HomeMy WebLinkAboutpcm_09092015 Final 1 UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 September 9, 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 Kevin Thompson, Principal Planner Listed below, Respectively
14 Michelle Johnson, Assistant Planner
15 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
16
17 1. CALL TO ORDER
18 The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by 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 August 12, 2015 meeting are included for
26 review and approval.
27
28 The following corrections to the August 12, 2015 minutes:
29 • Page 4, line 1, revise sentence to read, `Confirmed a homeless shelter development in the
30 overlay zone will have to comply with building permit requirements as well as Resolution 2001-15,
31 i.e., Homeless Shelter Facility Use and Development Guidelines.'
32 • Page 9, line 1 revise sentence to read, `Finds the list of permitted uses too broad to breakdown
33 and streamline.'
34
35 M/S Sanders/Hilliker to approve July 22, 2015 minutes, as amended. Motion carried (5-0).
36
37 5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
38
39 6. APPEAL PROCESS — Chair Whetzel read the appeal process. For matters heard at this
40 meeting, the final date to appeal is September 14, 2015.
41
42 7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION - Confirmed by Commission.
43
44 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE- Confirmed by staff.
45
46 9. PUBLIC HEARING
47 9A. Gobbi Street Apartments Use Permit, 680 S. State Street, (File No. 1174-PC-UP). Request for
48 Planning Commission approval of a Major Use Permit to construct a 26-unit multi-family housing
49 development at the corner of W. Gobbi Street and S. Oak Street, APN: 002-301-55.
50
51 Principal Planner Thompson gave a staff report as provided on pages 1-6 of the report/PowerPoint
52 Presentation and noted:
53 • The applicant is requesting relief from the City parking standards for a reduction of three parking
54 spaces where 32 parking spaces are required and 29 are proposed to be provided. Staff is of the
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 9, 2015
Page 1
1 opinion the parking reduction being sought will not be detrimental to the project or present a
2 major impact on the surrounding neighborhood.
3
4 Commissioner Sanders:
5 • Inquired regarding CEQA Exemptions and if the document in the staff report `Reasons Why
6 Project is ExempY is new and a document staff will be using for future projects. Does not see
7 Public Works has specifically addressed this in the project conditions of approval.
8 • Asked about the measures to be taken during construction to protect the street trees.
9 Emphasized the importance these trees are protected and not damaged during construction. It is
10 common practice to provide some sort of tree protection measure during construction.
11 • The applicant is including Crape Myrtle as part of the landscaping species and noted for the
12 record this is not on the City's Master Tree List. As such, is not requesting the applicant change
13 the species.
14
15 Commissioner Watt:
16 • Related to street trees and tree protection thereof, Caltrans uses a detail standard that involves
17 some type of fencing to protect existing vegetation during construction and typically is an orange
18 plastic fence and documented on the site plans.
19 • Asked about the original color palates selected for the buildings when reviewed by the DRB.
20 • Are there renderings that show how the proposed project `fits' into the existing neighborhood in
21 the presentation material or other submittals?
22 • For other site development permit projects the Commission has seen a preliminary Low Impact
23 Design Compliance Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) prepared for the
24 project and why this information was not provided for the proposed project. The reason for the
25 inquiry is if any changes are being proposed to the drainage plan that may require further
26 consideration as to how this may affect other aspects of the design the Commission needs this
27 information.
28 • Reviewed the layout of the storm water drainage plan and sees a lot of `creativity' went into the
29 plan and inquired about the two `dry wells' that are shown on the landscaping plan and a unique
30 feature not typically seen for projects in this community. The problem with the dry well in this part
31 of town is 1) there is very shallow groundwater in the winter; and 2) the site was a formerly
32 developed as a gas station where the LID Design Manual the City has adopted contains some
33 language about consideration from mobilizing old contaminated soil. To this end, State files
34 related to the former gas station indicate the site contained underground tanks and old gas
35 pumps. The LID Design Manual for storm water the City adopted recommends this issue be
36 looked at before the design of infiltration features. Public records indicate the Rite Aid site
37 contained two gas stations and recommends looking further into this matter as it relates to
38 compliance with the City's LID Design Manual standards.
39
40 Chair Whetzel:
41 • Asked about the reason for increase in the roof pitch and would this cost the applicant more?
42
43 Commissioner Sanders:
44 • Noted the DRB minutes reflect that the increase in the roof pitch would provide comfort to those
45 persons living on the second story units.
