HomeMy WebLinkAbout01112017 - packet CITY OF UKIAH
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
)anuary 11, 2017
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 November 9, 2016 meeting
will be available for review and approval at the next regular meeting.
5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
The Planning Commission welcomes input from the audience. In order for
everyone to be heard, please limit your comments to three (3) minutes per
person and not more than ten (10) minutes per subject. The Brown Act
regulations do not allow action to be taken on audience comments.
6. APPEAL PROCESS
All determinations of the Planning Commission regarding major discretionary
planning permits are final unless a written appeal, stating the reasons for the
appeal, is filed with the City Clerk within ten (10) days of the date the decision
was made. An interested parry may appeal only if he or she appeared and
stated his or her position during the hearing on the decision from which the
appeal is taken. For items on this agenda, the appeal must be received by
)anuary 23, 2017 at 5:00 p.m.
7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION
8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE
9. PUBLIC HEARING
9A. Thomas General Plan Amendment and Rezone, 350 North Orchard
Avenue, File No.: 2044 GPA-RZ-PC. Consider making a recommendation to
the City Council for adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan
Amendment, and Rezoning for a .66 acre parcel located at 350 N. Orchard
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.
Avenue.
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 November 9, 2016
3 Minutes
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
6 Christopher Watt, Vice Chair Mike Whetzel, Chair
7 Laura Christensen
8 Mark Hilliker
9 Linda Sanders
10
11 STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
12 Kevin Thompson, Interim Planning Director Listed below, Respectively
13 Michelle Johnson, Assistant Planner
14 Shannon Riley, Senior Management Analyst
15 Chris Dewey, Chief of Police
16 Sean Kaeser, Lieutenant
17 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
18
19 1. CALL TO ORDER
20 The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by Vice Chair Watt at
21 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California.
22
23 2. ROLL CALL
24
25 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Everyone cited.
26
27 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—The minutes from the September 14, 2016 and September 28, 2016
28 meetings are included for review and approval.
29
30 M/S Hilliker/Christensen to approve the September 14, 2016 and September 28, 2016 meeting minutes,
31 as submitted with Chair Whetzel absent. Motion carried (4-0).
32
33 5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
34
35 6. APPEAL PROCESS
36 Chair Whetzel read the appeal process. For matters heard at this meeting the final date to appeal is
37 November 21, 2016 at 5:00 p.m.
38
39 7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION - Confirmed by Commission.
40
41 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE- Confirmed by Staff.
42
43 9. PUBLIC HEARING
44 9A. The Inland Valley Emergency Winter Shelter Major Use Permit, 1045 South State Street,
45 File No.: 2235 UP-PC. Consideration and possible action on a request for approval of a Major
46 Use Permit to allow a temporary homeless shelter for 56 guests and 4 staff members per night.
47 The homeless shelter will be open from November 16t", 2016 or as soon as possible thereafter
48 until March 15`h, 2017 or until 120 days have passed, on a daily basis, with operation occurring
49 6:00 p.m. to 8 a.m.; 7 days a week at 1045 South State Street, APN 003-083-02,
50 APN 003-083-10, and APN 003-083-07.
51
52 Interim Planning Director Thompson:
53 • Advised of a public noticing error that was corrected concerning the number beds the shelter will
54 have and noted the original number of beds was 36 to accommodate this number of guests and
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 9, 2016
Page 1
1 was later changed by the applicant to 56 beds to accommodate 56 guests. The facility as it went
2 through the planning process ended up having more space availability within the building than
3 originally anticipated and this is the reason for the increase in the number of guests.
4
5 Associate Planner Johnson:
6 • Gave a staff report as provided for on pages 1-10 of the staff report and PowerPoint presentation
7 included in the minutes as attachment 1.
8 • Staff recommends project approval based on the draft Findings in attachment 1 of the staff report
9 and subject to the draft Conditions of Approval in attachment 2 of the staff report, and project
10 conditions from Mendocino County Health & Human Services Agency included in the minutes as
11 attachment 2.
12
13 Commissioner Sanders:
14 • Would like clarification on the number of staff members on site at the facility during the hours of
15 operation.
16 • Asked about the one telephone call staff received from a member of the public.
17 • Asked about the 60 feet of temporary fencing and if the fence would be `cyclone with tarping?
18 • Reference is given in the staff report to the Ukiah Community Center and understands this facility
19 is closed in terms of this establishment being an outreach facility.
20 • Requested clarification about the maximum density calculations.
21 • Attachment 4 of the staff report indicates 40 cots at the most and requested clarification this
22 number has been changed to 56 cots.
23 • It appears the building has some electrical problems and asked if the property owner is
24 responsible for fixing/upgrading the electrical so that the building functions properly to be able to
25 accommodate electronic devices, etc.
