ~
- - � � �
� � INDICATES CABINET ABOVE Z � °
v� d O O O
- - I 3 C� F � N N N
C C1 N o� oC � oC
ABO ONY ALL DOORS SHALL BE LOCATED 4" AWAY FROM NEAREST PERPENDICULAR WALL. THIS ALLOWS FOR
TYPICAL CASING INSTALLATION TO A KING STUD AND TRIMMER FRAMING CONDITION. TYPICAL
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — UNLESS DIMENSIONED OTHERWISE ON THIS DRAWING. �
3'-7" 3'-10" 3'-7" 3'-4" 2'-0" 5'-8" 2�-4�� 5'-8" 2'-0" 3'-4" 3'-7" 3'-10" 3'-7" HIDDEN LINES INDICATES CEILING FEATURE AS NOTED ON DRAWING. TYPICAL PLATE HEIGHT IS 9'-3/4" W Z
UNLESS OTHERWISE, SEE ROOF FRAMING PLAN. � d �
4'-10" 11'-0" „ 25'-4" „ 11'-0" 4'-10" oC � �
"LEVEL" INDICATES A SLOPE NOT TO EXCEED 2.196 AS DEFINED BY THE C.R.C. TO ALLOW FOR � �
57'-0" DRAINAGE. 296 EQUATES TO 1/4" FALL IN 12" RUN. d �
� �WINDOW OPERATION VARIES - SEE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS.
•
� �
SCALE: 1/4�� - ,�-o�� �48� TWO BEDROOM UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN LEGEND
0 - •- ���- � -. • •- �i - �• -• � .
-�- � : • . �
� • � . � � : • � � . • • �
�- � . :. m � � . �. . . � . . .
m 0m � 0 m m00 0 m mm0 m m0 m 0 DOm m m 0 m0 m m , • � . , � �
1
. � • :
. . . .� �.
• � � •1
` r S � I
. . . -
� '�• `' � i ■ i � ■ � 'i �■ �I i i ■ i i �I I ■ i i � � ■ � �
� 1 I � 1 � I �I � 1 I I � � I � I 1 1 I I 1 • ' • �• �' � � •
0 �
�_
I � � � I � I � � � . . • � • � '�• �- � ■ -� • � � i= __,
, 1 1 I I I I 1 1 - � �\�.� __
� .
- - . .. ;- -y �
I I 1 I I I I I 1 � - �• • • - - ' - • •' : � 1 1 . • :� • • - • � • - � � • . � ,
� ■ I ■ ■ 11 1� 1� I��I �� ■ I� I ■ ■ �� 1� ''' :.. . 11. . � '. � ."'�" . • •' � ��\� ..�
� i i i ,�� i i i i � i r� ,, i i i i i i -=
/� i �\� � ` �• • - • •- � � -- - _
, ;_ ; �
� j�_; � . ��_�\� � �i � 0 � � � � �� ,-_�.
� � - -� - - ,
i ��_=.=_:\ � � / -=-••--� i - . . . . . .. ,
� � -------___ ` � � � � ------••-- � � � :.. . ��. _:_
---•�--�•--- -----�•----•- �
� - �.--_":. . . . -
i � -••------ ---- -_-:--• - ��
� --
----,.__..------. i i _---------•�----- i � --
� -=-��------------_. ...------�•----••---- �� - - ��• • _=_
- - -
------�:--�•------.._. -----------e:.------- . - - � =_
---- -- - ------- -- -- ------ - - ----- -
� -=---:--•.-=�•------•�---- � -=-==--------. -_:------ 0 __
■ i ■ / \ i��ii �� ■ ��i �� � � � -
• - -======'_:_=�=
������
�1 EXTERIOR DOORS WITH FEATURED PAINT COLORS. 2� 24 GA. DOWNSPOUT, PRIME AND PAINT ITEM #4. � �
PORTABELLO #SW6102 0 � •
DRIED THYME #SW6186 21 CONDENSER SCREEN WALL PLASTER COAT ITEM #4. �
CANYON CLAY #SW6054 �
2� FASCIA PAINTED SHERWIN WILLIAMS GARRET GRAY SW6075 � CONCRETE STEPS WITH SINGLE TUBE STRINGER �
Q WHITE VINYL NAIL ON WINDOW WITH CLEAR LOW "E" GLAZING. GENERAL NOTES: �
THREE COAT ELASTOMERIC PLASTER SYSTEM COLOR: BUCKSKIN #T020L, FINE TEXTURE BY NOTE: ALL WALL-MOUNTED UTILITIES AND ROOF OR WALL PENETRATIONS, INCLUDING VENT �
� PAREX. 1-866-516-0061 STACKS, UTILITY BOXES, EXHAUST VENTS, GAS METERS AND SIMILAR EQUIPMENT, SHALL BE PRIMED
AND PAINTED APPROPRIATE COLORS. ,v