46
47 Commissioner Hilliker:
48 • The site address of 680 S. State Street could be confusing for emergency situation responders.
49 Supports the facility has one primary address with the individual units having letters/numbers for
50 identification purposes.
51 • Looking at the site plans and corresponding layout/driveway entrance widths/other on-site
52 constraints questioned whether emergency vehicles would adequately be able to maneuver on
53 the site.
54 • Concerned there may not be a sufficient number of fire hydrants in the area to adequately service
55 the apartment complex. It may be adding a fire hydrant on the site would be a good solution.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 9, 2015
Page 2
1 • Related to the design asked if ineasures are in place to promote energy efficiency for this
2 project?
3
4 Chair Whetzel:
5 • Asked about the addresses for the proposed units and supports one street address for the
6 complex having individual numbers or letters for the units.
7
8 Commissioner Christensen:
9 • Questioned how the number of units was calculated for a total of 26 units. Based on 28 units
10 allowed per acre, an approximate mathematical calculation indicates 1 unit is allowed per 1,555
11 sq. ft. 26 units based on 38,869 sq. ft. actually calculates to 24 units.
12 • Staff's analysis of General Plan Goal OC-25: Maintain and enhance the City's canopy of shade,
13 specifies the applicant has indicated the project meets the City's shade requirements and
14 questioned whether the City verifies this.
15 • Requested clarification regarding the location of the nine public parking spaces that could serve
16 as overflow and guest parking for the project.
17
18 Commissioner Sanders:
19 • It appears the project with regard to density and number of units proposed has been reviewed by
20 the Fire Department, Public Works and other relevant City departments. Commissioner Hilliker
21 mentioned that maneuvering fire vehicles on the site may be a problem and Commissioner
22 Christensen mentioned the density seems to be a little higher than what is normally calculated.
23 Would like to make sure that we are not creating an unsafe situation with having more units on
24 this parcel.
25
26 Principal Planner Thompson:
27 • The CEQA document referenced above was included in the staff report for informational
28 purposes and is a form staff uses.
29 • Acknowledged the importance that the root systems for the street trees must be protected during
30 construction. Staff has discussed street tree protection and the possible need to put a chain link
31 fence around the construction area that would include the street trees. Supports adding a
32 condition of approve to this effect.
33 • The color schemes for the building and roof were initially lighter, mostly earth tone, tan/gray
34 colors. The DRB supported increasing the roof pitch primarily from an aesthetic perspective and
35 for energy conservation purposes relative to the second story units. The increase in the roof pitch
36 did not result in a dramatic change from the initial design.
37 • Related to costs associated with the increase in the roof pitch, defer to applicant in this regard.
38 • Related to how the proposed project fits in the neighborhood, essentially the Planning
39 Commission packet provides information about the proposed project. While the floor plans were
40 not included in the packet, staff has this information as part of the project presentation.
41 • If it is the preference for the Planning Commission to receive LID SUSMP for projects, this can
42 become standard practice. These documents are typically large.
43 • When the Rite Aid lot was split no address was assigned to the lot proposed for development.
44 While not confirmed understands the address would be 100 W. Gobbi Street possibly having
45 individual addresses for the apartments but no formal address determination has yet been made
46 by the US Post Office and City staff.
47 • Related to the element of promoting energy efficiency, new developments must comply with
48 California Green Building standards, Title 24.
49 • The number of units is calculated according to maximum density. The site is considered infill on a
50 parcel that is 38,869 sq. ft. and/or is under an acre. 28 units are allowed per acre. The discretion
51 of the use permit allows for higher density such that 26 units are proposed that fulfills many
52 goals/policies of the General Plan and Smart Growth objectives including providing housing for all
53 income levels, promotes infill development, energy efficiency, water saving landscaping, etc.
54 From a planning perspective the intent/strategy is to try and get as many units within the
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 9, 2015
Page 3
1 Downtown area as possible. The site is located within a short walking distance to daily needs,
2 services and public transportation.
3 • Related to project compliance with the City's shade requirements, the City relies on the expertise
4 of the applicanYs landscape architect in this regard. The Zoning Ordinance requires a shade
5 percentage to be achieved at 10 years. It is difficult to do the calculation for shade coverage. The
6 code does not indicate how the shade coverage should be calculated, provide the canopy size of
7 various tree species at 10 years or define the parking area that is subject to this requirement.