26 • Does not understand which agency is the operator of the shelter and which agency is responsible
27 for the actual operation thereof, i.e., employee management.
28
29 Commissioner Christensen:
30 • Related to the issue of occupancy asked about the density calculation and how many people can
31 legally occupy the building.
32 • Asked about the portable office space and whether this space was factored into the occupancy
33 calculation since some of the staff would be located in this area. Is of the opinion 56 guests
34 appears to be a low number.
35
36 Commissioner Hilliker:
37 • Asked about the open violation issues pertinent to the building currently occupied by Bio
38 Dynamic Iron Custom Bike Shop and whether the owner of the business has now taken out a
39 building permit to correct the violations.
40 • Did talk to some of the neighbors in the area about the proposed temporary homeless shelter
41 and found there is some concern expressed about various potential impacts to the
42 neighborhood. Asked when the shelter is scheduled to open and about the City's role and/or
43 stake in the project?
44 • Requested clarification intake/assessment of individuals will occur at Plow Shares?
45 • Will the electrical problems be addressed during the building permit phase?
46 • Asked if the Ukiah Police Department has reviewed and is fine with the Management Plan?
47
48 Associate Planner Johnson:
49 • Confirmed the maximum number of persons in terms of density allowed on the site is 60 persons
50 consisting of 56 guests and 4 staff members. The number of staff members could potentially
51 increase based upon need and if so, the number of guests would decrease to maintain
52 consistency with the density requirements. There is no staff plant ratio currently.
53 • Explained the public member's concern that primarily pertains to the vacant field that adults and
54 children use in relation to the activities of the homeless facility and an inquiry about the potential
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 9, 2016
Page 2
1 negative draw to the neighborhood with the homeless facility and undesirable persons that may
2 come and congregate as a result.
3 • Demonstrated the location of the proposed temporary fencing that resembles the fencing
4 surrounding the former U S Post Office on Oak Street, i.e., a chain link fence with durable slats
5 and designed for privacy.
6 • The homeless shelter is located in the B1 Airport Compatibility Zone where the maximum density
7 was calculated to 60 persons per acre and referred to pages 6 and 7 of the staff report, table 3
8 regarding staff's analysis in this regard that also takes into consideration the footprint of the
9 building and talked about the square footage of the building and number of persons allowed
10 within that square footage. There has to be sufficient space in the building for people to be
11 mobile.
12 • Confirmed the shelter will have 56 guests based upon the revised plans.
13 • The portable office is no longer a project component and was not included in the square footage
14 calculations and explained how the square footage for occupancy purposes was calculated.
15 • Talked about staff supervision as provided for on pages 3 and 4 of the staff report.
16 • The building permit will address electrical issues.
17
18 Vice Chair Watt:
19 • Asked Police Chief Dewey what has been learned over the years regarding homeless shelter
20 operations that are now improved.
21 • Understands 74 phone calls were made to the Ukiah Police Department during the operation of
22 last year's homeless shelter on Brush Street and Mazonni Street for various reasons and
23 questioned if this may be a continuing problem.
24 • Asked for more information as to how shelters serve a valuable purpose?
25
26 Interim Planning Director Thompson:
27 • In addition to approval of the major use permit, the applicant will be required to take out a building
28 permit where site plans must be submitted such that the project will go through the normal review
29 process. The City electrical department will determine what needs to be done to upgrade the
30 electrical.
31 • The occupancy load is based upon the number of persons sleeping at the facility in connection
32 with the Fire Marshal's square footage requirement regarding maximum occupancy for the
33 building.
34 • Confirmed the owner of the bike shop did secure the proper building permits and/or is in the
35 process of correcting the building violations imposed.
36 • The City's stake in the project will be driven by the Building and Fire Department requirements
37 and when the shelter will open depends on how timely compliance with the requirements can be
38 completed/met.
39 • Confirmed intake/assessment of individuals residing at the shelter will occur at Plow Shares.
40
41 Police Chief Dewey:
42 • The Homeless Services Action Group (HSAG) is the lead operator of the homeless shelter and
43 noted the Management Plan for the proposed project is one of the best he has seen. The Plan
44 meets all the constraints/concerns the Ukiah Police Department has and definitely addresses all
45 the lessons we have learned over the years with regard to the operation of temporary homeless
46 shelters. Is of the opinion HSAG is committed to making the operation of the temporary homeless
47 shelter a success and takes a proactive approach toward meeting shelter needs upfront rather
48 than a reactive approach.
49 • Highly supports project approval.