� THREE COAT ELASTOMERIC PLASTER SYSTEM COLOR: RAWHIDE #T022L, FINE TEXTURE BY PAREX. SHADED AREAS INDICATE GLAZING PANEL IN WINDOWS �'
1-866-516-0061 •
� BRICK VENEER BY H.C. MUDDOX CUSTOM MIX ALL GLASS HEAT STRENGTHENED. � �
4096 SPANISH MOSS, 4096 DUSTY ROSE, AND 2096 EBONY 1-800-776-1244 Q TEMPERED/ SAFETY GLASS � �
� COMPOSITION ROOF, COLOR: MOIRE BLACK, STYLE: LANDMARK TL, MANUFACTURE: CERTAINTEED. � FIXED GLAZING �
1-800-233-8990. �
8� STEEL GUARDRAIL, POWDER COATED FLAT BLACK PLASTER SYSTEM � �
9� FLOOR/CEILING LEVELS "EXTERIOR PLASTER SYSTEM" AS REFERENCED AT OTHER LOCATIONS IN THIS DRAWING SET ' � Q p�
10 1X10 WOOD BALCONY FASCIA, PAINTED TO MATCH ITEM 5. SHALL REFER TO A 3 COAT, 7/8" THICK PLASTER SYSTEM. SCRATCH AND BROWN COAT v r-I OQ
(COMBINED TO FORM THE 'BASE COAT9 SHALL BE INSTALLED OVER 15 LB FELT AND #16 B.W. SELF � ,--i �
�� FOAM DETAIL MECHANICALL FASTENED TO STRUCTURE OVER SCRATCH COAT. USE CARSON FURRING WOVEN WIRE FABRIC CLOTH SYSTEM. FINAL COAT SHALL BE ACRYLIC FINISH WITH � � �
COATING SB201, COLOR: RAWHIDE # T022L, FINE TEXTURE BY PAREX. 1-866-516-0061 INTEGRAL COLOR AS CALLED OUT IN THE KEYNOTED SCHEDULE BELOW. �rl �
�
12 1X6 FOAM TRIM DETAIL MECHANICALLY FASTENED TO STRUCTURE OVER SCRATCH COAT. �+ � � m
FINISH WITH ELASTOMERIC TOP COAT. COLOR: RAWHIDE #T022L FINE TEXTURE. INSTALL PLASTER CONTROL JOINTS AT ALL COLOR BREAKS. TYPICAL PLASTER CONTROL JOINT ,'� U1 � �
LAYOUT SHALL BE AS RECOMMENDED BY THE SACRAMENTO VALLEY BUREAU LATH AND f'd � � � �
13 GABLE END ATTIC VENT, PAINT TO MATCH ITEM #4. PLASTER (916) 444-2397. � �'' � �
BUILT OUT FOAM TRIM DETAIL MECHANICALLY FASTENED TO STRUCTURE OVER SCRATCH COAT � � � � U
14 FINISH WITH ELASTOMERIC TOP COAT. USE CARSON COATING PS101 AT SILL, SB201 AT HEAD & MAXIMUM SPACE BETWEEN JOINTS = 20'-0" � ,�, •� �
JAMB. COLOR: RAWHIDE #T022L, FINE TEXTURE BY PAREX. 1-866-516-0061 MAXIMUM AREA OF BETWEEN JOINTS = 100 SQUARE FEET � � � O U
MAXIMUM RATIO OF AREAS = 2� TO 1 � `0 O �
15 TYPICAL PLASTER EXPANSION JOINT. LOCATED AS INDICATED. � � � , `�
LATH MAY BE INSTALLED CONTINUOUSLY AT CONTROL JOINTS BUT MUST BE BROKEN AT � c� (� i
16 DOOR AND FRAME, PAINT TO MATCH ITEM 4. USE SHERWIN WILLIAMS NOMADIC DESERT SW6107. EXPANSION JOINTS � � v m ,�
17 PLASTER CONTROL JOINTS, SCREEDS, EXPANSION JOINTS, AND REVEALS SHALL BE GALVANIZED � � p ^ �!
❑ 6 X 6 WOOD POST PAINTED TO MATCH ITEM 5.
18 WALL PAC WHERE OCCURS, SEE ELECTRICAL PLANS FOR LOCATIONS, MOUNTING HEIGHTS AND STEEL.- NO ALUMINUM. � � � m
� SPECIFICATIONS. '� ^�
WEEP HOLES TO BE 3/8" MINIMUM IN DIAMETER.
� � v �
19 24 GA. GUTTER, PRIME AND PAINT GARRET GRAY SW6075.
SCALE: 3�� _ ,�_o�� �4, M O D U L E T I T L E SCALE: 3�� _ ,�-o�� �4, M O D U L E T I T L E K EY N O T E S �T * e,
�
��� �PW A Y � ��,o
21 20 19 6 12 2 11 3 18 20 7 1 8 3 4 19 3 10 1 20 18 6 3 2 12 9 19 20 21 17 8 10 20 7 12 21 18 16 13 4 2 9 18 7 20 6 10 8 17 � �� o `�, j
�.�30'-.5" Q . � � �
Y ROOF APEX 00 cv o
�
12 12 � Zi� c� ��' O
7 � � 7 �j�j�'�1 bW S,�P<v
: � `7 � -� �c
. 1
12 12
12 � � � �
7 �� : O
+19'-4" 0
PLATE HEIGHT -- -- - - '-- - - - - - __ -- - - -- -- - O
_ ■
: �
r
� �;�:
... .. .