8 Based on staff's research, communities that have shade ordinance most commonly use a 15-year
9 canopy when calculating shade coverage. As such, the City uses the City of Davis shade
10 ordinance to calculate the shade coverage within 15 years of planting. It may be the City will
11 consider amending the Zoning Ordinance to allow for shade coverage within 15 years of planting
12 rather than the current requirement of 10 years.
13 • Confirmed the nine parking spaces are located on S. Oak Street.
14 • As a protective measure, residential fire sprinkler systems are required for each unit. The issue of
15 emergency vehicles being able to maneuver adequately on site and/or the turning radii will be
16 looked at more closely during the building permit phase.
17
18 Senior Civil Engineer Kageyama:
19 • Is not aware the site is contaminated. The Rite Aid site had monitoring wells that are now
20 abandoned. The dry wells were not integral to the LID Design Manual calculations.
21
22 Commissioner Hilliker:
23 • All developmental measures related to fire prevention/protection are reviewed according to the
24 Fire and Building codes. The City Fire Marshal is responsible for making sure there is adequate
25 turning radii for emergency vehicles on the site.
26
27 Commissioner Watt:
28 • Per the density requirements his calculations indicate 25 units would be allowed.
29
30 Principal Planner Thompson:
31 • Through the use permit process discretion can be made to increase the density.
32
33 Chair Whetzel:
34 • Asked whether a fire hydrant will be installed somewhere close by.
35
36 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:38 p.m.
37
38 Doug Guillion, Guillion Inc., Applicant:
39 • The project manager can specifically address questions concerning the project description.
40 • Has observed that Ukiah has a housing storage and that there is limited space/land for
41 development to occur. While the site has constraints is of the opinion the proposed housing
42 project would benefit Ukiah residents.
43 • His development company has done commercial projects in this community that were
44 architecturally well received as well as other successful developments in other communities.
45 • The Intent is to provide for a project that includes LID features including impervious surfaces and
46 rain gardens, nice landscaping that incorporates drought tolerant species minimizing outdoor
47 water use, good design characteristics, integrates California Green Building Code standards,
48 including Title 24 intended to promote energy efficiency and/or other design factors to provide for
49 an aesthetically pleasing housing development that is centrally located near the Downtown area
50 within walking distance and is close to services and other living need accommodations.
51 • Allowing for 26 apartment units is what pencils out financially to get the project built.
52
53 Commissioner Christensen:
54 • Requested clarification the housing development is market rate and able to accommodate an all
55 age group of persons.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 9, 2015
Page 4
1 • Asked about the rental rates.
2 • Asked why no three bedroom units are proposed.
3
4 Doug Guillion:
5 • Confirmed the units are market rate.
6 • The one-bedroom units will rent for$950/mo; Two-bedroom units will rent for$1,100/mo.
7 • Three-bedroom units would not work for the site.
8
9 Chair Whetzel:
10 • The project is located within the B-2 Infill Airport Compatibility Zone where limitations include a
11 density up to 28-units per acres and 90 people per acre.
12
13 Principal Planner Thompson:
14 • Building height is limited to two stories. To determine project consistency with the Airport Land
15 Use Plan, the project was reviewed by the Mendocino County Airport Land Use Commission and
16 found to be consistent with the ALUP in terms of density and persons per acre.
17
18 Steve Honeycutt, Guillion Inc., Project Manager:
19 • Guillion, Inc. responded to the design recommendations from the DRB meeting of July 9, 2015 in
20 a letter to the DRB dated July 28, 2015 that addresses the site, buildings, plant materials, LID
21 suggestions, landscaping/irrigation and architectural styling.
22 • Related to site planning and building design, the element of safety is of utmost importance.
23 • The area has three existing fire hydrants within 300 feet of the perimeter of the property.
24 • Will consult with the Fire Marshal whether another fire hydrant in the area or on the site is
25 necessary and with regard to the residential sprinkler system.
26 • Related to the issue of having sufficient turning radii on the site is of the opinion the site design is
27 compatible for fire apparatus/equipment.
28 • The Civil Engineers from Rau and Associates/City Public Works Department have addressed
29 drainage, site access and circulation, and all other relative development issues to make certain
30 the proposed project complies with City development code standards as it relates to the health,
31 safety and welfare of persons living on the site.
32 • The addressing for the site has not been determined. Preference is to have a single address with
33 individual numbers/letters for the units.
34 • Related to protection of the street trees, intent is to install a chain link fence around the
35 construction site at the back of the sidewalk. Will take sufficient measures to stay well away from
36 the street trees.