50 • Related to shelter operations, the plan is for clients/guests to participate in intake/assessment at
51 Plow Shares in the evening and bused from this site to the shelter site and bused back to Plow
52 Shares in the morning. One lesson learned is to always keep the bathroom facilities open so that
53 as people are waiting to be assessed they can use bathroom facilities so people will not have to
54 resort to using bushes/vegetation. Likes the idea of people being bused from Plow Shares to the
55 homeless facility as this will minimize impacts to neighborhoods as people will not have to leave
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 9, 2016
Page 3
1 the assessment facility and walk to the homeless shelter facility rather than possible vandalizing
2 property by cutting fences as they make their way to the shelter. Some of the mitigating factors
3 that will occur this year is people are being properly/better screened, the fenced off area,
4 designated smoking area, taking a proactive approach to loitering particularly with people going in
5 and out of cars, etc.
6 • The bulk of the police calls were the Ukiah Police Department being proactive and checking
7 voluntarily on the shelter facility last year. Likes to encourage police officers to go as often as
8 possible to the homeless facility so as to be a good partner with the shelter. Actual disturbances
9 at the homeless facility requiring police interaction were minimal.
10 • Homeless shelters are vital to the community particularly during the winter months and having a
11 shelter actually reduces the need for police services for our community and police response.
12 • Again, commended the HSAG for being `proactive' in trying to understand and partner with the
13 police department to provide a homeless shelter that meets the police department's needs and
14 those of the shelter.
15
16 Commissioner Christensen:
17 • Asked about the number of calls for disturbances that occur in the neighborhood of WalMart since
18 many homeless persons `hang-ouY there.
19
20 Police Chief Dewey:
21 • While no formal study has been done regarding homeless persons in Ukiah he does have
22 knowledge that these persons tend to sleep near the railroad tracks, near the Russian River, on
23 private property and in homeless shelters during extreme weather conditions and noted the area
24 where WalMart is located is part of the working network for the homeless population. Homeless
25 shelters are vital in that they help get homeless persons off the streets and protected particularly
26 during extreme weather conditions.
27
28 Commissioner Hilliker:
29 • The staff report talks about staff training particularly with regard to assessment concerning
30 alcohol and drug screening and asked about whether County mental health or some other agency
31 was doing the training.
32
33 Interim Planning Director Thompson:
34 • Defer aforementioned inquiry to applicant.
35
36 Vice Chair Watt:
37 • Understands the importance of having intake and/or screening done at Plow Shares, but is of the
38 opinion the linguistics associated with this is not well spelled out in the Operations Plan. For
39 example, will there be outreach to the community that will be served by this shelter to let them
40 know not to show up at the shelter without going through the screening process first. If people
41 show up at the shelter without going through the intake process will they be turned away and how
42 is this going to work?Would like to see some type of outreach component as to what staff would
43 do if people show up at the shelter and want to be let in without going through the intake process.
44 • Is of the opinion there are areas of the Operations Plan that are left `blank' likely intended to be
45 filled in later such as exhibits, statements pending information, etc., that should be completed.
46 • Is construction planned for the interior of the homeless shelter building?
47 • Understands the proposed temporary shelter is a benefit to the community and would like to see
48 the shelter work effectively.
49 • Asked about the location of the washers/dryers.
50
51 Interim Planning Director Thompson:
52 • Understands some minimal work will be done to the interior of the building that includes the
53 installation of fire exits and other necessary improvements so the building can function properly
54 and safely.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 9, 2016
Page 4
1 Associate Planner Johnson:
2 • An alternative location is being considered for the washers/dryers.
3
4 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:40 p.m.
5
6 Aeolim Vincent DePaul, Executive Director of the Homeless Services Action Group:
7 • The temporary homeless shelter is a real need of our community.
8 • Explained the origin and history of HSAG.
9
10 Vice Chair Watt:
11 • Is HSAG a legal entity?
12
13 Commissioner Sanders:
14 • Referred to attachment 3 of the staff report, Inland Valley Emergency Winter Shelter operations
15 plan and asked about the admittance policy and how the other agencies involved with the shelter
16 will work with the homeless population that are not affiliated with any of those organizations.
17 • Will the operations policy be updated to include all new tools/services/shelter objectives/staffing
18 procedures for this shelter that was used for other shelters in the past?
19 • Is there any information in the operations plan that addresses clienUstaff ratio and is there a
20 reasons for this?
21 • It appears Redwood Children's Services/Redwood Community Services is the representing fiscal
22 agent that is paying the employees and asked if staff training for the shelter is also coming from
23 this agency.
24 • What is the acronym for'TAY' crisis?
25 • Requested clarification the leadership within the shelter organization is Redwood Community
26 Services?
27 • Asked how the personal effects of individuals will be handled? Is there adequate storage
28 available for client belongings? If people are being transported in a van to the shelter it may be
29 difficult for them to bring a lot of belongings.