..
�.,.,, .:;:;;;- ,
, .. ..
.......
_ �
..;;, . ..:.:,
. . .. : �
„
,--�
�
�
�
m
+,a-a„ �
2nd FLOOR - - - --- - - - - — -- - — - --- -- -- - -- --- -- - --- -- -- -- �
_ m
-- ----- - ----------:- -----,-- ------ - ----- ---- --------- -------- ------------ --- -------------- ------------ ---- -------- `
+9'-0" v
�uNG HEiGHT _
a�
. �
,,��= -� „ �F`,�; �� _ �
=:.,�.,� / \ \ �
:>.-
+2 6 . �
�REEN WALL
� Z W o
�•a-a� _ � N
Y FINISHED FLOOR - J O � W If� LA
REAR L� m N �
� y � M
W H � N �
J Z O � � 0 --�
� � � � � W �
SCALE: 3/16�� = 1�-0�� �64� TW O B E D ROO M EXT E R I O R E L EVAT I O N S a o _ a a � �
21 2 14 19 1 12 6 2 11 3 14 7 2 1 4 3 19 8 14 3 10 1 2 12 6 3 2 1 9 19 2 21 17 810 6 20 7 2 9 4 13 16 12 21 7 2010 8 17 Zp m m � Z �
� m O d O
+30'-5" �
�a�Ex - W N � a �
12 12
� O �
, � Q , a � -�
. �
• � •
�2 �2 12 �2 � � �
7 � 7 7 � � 7
� � r
� � o
+19'-4" � N
PLATE HEIGHT - - - -- ---- — - -- --- - -- --- - - -- -- - -- - -- -- � O
,`�. ,. / _ \
W H
� �
.,a-a„ , Z � v°, d o 0 0
- - - W Z Z Z
�FLOOR - - - -- -- -, -- — -- -- - -- -- - -- -- -- - - a V N N N
W C7
�
F 0 > > >
-- -- - --- -- - - - - -- -- --- - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - -- -- - -- -- - -- - - -- - C C1 N o� oC � oC
Y CEIaNG HEIGHT
� .�;' ,;f� �., � ,-^ --�.� Z �
��: :��, �;;w�• � z. _
ti.1:% . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . S O
/
i
�`�\::::�` . . .. . . . . . . . . `
:::.: " •�.:�+t
f:.:. •: � �:•'
�.. .. . . .•.; ��;
' . . . � . . . . . ... . . . . � O r ■
' ' . . ., . . . �. - . . . . .. . . � �
W � �
� m W
+o a N �
Y FINISHED FLOOR �
W
FRONT RI HT
� �
SCALE: 3/16�� - 1�-0�� �64� TW O B E D ROO M EXT E R I O R E L EVAT I O N S
������
� �
O � •
�
N
�
�
- - �
�
i �
. �
�' -� i� �
_ '-� ����
�� �,a�o�
� s � ��������ae ��. �
- �. �.�� .
� am������������'� ��
�,�� .���.���,��.����,������,��
�,��.��,�,�����_��,.�� �,:a ; � v
y� � ����� �� � �
M16Rpa�Pl�'��'�ql�ea 4 �������A �.��.00�mu�.i
� 'i9�f��iSEi�F�A�t��-'8 tll9liW�l��� I��1� ��4�E��IAR�
a r�w����arsa� g ���m��� wi �aww�����rw�w o
f�1m _ �+r�f'�..w� .°�.__-..�uxavwim m��nns��raun�w���ew�
�� �'��:.� ■x�c�rasr�ti r�a��n� �s�sai �o ��
��� �s� r _ o--'-�d�-�� ��.
� na�ma.�� I eiE�a.�°ira °v. �li `
���� ��� ��� �� T�
•�'or+�'1°g �es�w�� �w� ���� wi� �ir�i�`+ � I Vl
ri�ti°owe� �i..r�� r �eg.