37 • Discussed drainage, condition of soil and the inability to effectively `recharge' the soil due to the
38 low permeability material where the intent is to provide an underground collection system to
39 effectively improve drainage on the site and provide for nice landscaping as shown on the
40 site/landscaping plans.
41 • Is pleased that the proposed project is centrally located near the downtown area within walking
42 distance of services, retail establishments, public transportation facilities, restaurants and civic
43 uses.
44 • Would not likely use the plastic orange fencing around the street trees because the construction
45 area will be fenced off.
46 • Related to the issue of possible contamination on the site, confirms the site was formerly a gas
47 station having contaminated sources on the site. Acknowledged that remediation was
48 accomplished some years ago and no further action letter was issued by the Regional Water
49 Quality Control Board. Is of the opinion contamination is not an issue on the site.
50 • The geotechnical report analysis of the site will be submitted with the building permit application.
51 • Related to the compliance with the City shade coverage requirement and noted it is tough to get
52 trees to grow at the rate intended to reach the desired canopy in 10 years. Is of the opinion tree
53 species have been chosen such that shade coverage can sufficiently be maximized.
54 Acknowledge the City shade coverage standard is difficult to achieve.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 9, 2015
Page 5
1 Commissioner Christensen:
2 • Requested clarification regarding the number of bicycle spaces proposed for the project.
3 • Since the project is an all-age apartment complex, children living there may not have expensive
4 bikes and will use the bike racks. If there are a sufficient number of bike racks, children will not
5 leave them lying around on the site possibly creating problems/difficulties for persons living in the
6 complex and for emergency vehicles that cannot get through when they need to. Would like to
7 condition the project to provide for additional bike racks.
8
9 Steve Honeycutt:
10 • Four spaces are shown on the site plan and would like to increase the number to eight spaces, if
11 feasible. Persons with expensive bicycles prefer to bring their bikes indoors.
12 • Is fine with the addition of more bike racks as long as the proposal does not go beyond the scope
13 of what the site can accommodate and/or is feasible.
14
15 Commissioner Watt:
16 • Asked how many bike racks are proposed for the project?
17
18 Chair Whetrel:
19 • The site plans indicate two racks, one of which is located northeast corner and the other located
20 on the south end of the lot.
21
22 There was further discussion regarding bicycle racks where Commission preference is for the applicant to
23 install a minimum of bike racks each capable of accommodating four bikes.
24
25 Public Member(name inaudible):
26 • Has resided in the neighborhood for a number of years.
27 • Finds parking in the neighborhood to be a problem and has concern about creating more parking
28 congestion in the neighborhood with the proposed new apartment complex.
29 • Would like to see underground parking for the complex.
30
31 Estok Menton:
32 • Resides in Ukiah.
33 • Is pleased to see the proposed new housing development at the proposed location. The site has
34 been vacant for a long time. Residential development is needed in Ukiah.
35 • The site is in a highly visible location.
36 • Appreciates the applicanYs willingness to make the proposed residential development project
37 aesthetically pleasing since the site is highly visible.
38 • Supports the applicant take advantage of solar power opportunities as the site offers full sun
39 exposure.
40 • Supports having a three story structure and questioned whether this height was allowed in this
41 location?
42 • Is of the opinion the applicant did not do a good job with the roof plans/design as it relates to
43 energy conservation and taking advantage of solar power opportunities that could significantly
44 reduce energy/utility bills for the tenants and as it relates to reducing building costs. His roof
45 design preference is low pitches, big overhang.
46
47 Principle Planner Thompson:
48 • Confirmed a three story building is not allowed in the B-2 Infill Airport Compatibility Zone.
49
50 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:12 p.m.
51
52 Commissioner Sanders:
53 • Does not recall from the DRB minutes a discussion about the issue of having a solar roof or fans
54 other than the discussion as it relates to aesthetics pertinent to the change in the roofline.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 9, 2015
Page 6
1 • While Mr. Menton's comments have validity is of the opinion cannot hold up a project because the
2 applicant is not taking advantage of solar opportunities. It is more important for the project to get
3 built. Acknowledged the site has been vacant for a number of years.
4 • Likes the project, as proposed.
5 • Understands the site has constraints with regard to compliance with the LID Design Manual
6 standards in connection with the condition and composition of the soil.
7 • Does not support adding more conditions that may restrict the development from
8 progressing/moving forward.
9 • Ukiah has a serious housing problem and the proposed project will help improve this situation.
10 • Guillion construction company has done good work with the other development projects in the
11 community.
12
13 Commissioner Watt:
14 • Thanked the applicant for bringing the project forward.