30
31 Aeoliam Vincent-dePaule:
32 • Confirmed HSAG is a legal entity. The agency recently became incorporated. There are elected
33 officers, a board of directors, sponsoring agencies and/or other necessary existing legal
34 components in place working collaboratively for effective management of the Inland Valley
35 Emergency Winter Shelter.
36 • While all HSAG and sponsors thereof will work with the homeless population as best possible,
37 admittance will likely be first come first serve type of scenario that will incorporate a vulnerability
38 assessment tool that staff is trained to use to help in the screening process.
39 • All new policies/procedures will be updated that were used in past operational plans.
40 • Has no knowledge about clienUstaff ratio information in the operations plan.
41 • Mental health evaluation/assessment and first aid training will likely be conducted again this year
42 as part of the shelter services and it may be that County Mental Health staff will likely be available
43 as part of the program services and/or have staff available that already work in the mental health
44 profession. HSAG is soliciting members of various human service organizations/crisis service
45 agencies and the like to act as staff consultants/trainers. All staff on duty for any shift at the
46 shelter will be `wide-awake' and trained in Mental Health First Aid and Conflict De-escalation
47 Skills.
48 • TAY crisis is a term used in the health and human service field that helps young adults 18 and 25
49 in crisis.
50 • Would not say that Redwood Community Services represents the leadership of the shelter
51 organization but rather HSAG. Since HSAG is a new organization not all operational components
52 have been worked out. HSAG is essentially an independent agency overseeing management of
53 the homeless shelter. There are many associated health and human service-related agencies
54 working with HSAG that will participate in the shelter's overall operation.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 9, 2016
Page 5
1 • Storage bins were available to house client belongings at last year's shelter. It is important the
2 shelter maintain an aesthetically pleasing appearance. Agreed it may be difficult to bring many
3 personal belongings to the shelter. Acknowledged that some of the clients/guests will walk to the
4 homeless shelter facility carrying whatever personal belongings they have.
5
6 Sharon McGovern, Redwood Community Services 8 Vice President of HSAG:
7 • Redwood Community Services is the fiscal sponsor and is basically a `pass through' for HSAG.
8 HSAG will be taking care of the financial aspects for employees of the shelter.
9 • The shelter plan being looked at tonight is essentially last year's operational plan that will be
10 updated to correspond/meet with the current shelter's needs and policies. Noted the bulk of the
11 plan is absolutely correct.
12 • There are 300 homeless people in Ukiah. As such, there are going to be homeless people that
13 will not be in the shelter and that we have no control over, but we try our best to do what we can
14 to influence the homeless community. While we provide the homeless shelter service the
15 homeless population is greater than what shelter services can accommodate.
16
17 Commissioner Sanders:
18 • Has visited the homeless shelter site and is concerned about the condition of the building and its
19 appearance.
20 • Is very clear about the need for a homeless shelter in the community.
21 • It is unfortunate that this community does not have a year round homeless shelter.
22 • There used to be some civility associated with the homeless process where it was viewed as a
23 matter of dependency but now homelessness has a criminal connotation/association.
24 • People get concerned about having a homeless shelter in their neighborhood because all kinds of
25 things happen to their property and/or their quality of life. The police must respond to
26 disturbances and this becomes a problem.
27 • The air quality with regard to ventilation in the shelter is not good where the potential for
28 Tuberculosis could be a problem. The flooring in the proposed shelter building is substandard.
29 Has concern about how much resources can be put into building improvements.
30 • Has worked in homeless shelters and it may be the proposed shelter needs more staffing to be
31 able to effectively accommodate the clients.
32 • It may take a while to get the place in shape so it functions properly and is habitable.
33
34 Sharon McGovern:
35 • The facility is a temporary shelter and HSAG and/or other organizations/agencies are working
36 diligently to make the facility work and habitable. While the facility is not going to be perfect it will
37 serve homeless persons as best possible.
38
39 Commissioner Hilliker:
40 • Asked about safety features at the facility.
41 • Is concerned about appropriate ventilation. Does not know how to go about accomplishing proper
42 air flow in this building and to make it safer.
43 • Likes the concept of the temporary fence.
44 • Would to see the debris outside the building removed and the area cleaned up. There is also a
45 considerable amount of`stuff' inside the building that will have to be removed.
46 • Asked about the level of training, specifically medical training.
47 • Will the shelter have access to a defibrillator and/or training thereof.
48
49 Vice Chair Watt:
50 • Related to concerns about the condition of the building, the owner is applying for a building permit
51 to upgrade/improve the building to make it safer and more habitable and to comply with current
52 building code standards.