���a�� aY w�� si�a�� �� � ��a I �
e. �„4"rw 3'�e.a�■ �"
w
-���� I �� ��_� ���� �4� #ea�#� J
• � ^ �j �
M! �/�
���m �v'�A�..l�� t#1 �R
6Y�uAi111H��ICB��w�1RRt i� FN ��R��e �q�p�'�'AOH�i� Y' _ 1� x O `�V
IN►}�I��P� WfYi/P�111�9aau�IA�fMA��I�� �IRF�YY9�P �3��0B���I�s�yg����p����l1 �u} ��j/��
_ Cffi86 �� �!mA.9k11sPlg�li411�T�24�1 � `�V
AIR����vI1P�
�vara°miin� zc�n°o���rtam������a� O
aw ��!wme�us� �ia rmswx.�us��ae �
�a�� ���m� aa��� �s� ���re��+.�e��r����' ��
�'���Q������ t!1 �
�aa.�e�dae�+a• �v^��t?.���arF�a��p��i.�q■ - ��i�miw��=� ���d�n�n /\T
�m�tlnNr,ae�mr�k��°� �7�a��Rt�+��d� 8��l�6aa[I��Wm���=9�R � � � \ V
-��I[§8M� M.� __ — ,�
�i�ffi� 4i�'- . ��a�a�la�a+:4�c- !��f"3_.� ����2��� �
�AFr�NN�� �'W1�1�141�R�1 �36����Bi�H��iB�R ¢� — � �� �
vY.��il'ip�B '310� @Sv2�ii �
� �99i11NM �1 gyWO���$ �
��H.,.� m.y�.- �6�SLlf "0$�FA1 � �� #IrI
�� �. �� $��� '� � � m
��^J31YAiBl� IN���I� E��t� 9���!l� � �
9106p1R91! �IR I�I�I '
es a'�. er.�cv. �wa �� ���.a: waa� � � �
. � ��� ���� I �7''� ,^ � �I
i��ii r� euTri��o � _�L � `v � V J �� �"I
�, ����i�w I ��i:�'__'.wffi r[��� �~S� I '�'� � ?'�
. �v_r,��,���� �im�s�.�r��� �e�r ��"'� •� � � � �
����� �°� `�� �� � T1
urrii�� ie��a � � V
���"'r'��' '����'� �� •r-I �T
�,,,� � °s�aw us��r � t V
°��.� m�� �m �� '�
�� � �R6�� �� � � � � 0 �
� � _��� � .. o m .,�
°�� I ^�-�.��� ?��� w ��� tn �
���� ��� ��,� ��,� � � ,� O �,
��
��� �� �� ��� � � � U
,1� ,T_t__ T�. �iol Pfi1Y��x — — _ ��s� �8� ���" � � f� � I
il� -_�:�� _ di.'t rl' �. .�lie�: }^.�ti '� - �5.�� `� t`=kL.. �V a�:. m.�. �.' .���.���` _-R•. . ey�mm �
..1�'.� ',Y +i.�a _ .. ��k � �� � v � �
�-- '-J��s�-�"-=- ?i -_ }�_`4"-r�- -v.#�L, �e_�u } :y..- # !-r�. r_ _ ':�'��,•ar==__'. . .��. _ Y -a�:.'L;_ -t�•�#-,_��'�-- r v �� '�
vi � o m �!
� � � O
� � � m
� v �
SCALE: 3�� - ��-o�� �4, MODULE TITLE LEFT VIEW GOBBI ST FRONT VIEW GOBBI ST RIGHT VIEW `�
SCALE: NONE SCALE: NONE SCALE: NONE ��C T * b� w
�� �p,W A Y ` '�'�,O
C� �' � �-
� �P o d' J
Q � \ Q
m � N U
N 0
- � �i C� �' o
�i��y�1 b W c��' P�v
�
.�� � , * S
f . ,
i .
�
I � F �
� - ' � W 0
-- � � � C - °
� � .
_ _ � - �
��� _ �
� r
�.°�� - =.
..� � �
� � � Z �i
�,r�� _ l _ �
� o
e�l�r��e! � i � L C�
alar�� q I '� . �ti
s��'a � �
n �
a�r�� �_ > Ul
���� � � �
ai.m�`
� �
��fiF�lL_._ _ L
�aaa� �
�y���� a ��
����� � frr rs
m U
��� �
��� ��
I ����
��� . .
a��aair � U
�� � �
a�'�_.
�� A � �
� �
YIIR�`n�am �
�31tl
�wy���. tl
�Y��
- - A�� r
__ � ,� ^ W o
���� � � .� W H
,.���'� _ � r�. ��. J � � 1�A/� N
_ �l Ii.U' �. '� . �.c .�f,- _ �. � �r A�: -::y!if: � � i? II M.. - _ _ _ � � � YI �
'�S+I:L�M�ti� �T^l�� �r=�J!'" -=av3^-7"L'�-4�CI_ -l�_IJ� �L+U�hWI-4�"� -L!+_ .lL�?'-YL� -� !�r. �^.�y� ►w _ :�.�.. - -- - - - - - - -- - -
0 � � W N O r
, � � � H � M
J O y � O N
d � .. O Q � 0 ,�
� WO
. �� _ �_ ��
SCALE. 3 - 1 0 �4, M O D U L E T I T L E SCALE: NONE R I G H T V I E W SCALE: NONE D U P L EX R EA R E L E VAT I O N a m � v Z = m �
_ = — a � � U
W � � m � Z �
Z
� � � 0 � �O
W J � a �
� �
a m �a
� �
�
• ' •
_ _ � �
� � o
N
�
- - N
�
O
�
W ~
- � �
r�r. - - ��,.r' �:..i Z � N
... ..-�� d 0 � �
n
---- ---- - 3 C� F � fR N N
- � : r_.- a W Q C `! `J `J
C C� N m � OC �
aaac - a�
� ��� ���
o - �� o y
�
� w�� Z
� C �
a i
rr+� I ; �.w 0
�; � ' j � ■
� p W �
~ N,� m
� ��
�� � O T
r- � - --_—= � �
• � � c°�
COLORS CAN VARY SLIGHTLY IN IMAGES SHOWN, PLEASE REFER TO U-12 FOR MATERIAL SAMPLES AND COLORS.