15 • Supports approval of the project.
16
17 Commissioner Hilliker:
18 • Supports project approval.
19 • Is of the opinion Mr. Menton's comments relative to encouraging developers to install solar
20 systems for projects have merit. It may be the City should establish some sort of policy or provide
21 for an incentive program to encourage applicants to put in solar systems for projects. The
22 proposed project and corresponding location would be ideal for solar energy purposes. As a
23 planning matter would like to see projects incorporating solar energy systems move forward down
24 the road.
25
26 Chair Whetzel:
27 • The City of Ukiah is in the business of selling electricity.
28 • Agrees many projects would likely benefit from some kind of solar panel system where the City
29 and DRB would need to be on board to encourage this type of development so until this happens
30 the Planning Commission will continue to see projects such as the one proposed.
31 • Would like to see more projects proposing solar panel systems.
32 • Related to the issue of parking the applicant seeking relief from the City's parking requirement to
33 reduce the parking by three parking spaces where the Planning Commission has to make a
34 decision regarding the exception.
35
36 Commissioner Christensen:
37 • While participating in solar system opportunities are important and a very sensible approach
38 cannot hold the project up because no solar is proposed. A project has to make sense on paper
39 financially or the project cannot be done at all.
40
41 It was noted the City does offer incentives with regard to solar opportunities in the way of rebates for
42 installation thereof.
43
44 Commission Consensus:
45 • Supports the project, as presented.
46 • Is fine with the parking exception given the projecYs infill location, proximity to services/public
47 transportation/retail establishments and on-street parking accommodations.
48 • Adding the following Conditions of Approval:
49 1) To provide tree protection for existing street trees, the developer shall install temporary chain
50 link fence at back of sidewalk for the duration of construction.
51 2) The developer shall install a minimum of two bike racks each capable of accommodating four
52 bikes. The developer is encouraged to provide an additional two bike racks capable of
53 accommodating four bikes, if feasible.
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 9, 2015
Page 7
1 M/S Watt/Sanders to approve Gobbi Street Apartments Use Permit, File No.: 1174-UP-PC based on the
2 Findings in attachment 2 and subject to the Conditions of Approval in attachment 3 and with the addition
3 of two conditions as referenced and discussed above. Motion carried (5-0).
4
5 10. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
6 Principal Planner Thompson:
7 • Gave an update of recently approved planning projects and future upcoming planning
8 projects/workshops to include continued discussion about the streamlining of planning permits.
9 • Staff has been working on formulating guidelines and an ordinance concerning mobile food
10 vendors that the Planning Commission will have the opportunity to review and provide input. As
11 such, staff is planning a public workshop to discuss mobile food vendors and the need for use
12 permits.
13 • Staff is scheduling a Zoning Administrator public hearing for a minor site development permit for
14 the Tesla Charging Station at the end of the month.
15
16 Commissioner Sanders:
17 • Addressed the SB2 Homeless Shelter Overlay zone project recently approved by City Council
18 that did not contain the Planning Commission minutes for this particular project as a reference
19 and emphasized the importance City Council received Planning Commission minutes for projects
20 going to City Council for approval.
21
22 11. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
23 Commissioner Hilliker:
24 • Related to the matter of environmental renewable/sustainable energy recently visit property that
25 uses a very large windmill as an energy source that powers the entire farming operation including
26 the household west of Petaluma. We have the knowledge/expertise to use alternative energy
27 sources in which we should more diligently apply and explore from an environmentally
28 sustainable viewpoint.
29
30 Commissioner Sanders:
31 • Invites the Planning Commissioners and public to participate/attend the California Coastal
32 Cleanup where the concentration will be Gibson Creek and Doolin Creek on Saturday,
33 September 19, 2015 beginning at 9:00 a.m. at Oak Manor Park.
34
35 12. ADJOURNMENT
36 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
37
38
39 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
40
41
42
43 ATTACHMENT 2
44
45 FINDINGS-USE PERMIT
46
47
48 Recommendation for the Approval of the Major Use Permit: The Planning DepartmenYs
49 recommendation for approval of Major Use Permit No. 1174, to construct a 26-unit multi-family project
50 and associated improvements, is based, in part, on the following findings:
51
52 1. The proposed multi-family residential development is consistent with the goals and policies of
53 the Ukiah General Plan because it has been designed with careful consideration with the
54 surrounding established neighborhood.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 9, 2015
Page 8
1 2. The proposed multi-family residential development is consistent with the use and
2 development standards for the Commercial 1 (C1) District, including: density, maximum
3 building height, and setbacks to property lines.