53
54 Commissioner Christensen:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 9, 2016
Page 6
1 • Will special accommodations be made for people that have pets, such as providing crates and
2 the like? Many homeless persons have pets.
3
4 Aeoliam Vincent-dePaule:
5 • Was homeless at one point in his life so can identify with that lifestyle. He stayed at the Buddy
6 Eller homeless shelter.
7 • Talked about the issue of ventilation and how the Buddy Eller homeless shelter was ventilated.
8 Providing for adequate ventilation can be problematic.
9 • First aid and CPR training will likely be provided as well as other medical types of training.
10 • Has no knowledge about a defibrillator being on the site.
11 • It may be crates can be borrowed on a temporary basis from the County Sherriff Department like
12 in past years.
13
14 Interim Planning Director Thompson:
15 • The former tenant in the shelter building is in the process of removing the items in the building.
16
17 Robert Gitlin, Property Owner:
18 • Thanked City staff for working diligently to make the temporary homeless shelter come to fruition
19 in a timely manner.
20 • Addressed the matter of the permit violations with the Custom Bike Shop and noted this issue is
21 being resolved. As the building owner, he was not aware that improvements were being made to
22 the building without a building permit.
23 • Talked about renovations that include safety features that will be made to the shelter building.
24 • Understands the building is a mess in its current condition and plans are underway to clean it up.
25 • Recognizes the importance of maintaining a good working relationship with the neighborhood and
26 with being a good neighbor. He will take prudent measures to be a good neighbor.
27 • In addition to HSAG understands there are other agencies including the City of Ukiah, County of
28 Mendocino and UVMC involved with formulating the homeless shelter. There have been
29 donations from other organizations to help the shelter.
30
31 Commissioner Sanders:
32 • What is the monthly rent?
33
34 Commissioner Hilliker:
35 • Spoke to the business owner of the bike shop and he is supportive of the homeless shelter
36 provided there are no problems.
37
38 Robert Gitlin:
39 • The monthly rent is $3,300. The rent also reflects approximately about six and half months of rent
40 that will be used to make the spaces available for the building.
41
42 Mary Julie Dune:
43 • Owns a business in the area. Has had nothing but issues with homeless persons and/or other
44 undesirables vandalizing her business and causing problems.
45 • Is concerned about the comings and goings of clientele of the shelter.
46 • Provided the Planning Commission with a written letter incorporated into the minutes as
47 attachment 3.
48 • Would like to see a fence on Thomas Street and along the State Street frontage to help screen
49 the activities of the shelter from public view since the shelter is located on a key gateway to the
50 community.
51 • Is fine with having a homeless shelter at the proposed location provided it is well managed.
52
53 Associate Planner Johnson:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 9, 2016
Page 7
1 • Resolution No. 2001-15 represents `Resolution of the City Council of the City of Ukiah
2 Establishing Homeless Shelter Use and Development Guidelines for Siting, Designing and Using
3 Homeless Facilities is incorporated into the minutes as attachment 4.
4 • Once a client has gone through the intake process and settled into the shelter, he/she is not
5 allowed to leave. Clients can leave the building to smoke etc., within the confines of the
6 temporary fence structure.
7 • If a client wants to leave it will be for the rest of the night and cannot come back to the shelter that
8 evening.
9
10 Kael Loftus:
11 • Works professionally for UVMC and volunteers his time to work/help the homeless. He goes to
12 HSAG meetings and noted HSAG is a coalition of organizations that work with the chronic
13 homeless in this valley.
14 • Mendocino County has a very severe homeless problem and it is important for the community to
15 recognize this.
16 • The State of California or the federal government is not going to hold any city legally liable for not
17 doing anything about the homeless population in their community.
18 • Tiny Houses have been the topic of discussion in this community and this may be one option to
19 help alleviate homelessness in our community. Is of the opinion Tiny Houses would be a
20 'quantum leap' improvement.
21 • We need to focus on the big picture and the real problem and try to be a little more problem-
22 solution oriented. We can always find reasons not to do something. `To act is to take a risk.'
23 • Does not understand why the community is not more proactive when it comes to helping the
24 homeless and looking for shelter opportunities. Could not believe that McCAVIN was the only
25 agency that stepped up to run the emergency winter shelter last year. Questions why there was
26 not a formal government lead response to the urgent need for an emergency homeless shelter
27 last year after all homelessness is formatively a public health problem and yet this is not how the
28 matter was solved. It was solved because this small group that works with the homeless
29 population took it upon themselves to serve the homeless and give them a place to sleep.
30 • It may be that the proposed temporary shelter is not in perfect condition but it is a lot better than
31 sleeping in a culvert.
32 • Homelessness is a social problem that needs a social policy response. Many homeless persons
33 are mentally ill or have addiction problems and gave statistical information in this regard.