� �
SCALE: 3�� - 1�-0�� �4� M O D U L E T I T L E SCALE: 3�� - 1�-0�� �4� M O D U L E T I T L E SCALE: NONE D U P L EX F R O N T E L E VAT I O N
• � � � � �
� �" �'"`�,, � �� I
-,�� � � ,_
��:° � _,� � �_ � -�=
� ° � _
; � — � .
_ - ;— �''� '_
;\� t�
�" �� '� � I - '-�
e�` � -;� \ — _�
� =
..—...—..._.__..T-----�- � -�---- ,-
-_�-_=-----------=
PLANTING LIST
SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME/COMMON NAME WATER USE SIZE QTY REMARKS N �
RITE AI D PARKI N � 6 � ��
1 - - - - - TREES
� �
I � 16 .
'' �
� U Q
� _
� �
'
_
l '1
z �
� Z
m
I
, —
o _ ', ' • P STACIA CHINENSIS LOW 15 GAL. 9 STANDARD � � � �
;, ----------- - -- - - - -- --- - -- -- -t • _ - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - --- --�-- -- - -- - - - - - - - - -- - �o - ------ -o a H I N ES E PI STAC H E J � p
. . . o . . . • �
.
. -- - - --- _t_ _ � � •
� =
� � - - ' ' ° � � w Qo� �
9 � � 15 �� � � � � �
� � U � o
�� � � � � �� V ` Z °° �o
- � � � � —- a°,.,
- �-_ �___� �� • � ��,- .-.-:: � 7 ;' �' 6 � O o �,
� o LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA 'DYNAMITE' MED 15 GAL. 5 U U c� �
13 � ° � "' 6 2 � . , + RED FLOWERING CRAPE MYRTLE MULTI-TRUNKED � _ � �
4 11 � Q 3
16 � - � o rn � U � 3
[� � 3 0 oa: 4 1 2 � � o \ 3
� ° (, c�
'' - - - - - - - - - o
4 � °a° a ° a � ' � , . ULMUS PARVIFOLIA 'DRAKE" MED 15 GAL. 4 STANDARD Q � �
SMALL LEAFED, EVERGREEN, CHINESE ELM z � � �
� ' �lfY�1� �� ��� .
_-_ --� � � o --- _ - _ -- ---- -- - --- = - - - : : = - - ---- - ----- 2 �,.> � o
-�-mi'- a °° . - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ O Q ` p� U
��- - : : :� � J � OQ �
� ❑ 8 5 � = Q �
T � o '�
/`�' � H �
�' 3 T PLANTING LIST �
. o �
�
CJ� � 3 2 � � �
— Q
� �-'
' . ' . . g
� � �— 2 � ' ,' SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME/COMMON NAME WATER USE SIZE QTY REMARKS Z � w m
p ,�. . . � �
_ � ,
,� � �`:�: B-_ � � � �'� SHRUBS Q
" .: �� m — m Z 3
_ e� �
rn `--- ==__� 0 �o�'� � - 6 � N � 3
y rn HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA LOW 5 GAL. 10 __ m �o � 3
z ="_ -_" . -1 �
� -- "- _-_-_- OYON �
� T
� + 0 ' 10 '' � � ,,.
� p p O � O � - - _ � o
� `-� � , - , �--
� --- " -r ' THUJA OCCIDENTALIS 'EMERALD' LOW 5 GAL. 46 __ �
r _=-�" n - - - - - - - ----- --- - -_------ ---- - 1 3 'l 2 � � EMERALD ARBORVITAE
��� .. � � ������� _��' �� �=�' Q� °�lp c 1 ��,AO������ ` �� I
' � � �' . � `\�� ---� a �J i 2 � AGAPANTHUS AFRICANUS 'MONKAGEYAMA' MED 1 GAL. 206
�
--
4 ` , �;p�R � SUN STRIPEO AGAPANTHUS
�� 4 1 1 4 _ �r� ;
; 0 9 ', pe-
� �
� � ° 1 O � V �'>A` ' � HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA LOW 2 GAL. 22 -- ,��.F� O�
O RED YUCCA �'
9 14 ,� , �
� , � �
� _ 6 _ � a ,
16 � �� �°b�°" � � �
. U � ❑ ...''��. — — — — � �� �����rs
H ° � ° - - - - - > 9 =' GII 'NA ED' LOW 5 GAL 27 . 6 17
dAa
______ — — — —.: — — _ _ — — 0 � ,'�ayY69AAa � ' __
` — �, SALVIA GREG VAJO R tiQl'
- - � � � � � . � �
°°° NAVAJO RED AUTUMN SAGE �
� p am�d . ar�d6'�pA� .. .. �� �,I � �s �(;O
� � � � � a ��o a o � o� ���` / I ��`
4 a • 'e � ' :v e �j rA
����J ����� 4� �..� � � � Q� .,� � pA O d� �4FA� .. O�'�AAp AA . _ Q Q l' \jl��l'
`. � . � � � � . � �� .� _____ �. ��. . . � I�.