4
5 3. The proposed project's request for relief from the parking standards by three spaces will not
6 negatively impact the neighborhood due to infill location and proximity to retail, groceries,
7 transit, high number of one-bedroom units and on-street parking spaces.
8
9 4. The proposed multi-family residential development will not be detrimental to the public's
10 health, safety, or general welfare since its development, as conditioned, will be consistent
11 with the requirements for construction in the City of Ukiah.
12
13 5. The granting of the use permit not will cause significant adverse environmental impacts. The
14 site does not contain any wetlands, mature trees, endangered species or habitat.
15
16 6. City services are available to serve the Project. The City has enacted mandatory water
17 conservation measures and the residents of the Project would be required to comply with any
18 water conservation measures in place. The Project includes drought tolerant landscaping
19 and water conserving irrigation. The Project has been reviewed by Public Works
20 Department, Electric Utility, Fire Marshal, and Building Official and there are adequate
21 services and utilities to serve the Project.
22
23 7. The proposed Project would be similar in use, intensity, and density to the surrounding
24 neighborhood. The City's noise ordinance would apply to this Project both during
25 construction and after occupancy. Conditions of approval have been applied to the Project to
26 address construction related noise impacts.
27
28 8. The Project is subject to the requirements of the California Green Building Code Standards
29 which includes specific requirements (materials and light fixtures) to reduce energy
30 consumption.
31
32 9. The in-fill project site is surrounded by existing residential development and commercial uses.
33 The project site is not known to contain any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
34 special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
35 Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and therefore the Project
36 would have no impact on candidate, sensitive, or special status species.
37
38 There are no riparian areas or riparian habitat on the in-fill subject parcels or other sensitive
39 natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the
40 California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service. Therefore, the
41 Project would have no impact on these resources.
42
43 The infill site is partially paved and contains no wetlands, marshes, vernal pools, or other
44 water courses on the parcels included in the Project. Therefore, the Project would have no
45 impact on these resources.
46
47 No migratory path for wildlife species, no connection with any wildlife habitat, no water
48 courses are located on the parcels included in this Project.
49
50 10. The size and height of the project is consistent with other structures in the neighborhood. The
51 Project was reviewed by the Design Review Board who found the Project to be consistent
52 and compatible with other residential development in the neighborhood and appropriate for
53 the individual parcels included in the Project. Based on the above, the Project is consistent
54 with this requirement.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 9, 2015
Page 9
1
2 11. The proposed ProjecYs location, size, height and intensity are harmonious with the existing
3 neighborhood, including other existing multi-family projects directly across Oak Street and to
4 the north of the project along Oak Street.
5
6 12. The proposed Project provides two access points one on Gobbi Street and one on Oak
7 Street, further the site has existing sidewalk entire frontage providing convenient vehicle and
8 pedestrian traffic patterns.
9
10 13. Notice of the Public Hearing was provided in the following manner:
11
12 ■ mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the parcels included in the Project on August
13 21, 2015;
14 ■ published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on August 23, 2015;
15 ■ posted on the Project site on August 21, 2015;
16 ■ posted at the Civic Center(glass case)on August 21, 2015;
17 ATTACHMENT 3
18
19 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Zo
21 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The following Conditions of Approval shall be made a permanent part of
22 Major Use Permit No. , shall remain in force regardless of property ownership, and shall be implemented
23 in order for this entitlement to remain valid:
24
25 Planning Conditions, Kevin Thompson (707)462-6207
26
27 1. This approval is not effective until the 10 day appeal period applicable to this Use Permit has
28 expired without the filing of a timely appeal. If a timely appeal is filed, the project is subject to the
29 outcome of the appeal and shall be revised as necessary to comply with any modifications,
30 conditions, or requirements that were imposed as part of the appeal.
31
32 2. All Conditions of Approval shall be printed on all sets of building permit project plans pertaining to
33 any site preparation work or construction associated with the development of the multi-family
34 project and ancillary site improvements approved by the Major Use Permit.
35
36 3. All use, construction and the location thereof, or occupancy shall conform to the application and
37 to any supporting documents submitted therewith, including any maps, sketches, or plot plans
38 accompanying the application or submitted by applicant in support thereof.