34 Provided the Commission with a statistical document concerning `Housing Those with Serious
35 Mental Illness: State-wide Crisis, Local Opportunity, dated October 2016 incorporated into the
36 minutes as attachment 5.
37
38 Commissioner Sanders:
39 • Asked about the designated number of beds and how this works.
40
41 Kael Loftus:
42 • HSAG makes the aforementioned determination.
43
44 Susan Wynd Novotny:
45 • Is a property owner in Ukiah.
46 • Is the Executive Director of Manzanita Services, behavioral health program for adults.
47 • Talked about the partners involved with HSAG. The agencies advocating and/or involved with the
48 homeless shelter project are also active housing enthusiasts/supporters.
49 • Her agency was one of the outreach teams involved when Ford Street took responsibility for the
50 emergency shelter after the Buddy Eller facility closed. Her agency has trained staff in behavioral
51 health and with alcohol and drugs issues.
52 • Would like to commend the community for their support to allow these `partnerships' to continue
53 working successfully with the homeless population and for formulating the establishment of a
54 temporary winter homeless shelter so quickly.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 9, 2016
Page 8
1 Commissioner Hilliker:
2 • Should the initiative that is currently on the local ballot pass regarding mental health facilitation
3 and support, would this possibly make the homeless problem less of an issue or what effect could
4 this have?
5
6 Susan Wynd Novontny:
7 • Manzanita Services is one of the adult behavioral health providers so her organization grew very
8 rapidly during the last transition of behavioral health services management such that the entire
9 system has been reviewed and revised. Acknowledged there is a demand for shelter-type
10 buildings that can provide opportunity for programs to meet the need at the level at which there is
11 a need. So how many bed are necessary for respite versus how many bed are needed for a
12 locked facility. This represents all data that we have established for this community over time that
13 can be referenced to address what building, which permits, etc., to be considered in the event the
14 mental health initiative passes.
15 • Is of the opinion having a quality mental health facility in this community would be very
16 advantageous not only from the integrated programs and services that can be provided but it
17 would be local so patients and their families would not have to leave the community.
18
19 Daphine Macneil:
20 • Is supportive of the proposed project for a temporary homeless shelter.
21 • Understands while the building for the shelter is not perfect, it is the best we have to offer right
22 now.
23
24 Carol Rosenberg:
25 • Is a property owner in Ukiah.
26 • Is supportive of homeless shelters and recognizes the need in our community to have a homeless
27 shelter. She once allowed a homeless person to stay in her garage and use her utilities to get this
28 person out of the cold.
29
30 Robert Gitlin:
31 • Is looking at getting the shelter open before Thanksgiving, if possible.
32
33 Nick Sysock:
34 • Works in the vicinity of the proposed temporary winter shelter and is aware of people
35 living/sleeping in cars in the area. Is concerned about what will occur when people who are
36 turned away from shelter where they will go/congregate.
37 • Supports that homeless persons get off the street and into a better environment.
38 • Would just like to know that there is a way for people to go out and about the area without
39 disruption to the neighborhood.
40 • Make certain the shelter does not create an eyesore for the neighborhood.
41
42 Vice Chair Watt:
43 • The temporary emergency shelter does have an operational plan to address how the facility will
44 be managed.
45
46 Aeoliam Vincent-dePaule:
47 • Reiterated again that intake/screening of people will take place at a separate location at Plow
48 Shares. There is not going to be any rejecting someone when they get to the property location. If
49 there is a reason they will not be taken into the shelter that is going to happen at Plow Shares.
50 • All assessments will be conducted at Plow Shares. If something were to occur at the shelter that
51 forces a person to be rejected from the shelter this is a problem that will have to be resolved.
52
53 Vice Chair Watt:
54 • What will occur if someone is asked to leave the shelter to ensure the neighborhood is not
55 affected by people camping in their cars and/or stealing water and electricity from property
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 9, 2016
Page 9
1 owners residing/doing business in the area, which are concerns the neighborhood has. Asked
2 how the plan in the operations plan will address the aforementioned issues?
3 • What would occur if a person shows up at the shelter asking to be let in?
4
5 Aeoliam Vincent-dePaule:
6 • Should someone be asked to leave the shelter, acknowledged there is no clear-cut answer with
7 an easy resolution but is something we are cognizant about and working toward improving.
8 • A person cannot be let into the shelter unless he/she has gone through the intake process. It
9 may be the person will have to go back to Plow Shares depending upon the situation. Plow
10 Shares has specific rules and regulations about their operational program and cannot host people
11 indefinitely at that location.
12 • Will be available to the neighbors by giving out his cell phone and business card in the event
13 there are questions about the shelter.