. . - . ' __ , . , .
�7 ROSA X 'NOASCHNEE' P.P.# 9573 LOW 2 GAL. 54 -- ��
-� / ' � FLOWER CARPETO WHITE GROUNDCOVER ROSE
, - � - �_
�
, / �
-- - _- _ � � =� - -�- l l . � LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA 'LM300' P.P.# 15420 LOW 1 GAL. 42
� � � _� �_ �-� -� ���--�-���-�_- J� --
w
� � � � �. i � � %� BREEZETM DWARF MAT RUSH
5 12 � � � 2 1 1 12 1 1 ' 12 w � CALAMAGROSTIS X ACUTIFLORA 'KARL FOERSTER' MED 2 GAL. �
� � � 98 --
� � FOERSTER'S FEATHER REED GRASS p
.. — . (/� � — - - � � S� J
� �.� ... ....� _,._ ..�, �.�:� _,' . '..-...� � I . . ._. . � ..
— _ _ _ � - -:� �... w O
� SOuTH OAK STREET �
� �°°r� MUHLENBERGIA CAPILLARIS 'LENCA' MED 1 GAL. 13 -- �
w � � z
� _
'� '- SOLAR INFLUENCE 9flp� REGAL MISTOO PINK MUHLY r
_ _ _ - - - -
_ , - - - �
a�
SOD NON-MOWED �'
� )
0 20 40 � � " gIOFILTRATION SOD MED SOD 1 ,929 CONTACT DELTA �
� � �- PURPLE NEEDLEGRASS - NASSELLA PULCHRA SF BLUEGRASS: �
SCALE: 1" = 20'_0" Y �` � �` 800-637-8873
� � (CALIFORNIA'S STATE GRASS) �
WATER USE CALCULATIONS PLAN LEGEND �
MOLATE FESCUE - FESTUCA RUBRA �
CALIFORNIA BARLEY- HORDEUM �
Maximum Applied Water Allowance �MAWA� - Calculation CALIFORNICUM �
SYMBOL DESCRIPTION MEADOWBARLEY- HORDEUM �
�
BRACHYANTHERUM BRACHYANTHERUM �
MAWA = �Eto} (0.?� [LA} {O.fi2} Oj BIO-RETENTION. TYPICAL.
MAWA = 269,248 Gallons per Year O2 DRY WELL. TIE INTO SITE DRAINAGE SYSTEM. AB � UU � I RRI GATI O N N OTE o C� O
� Z W � N
w�57 3 - Reference Evapotranspiratian (ETo) 3 ROOT BARRIER. TYPICAL AT ALL PARKING LOT TREES AND TREES WITHIN 4 FEET THIS LANDSCAPE HAS BEEN DESIGNED TO UTILIZE LOW TO MODERATE WATER USE SHRUBS AND TREES. THE DESIGN � � � N o r
O
�.7 - E T A djus tmen t Fac tor �percen t} O R C L O S E R O F H A R D S C A P E. I N T E N T I S T O G R O U P P L A N T I N G S I N T O H Y D R O Z O N E S A L L O W I N G F O R M I N I M A L W A T E R U S E F O R O P T I M A L P L A N T a � N � r,
1a,827 - Landscape Area �LA} �square feet} PERFORMANCE. THE PLANTS WILL BE IRRIGATED BY MEANS ON AN AUTOMATICALLY CONTROLLED LOW VOLUME DRIP � Z a °�' °o ,�
O PEDESTRIAN CONCRETE WALKWAY. SCORELINES AND EXPANSION JOINTS PER IRRIGATION SYSTEM. THE CONTROLLER WILL ALSO FEATURE A RAIN/ FREEZE SHUT OFF SWITCH AS WELL AS REAL-TIME a O O a ••
D.fi2 = Convers ion fa�tor (i nches to gallons} 4 o v � �
STANDARD PRACTICE. MEDIUM BROOM FINISH. EVAPOTRANSPIRATION ADJUSTMENT TO ALLOW FOR FURTHER OPTIMIZATION OF IRRIGATION WATER. THE LANDSCAPE 3 � Z = m �
CALCULATIONS (THIS SHEET) DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ESTIMATED WATER USE FOR THE PROJECT WILL NOT EXCEED THE '" a a �
O DECORATIVE HARDSCAPE AT ENTRIES. PER OWNER. MAXIMUM APPLIED WATER ALLOWANCE (MAWA), IN ACCORDANCE WITH AB 1881 , CALIFORNIA'S WATER EFFICIENCY � � m � z �
Estimated WatQr Use for H droznnes EWU - Cal�ulation ORDINANCE. CONTRACTOR WILL PERFORM A HORTICULTURAL SOILS ANALYSIS AND AMEND SOIL AS PER THE y � 0 4 �o
y � } C O B B L E L I N E D S W A L E. D R A I N D O W N S P O U T S I N T O S W A L E W H E R E F E A S I B L E- A L L ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES RECOMMENDATIONS PRIOR TO ANY PLANTING. A WATER AUDIT WILL BE PERFORMED PRIOR o � � a �
O �
EWU = {Eto} (PF} (HA} �Q.fi2} 1 [IE} OTHER RAINWATER DOWNSPOUTS TO BE "TITE-LINED" TO BIO-RETENTION TO FINAL ACCEPTANCE C� .�
AREAS. �
Where: O COBBLE LINED RAIN GARDEN SYM BO LS PARKI NG COU NT • ' •
57.3 = Reference Evapotranspiration �ETo} �Ref: CIM15}
PF = Plant Factvr per Hydrozane 8 CURB CUTS WITH COBBLE OUTFALLS TO ALLOW PASSAGE OF RAINWATER INTO SYMBOL DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION _ � �
HA = Hydrvzvne Area �square feet} BIO-RETENTION AREAS. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF SHADE PROVIDED, PER TREE (QUARTER, HALF, THREE TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED 36 SPacES �
D.B2 = C�III►ECSIOCI fi'dCt�C �IIICIlES td �aII0115} ���� QUARTER, FULL). TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED 38 SPACES °
IE = Irrigation Effi�iency per 5prinkler Type O CONCRETE BAND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF SHADE PROVIDED BASED UPON 35'ANTICIPATED �
Hydrvzone 5; Medium water use trees, shrubs and ground co�Qr; drip. PR= �.21 CANOPY DIAMETER AT 15 YEARS BICYCLE PARKING PROVIDED 4 BIKES '�
10 FIELDSTONE BOULDER °�
PF = �.5 O I /�
HA = 8,898 [square feet} D.2�427 Acres � � EXISTING CITY SIDEWALK. TYPICAL. TO REMAIN. RETAIN AND PROTECT. S HAD E CALC U L/"�TI O NS
IE = 0.9 O
EWU = 175fi16.86 �gallvns peryear} a.538948 acre-feetlyear 234.78'19 ccflyear � 2 EXISTING CITY STREET TREES. TYPICAL. TO REMAIN. RETAIN AND PROTECT. DESCRIPTION AREA PERCENTAGE a �
� �
Hydrvzone 8; AAedium water bivswale grasses, Rotors PR= �.fi8 TOTAL PARKING AND BACK-UP AREA 12,312 SF Z Y y d o 0 0
_ 1 3 BICYCLE PARKING a W � cs y y '!�
P F �.60 � v��, m o 0 0
S H A D E A R E A P R O V I D E D L A R G E C A N O P Y S P E C I E S � _
HA = 1,9�9 [square feet} D.p44284 Acres 14 BRIDGE FULL CANOPY (960 SF EA. X9) 960 SF 8%
IE = 0.6 O
EWU = 65788.46784 �gallvns per year} a.201897 acre-feetlyear 87.9525 ccflyear THREE QUARTER CANOPY (721 SF EA. X 5) 3,605 SF 29% � W
Total Estimated Water Llse for All Hydrozones{EWII) - 5um 15 TRASH ENCLOSURE. SEE PLANS BY OTHERS. o Z a r
H A L F C A N O P Y (4 8 1 S F E A.X 7) 3,3 6 7 S F 2 7/a Z
� y a �
EWL! = 24�1,4Q5 (gallons per year} 0.74�$46 Acre-Feet psr Year 1 6 PROPOSED WOOD FENCE. 6 FOOT HIGH CEDAR. ToTA� SHA�E AREA PROV��E� 7,932 SF 64% � Z d �
3 2 3 (1 fl� cu bic f ee t per year} fl.D O T 4�9 Acres � j �
d
BFLA PROJECT NUMBER: 1861
DATE: AUGUST 13, 2015
� �
+ } + } + } } } I I I I I I I- I I
0.3 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.8 1.0 1 2 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
+ + + + � + + + + + + + + +
0.7 0.8 0.9 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
il(��
+ � � � � � � + i i +
1.2 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.6 1.8 1.7 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.1
+ � � � � � � + + + + +
1.6 2.5 2.8 2.6 2.1 2.0 1.7 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2
-
+ � � � � � x + + + + + + +\� + + + + + + - +
2.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 2.4 1.7 1.3 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.4 2.3 1.8 1.1 0.8 0.3 0.4 2.6��� 2.2
❑ - -
+ � � � � � � + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
2.1 3.3 3.4 3.5 2.6 2.1 1.8 1.7 2.0 2.4 2.0 2.1 2.7 2.3 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.8 1.6 1.3 1.4 1.7 1.9 2.5 2.2
+ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