39
40 4. Any construction shall comply with the "Standard Specifications" for such type of construction
41 now existing or which may hereafter be promulgated by the Engineering Department of the City of
42 Ukiah; except where higher standards are imposed by law, rule, or regulation or by action of the
43 Planning Commission such standards shall be met.
44
45 5. Building permits shall be issued within two years after the effective date of the Use Permit or
46 same shall be null and void.
47
48 6. If any use permitted shall cease for six (6) consecutive months, then the right to any Use Permit
49 permitting such use shall terminate and such Use Permit shall be revocable by the granting body
50
51 7. If any condition is violated or if any required approval is not obtained, then the Use Permit granted
52 shall be null and void; otherwise to continue in full force and effect indefinitely until otherwise
53 terminated and shall run with the land.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 9, 2015
Page 10
1
2 9. The approved Use Permit may be revoked through the City's revocation process if the approved
3 project related to the permit is not being conducted in compliance with the stipulations and
4 conditions of approval; or if the project is not established within two (2) years of the effective date
5 of approval; or if the established use for which the permit was granted has ceased or has been
6 suspended for twenty-four(24) consecutive months.
7
8 10. Except as otherwise specifically noted, any Use Permit shall be granted only for the specific
9 purposes stated in the action approving such Use Permit and shall not be construed as
10 eliminating or modifying any building, use, or zone requirements except as to such specific
11 purposes.
12
13 11. Prior to the issuance of a building Permit, a Final Landscaping Plan shall be submitted for review
14 and approval by the Director of Planning and Community Development or his/her designee. All
15 required landscaping shall be planted prior to final inspection, and shall be maintained in a viable
16 condition to the satisfaction of the Department of Planning and Community Development. The
17 final Landscaping Plan shall incorporate designs derived from Low Impact Development
18 Standards.
19
20 12. All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, road construction, and building
21 construction shall institute a practice of routinely watering exposed soil to control dust, particularly
22 during windy days.
23
24 13. All inactive, soil piles on the project site shall be completely covered at all times to control fugitive
25 dust.
26
27 14. All activities involving site preparation, excavation filling, grading, and actual construction shall
28 include a program of washing off trucks leaving the construction site to control the transport of
29 mud and dust onto public streets.
30
31 15. Low emission mobile construction equipment, such as tractors, scrapers, and bulldozers shall be
32 used for earth moving operations.
33
34 16. All earth moving and grading activities shall be suspended if wind speeds (as instantaneous
35 gusts)exceed 25 miles per hour.
36
37 17. If, during site preparation or construction activities any historic or prehistoric cultural resources
38 are unearthed and discovered, all work shall immediately be halted, and the City notified of the
39 discovery. The applicant shall be required to fund the hiring of a qualified professional
40 archaeologist to perform a field reconnaissance and to develop a precise-mitigation program if
41 deemed necessary.
42
43 18. Areas to be graded for building construction shall be cleared of artificial fills, vegetation, roots,
44 and loose soil containing organic matter. Surface strippings or other soils containing organic
45 materials cannot be used as fill except in landscape areas.
46
47 19. A professional/certified engineer shall routinely inspect all grading work on the project site. Field
48 density tests must be taken during grading in order to evaluate the adequacy of the contractor's
49 work. After grading is completed and the soil engineer has finished the observation of the work;
50 no further excavation or filling shall be done except with the approval of and observation of the
51 soil engineer in consultation with City Public Works Department Staff. The contractor shall be
52 responsible to prevent erosion and water damage of the graded areas and adjoining areas during
53 construction.
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 9, 2015
Page 11
1 20. All grading activities on the site shall be conducted consistent with a Grading Plan for all
2 disturbed areas which shall be submitted to the City Public Work Director/City Engineer for review
3 and approval prior to the commencement of any grading activities.
4
5 21. Prior to the commencement of grading or other site improvement activities associated with the
6 construction of the dwelling unit and/or accessory structures, the applicant shall prepare and
7 submit a Mitigation Compliance Plan verifying when and how the required mitigation measures
8 will be complied with. The applicant shall fund and/or contract with qualified professionals such as
9 civil and geotechnical engineers and landscape architects and/or specialists to verify compliance
10 with all mitigation measures, and to prepare field reports for submittal to the City.
11
12 22. To provide tree protection for existing street trees, the developer shall install temporary chain link
13 fence at back of sidewalk for the duration of construction.
14
15 23. The developer shall install a minimum of two (2) bike racks each capable of accommodating four
16 (4) bikes. The developer is encouraged to provide an additional two (2) bike racks capable of
17 accommodating four(4) bikes if feasible.