14
15 Sharon McGovern:
16 • When HSAG set the rules of the shelter and set forth that intake would be conducted at Plow
17 Shares, the community will start to learn what the rules and corresponding procedures are as to
18 when and where they have to be and what has to be done to get into the shelter.
19
20 Robert Gitlin:
21 • Appreciates that the neighbors of the proposed temporary emergency winter shelter coming to
22 the Commission and speaking. Will take the neighborhood concerns to 'heart.'
23
24 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:43 p.m.
25
26 Commissioner Sanders:
27 • Thanked the public for speaking on the proposed project tonight.
28 • Is pleased there is site for a shelter.
29 • Is sorry the shelter was not able to open in October.
30 • Has stated her concerns about the condition of the building.
31 • Understands finding affordable housing is a problem in this community and that the vacancy rates
32 are 1.5% in our area. Ukiah does not have an adequate housing stock and/or supportive housing
33 like in other communities.
34 • This community has the second worst homelessness rate in the country.
35 • When looking at other urban areas, they spend millions of dollars on the homeless problem.
36 • Homelessness is an extreme situation that people are in where they cannot live without help.
37 • Homeless persons do require the help of service providers.
38 • As a society we need to do a betterjob helping the homeless population.
39 • Having a building for a shelter that is unattractive and unwelcoming is not something she would
40 like to be associated with as a human being and is a person that thinks society needs to care for
41 its people.
42 • After having done local creek clean-up for many years relative to cleaning up debris primarily
43 from homeless persons understands the potential impact to neighborhoods with people not
44 having a place to be.
45 • Is of the opinion homeless behavior is criminalized and people are affected directly by their
46 impacts of which she has compassion for.
47 • Wants to see the temporary emergency homeless shelter approved and is hopeful the resources
48 are found to make improvements to the building so that there is some level of habitability.
49
50 Commissioner Christensen:
51 • Is ready to move forward for approval of the project.
52 • It is unfortunate the building is not in the best of condition but it is better than being out in the
53 winter elements.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 9, 2016
Page 10
1 • Related to the issue that the shelter operation will potentially bring impacts to the neighbor is of
2 the opinion after looking at the community and with driving around sees that those impacts
3 already exist and we are not bringing them there. The shelter may actually improve the situation
4 in the neighborhood because homeless persons will be given hope and assistance.
5 • If there are problems in the neighborhood the shelter will not be causing them but rather help
6 alleviate some of them.
7 • The shelter is actually in a good location in that it is close to a health center, Plow Shares, and
8 close to a place where the homeless population already congregate. For instance, the homeless
9 walk from the Talmage bridge to the Russian River, to WalMart, Norgard Lane, etc. Is of the
10 opinion the proposed site is the best that can be done in the way of a homeless shelter at this
11 time.
12
13 Commissioner Hilliker:
14 • Thanked the public for participating in the discussion and sharing information concerning the
15 temporary emergency homeless shelter.
16 • Is of the opinion the community has a social responsibility to a certain extent to help the homeless
17 population.
18 • Is not sure why this community has so many homeless persons. Ranking second in the nation in
19 terms of homeless persons appears to be a high number and/or possibly out of context. Was
20 recently in Portland, Oregon and found there were designated places lined with tents and
21 sleeping bags.Was astounded how many homeless persons there are in Portland.
22 • Providing the basic necessary by way of a homeless shelter is the least we can do.
23 • Has been to the neighborhood where the proposed shelter is to be located and has observed a
24 number of cars parked along Thomas Street day or night and, as such, will likely block the vision
25 of the shelter facility.
26 • Appreciates that the owner has made the facility available for a homeless shelter.
27 • Understands it was difficult to even find a building for a homeless shelter.
28
29 Vice Chair Watt:
30 • Strongly recommends working on the operations plan to address some of the concerns brought
31 up tonight about the condition of the building, existing debris outside of the facility, people
32 showing up and/or turned away from the shelter, more specifically review the points that are
33 missing and revise the document accordingly to reflect what you plan on doing since the
34 document was somewhat of a template carried over from last year's plan.
35 • Review fire, safety, and health codes to make sure the facility is `up to par' that will be addressed
36 during the permit process with the City building department.
37 • Thanked HSAG and the associated partnering agencies that have come together to make the
38 proposed shelter work.
39
40 M/S Sanders/Hilliker to adopt the Inland Valley Emergency Winter Shelter Major Use Permit, 1045 S.
41 State Street, File No.: 2235 UP-PC based on the draft Findings in attachment 1 of the staff report and
42 subject to the draft Conditions of Approval in attachment 2, as modified by the memorandum from
43 Mendocino County Health and Human Services Agency, dated November 3, 2016. Motion carried (4-0).
44
45 10. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
46 Interim Planning Director Thompson:
47 • Gave a planning department update on the following projects:
48 ■ Minor subdivision on Airport Park Boulevard.