1.7 2.8 3.1 3.0 2.3 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.5 2.1 1.7 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.7 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.3 2.7 2.7
+ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � + + �
1.3 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.2 2.1 1.8 1.9 2.1 2.4 2.4 2.6 2.4 2.3 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.7 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.0
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � + + + +
22 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.1 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.9 _2.� 2.0
-
� � � � � � + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
2.4 2.7 2.5 22 2.1 22 22 22 2.7 2.3 1.7 1.3 2.1 22 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.4 1.1 0.3 �
�� �
- Z
W
H
�3.2 �3.1 �3.1 �2.1 �1.7 �1.6 +1.3 +1.9 +2A +1.5 +0.6 +0.9 +1.3 +1.5 +1.7 +1.2 +0.9 0.0 Q
a
_-, _
� Q
+ � � � � � + + + + � - + -
Y
5.7 3.8 32 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.9 0.1 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 �
❑ -
'I
+47 �3A �3.4 �2.1 �1.8 �17 +1.9 +OA +OA +0.0 0.0
+ + � � � + i i i { i
2.3 2.7 6 1.9 1.7 1.6 1 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
+1.2 +1.8 +1.5 �1 A �1.3 +1.1 +0.8 +OA +OA +OA +OA +OA +OA +OA +OA +OA +OA +0.0 OA +0.0 OA +0.0 OA +0.0 OA +0.0 0.0
�0.0 �0.0 0.0 �0.0 0.0 �0.0 0.0 �0.0 0.0 �0.0
Plan View
Scale- 1" = 10'
. -
Calc Zone #1 + 1.4 fc 5.7 fc 0.0 fc N/A N/A
Driveable � Z,1 fc 3.8 fc 1.3 fc 2.9:1 1.6:1
Surface
- .
��� �� ��. � ���� UP- 11
• . • - - 1, �A��ULATI�?�� AF�E PR�1�9DE� USI�J� Ir�DU�Tf�I' RE���NiZED ��FT�,YARE A�D
1 Lithonia Lighting KAD LED 30C 1000 40K R4 MVOLT KAD LED, 30 LED, 1 AMP MVOLT DRIVER, 4000K, LED 1 ' KAD_LED_30C_1000_40K_R4_MV 9419.833 0.95 106 ��� ���'��QE� ��� E�'I�,�,�TI�N ��iRPO�E� �N��', INPUT DAT� F�R QATA, Designer
o A TYPE40PTICS. OLT.ies H��VE�ER, A�TI,�A� LI��-ITIN� LE1fEL� �`�ILL �Ar�Y DEPENDIN� �N F#ELD F]T
�Q�pITIQN� �tJ�H A� RQQ�,� �HARA�TERI�TI��, TEMPiRATURE. T�IE
����ULATI��J� CQRRE�I��ND T� THE #NFQ��I�TI�N �-R�VIDED T� �J� LIGHTIN�. Date
1 Lithonia Lighting KAD LED 30C 1000 40K R5 MVOLT KAD LED, 30 LED, 1 AMP MVOLT DRIVER, 4000K, LED 1 KAD_LED_30C_1000_40K_R5_MV 9997.153 0.95 106 ,8,��{J�F�TI��� MA,�' �E h�,b,�� F�R I�F�RMAT€QN T�-I,B,� I� �eQ i PF�������. IT 1� 7/24/2015
o B TYPE 5 OPTICS. OLT.ies THE ���PQ�I��BI�ITY �F T+i�SE U�IN� TH�� �Er��fl�� T� V�f�iFY �HAT �Uf� Scale
I#��PIJT Dl�TA I� ����i��EI�T Vu'ITH A�TIJl�L FIEL� ��N�ITI�N�, RE�LJL�� �F THE Not to Scale
� 9 Lithonia Lighting DSXW1 LED 20C 1000 AMBPCTFTM DSXW1 LED WITH (2) 10 LED LIGHT ENGINES, LED 1 DSXW1_LED_20C_1000_AMBPC_ 4414.644 0.95 73.2 LI�HTIN� �A��tJLATI�N� A�CURAT��Y f��F�E�T T�€E I�pU� ��}�TA�E A�� Drawing No.
WP2 MVOLT TYPETFTM OPTIC,AMBPC, @ 1000mA. TFTM_MVOLT.ies LAMf���ALLA�T QUTPUT ,4Np �THER FA�T�R�_ �AL�U�ATI�N� ARE �U��1��T UP-11
1 Lithonia Lighting DSXW1 LED 20C 1000 AMBPCT3M DSXW1 LED WITH (2) 10 LED LIGHT ENGINES, LED 1 DSXW1_LED_20C_1000_AMBPC_ 4334.965 0.95 73.2 T� LIMITATIQ�� �F T+1E ��FTWA?��, ��� T� THE AB��fE ���1��C�EF�AT��N�, ��1� y
� WP1 MVOLT TYPET3M OPTIC,AMBPC, @ 1000mA. T3M_MVOLT.ies L�Ca�ITIN� U'�ILL f��T �UA�'ANT�E T�-1,4T A�T�:A� LI��T LE�EL� h�E�.�U��D I� THE Summar
FIEL� �VI�L MAT�H TH� �N�TI�,� �AL�I,�LAT:�N�.