18
19 From the Building Official (707.467.5718)
20
21 24. A grading permit is required (this will include obtaining a California storm water permit and
22 Mendocino County Air Quality Management District permit for dust control).
23
24 25. A Geotechnical Report is required.
25
26 26. In addition to any particular condition which might be imposed; any construction shall comply with
27 all building, fire, electric, plumbing, occupancy, and structural laws, rules, regulations, and
28 ordinances in effect at the time the Building Permit is approved and issued.
29
30 27. Hours of- construction shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, except
31 for owner occupied single-family construction which can also occur from 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
32 on Sunday provided no heavy construction equipment or vehicles are utilized.
33
34 From the Fire Marshal (Kevin Jenninqs 707.463.6271)
35
36 28. Residential Fire Sprinkler system will be required.
37
38 29. Smoke &Carbon Monoxide detectors will be required.
39
40 From the Public Works Department(Ben Kaqevama 707.463.6284)
41
42 30. Prior to construction of site improvements, a final grading and drainage plan, and an erosion and
43 sediment control plan, prepared by a Civil Engineer, shall be submitted for review and approval
44 by the Department of Public Works. The plan shall include the detailed design of the proposed
45 storm water best management practices (BMPs). Drainage improvements shall be in compliance
46 with the City of Ukiah's Phase I Storm Water Permit and the Low Impact Development Technical
47 Design Manual (LID Manual). A final drainage report and Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation
48 Plan (SUSMP)shall be provided to support the design of the proposed drainage system.
49
50 31. The project engineer shall provide direct oversight and inspection during project construction, with
51 special attention to implementation of best management practices for sediment and erosion
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 9, 2015
Page 12
1 control, and the proper grading, installation, and landscaping of the stormwater BMPs. Upon
2 completion of the work, a report shall be submitted by the project engineer to the Department of
3 Public Works stating that the improvements have been completed in accordance with the
4 approved plans and conditions of approval, shall function as intended, and all areas have been
5 permanently stabilized to prevent sediment and erosion.
6
7 32. Maintenance and inspection of all post-construction best management practices (BMPs) are the
8 responsibility of the property owner. In accordance with the LID Manual, a legally binding, signed
9 maintenance agreement approved by the City of Ukiah is required for the proposed stormwater
10 treatment planters and all post-construction BMPs, and shall be recorded prior to final approval of
11 the building permit.
12
13 33. Sidewalk and driveway improvements within the street right-of-way shall meet accessibility requirements.
14 Prior to construction,improvement plans shall be prepared by a Civil Engineer and approved by the
15 Department of Public Worics for all improvements within the street rights-of-way. Public sidewalks located
16 outside of the street right-of-way will require a sidewalk easement dedicated to the City.
17
18 34. Street trees shall be spaced approximately every 30', along Gobbi Street and Oak Street, within
19 tree wells, a landscape strip, or within 5' of the back of sidewalk. Street trees shall be installed in
20 accordance with City Standard Drawing No 601. Tree types shall be approved by the City
21 Engineer. Existing trees in unsatisfactory condition shall be replaced.
22 35. Any existing curb,gutter and sidewalk in disrepair adjacent to the subject property shall be repaired. All work
23 shall be done in conforrnance with the City of Ukiah Standard Drawings 101 and 102 or as directed by the
24 City Engineer.
25
26 36. All work within the public right-of-way shall be performed by a licensed and properly insured
27 contractor. The contractor shall obtain an encroachment permit for work within this area or
28 otherwise affecting this area. Encroachment permit fee shall be $45 plus 3% of estimated
29 construction costs.
30
31 37. All areas of circulation shall be paved with a minimum of 2"of AC on 6"of Base or other suitable
32 all-weather surface approved by the City Engineer. This includes the proposed driveways and parking
33 areas. If heavy truck traffic is anticipated from the solid waste company, delivery trucks, or other
34 heavy vehicles, the pavement section shall be calculated appropriately to ensure that it can
35 withstand the loading.
36
37 38. Existing sewer laterals planned to be utilized as part of this project shall be cleaned and tested,
38 and repaired or replaced if required. Sewer connection fees shall be paid at the time of building
39 permit issuance.
40
41 39. Capital Improvement fees for water service are based on the water meter size. A fee schedule
42 for water meter sizes is available upon request. Additionally, there is a cost for City crews to
43 construct the water main taps for the proposed water services to serve the project.
44
45 40. Irrigation services shall have approved backflow devices.
46
47
48
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 9, 2015
Page 13