49 ■ Costco project.
50 ■ Palace Hotel.
51 ■ Medical Marijuana Dispensary Ordinance.
52 ■ Thomas rezone.
53 • There will be an ice skating rink on School Street.
54 • A minor use permit for a large family daycare project and a minor variance project will go to the
55 Zoning Administrator public hearing meeting on December 1, 2016.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 9, 2016
Page 11
1 • Talked about the proposed Tiny House project and possible locations.
2 • Ukiah Natural Foods is proposing an expansion project towards Gobbi Street that would be a
3 Major Site Development Permit.
4
5 Commissioner Sanders:
6 • Asked if the Paths, Open Space and Creeks Commission is going to be transferred under the
7 direction/supervision of the City Recreation Department rather than remain under the direction of
8 the City Planning Department.
9
10 Interim Planning Director Thompson:
11 • Has no knowledge of the aforementioned regarding the Paths, Open Space and Creeks
12 Commission.
13
14 11. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
15 Commissioner Hilliker:
16 • It appears the Chipotle restaurant is going to open soon.
17
18 Commissioner Sanders:
19 • Asked the Commissioners if they will be attending the planning training workshop at SSU in
20 December.
21
22 12. ADJOURNMENT
23 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:23 p.m.
24
25
26 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
27
28
29
30
31 FINAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
32
33 FINAL MAJOR USE PERMIT FINDINGS
34 INLAND VALLEY EMERGENCY WINTER SHELTER
35 1045 SOUTH STATE STREET
36 FILE NO: 2235-UP-PC
37
38 The following findings are supported by and based on information contained in this staff report, the
39 application materials and documentation, and the public record.
40
41 1. The proposed temporary winter homeless shelter is consistent with the goals, policies and Siting
42 Criteria of the Ukiah General Plan Housing Element, because it would provide homeless services on
43 an immediate need basis; it contains a program for transporting clients to services; and it provides
44 assistance to those in need of essential services with referrals to counseling and other programs.
45
46 2. The proposed temporary winter homeless shelter is consistent with the provisions of Article 15.6 of
47 the Ukiah Municipal Code because it provides all required submittal materials, including an
48 Operations Plan that is consistent with the Operational Standards articulated in Resolution 2001-15.
49 Additionally, it is a "permitted use" in the C-2 (Heavy Commercial)Zoning District.
50 3. The proposed temporary winter homeless shelter would be compatible with surrounding land uses
51 and would not adversely impact public health, safety or general welfare for the following reasons:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 9, 2016
Page 12
1 (a) The proposal includes a detailed Operations Plan that contains a screening and transportation
2 component designed to limit impacts to surrounding residential and commercial land uses.
3 This plan also contains provisions for a monitoring/security program one-hour before the facility
4 opens and for one-hour after it closes to disburse clients and ensure no impacts to surrounding
5 land uses; a full-time staff on the facility; and transportation services at closing time in the
6 morning and opening time in the evening;
7 (b) Guests will be required to remain within the shelter facility once they have arrived;
8 (c) Guests using the designated outdoor smoking/recreation area will be monitored; and
9 (d) The shelter would be operated only during the winter months between early November of 2016
10 and March of 2016, limiting the duration of any inconveniences or nuisances.
11 4. The proposed shelter is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, in
12 accordance with Statutory Exemption Section 15269(c) since the facility consists of an emergency
13 winter shelter.
14
15 FINAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—USE PERMIT
16
17
18 FINAL MAJOR USE PERMIT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
19 INLAND VALLEY EMERGENCY WINTER SHELTER
20 1045 SOUTH STATE STREET
21 FILE NO: 2235-UP-PC
22
23
24 Standard Conditions:
25
26 1. All use, construction, or occupancy shall conform to the application approved by the Planning
27 Commission, and to any supporting documents submitted therewith, including maps, sketches,
28 renderings, building elevations, landscape plans, and alike.
29
30 2. Any construction shall comply with the "Standard Specifications" for such type of construction now
31 existing or which may hereafter be promulgated by the Engineering Department of the City of Ukiah;
32 except where higher standards are imposed by law, rule, or regulation or by action of the Planning
33 Commission.
34
35
36 Fire Department Conditions:
37
38 3. Applicant shall be required to obtain any permit or approval, which is required by law, regulation, or
39 ordinance, be it required by Local, State, or Federal agency. Specifically, the following fire protection
40 measures shall be completed and approved by the Ukiah Fire Marshal prior to the opening of the
41 shelter facility:
42
43 A. One Class 2-A rated fire extinguisher for each building of project, dormitory, showers, and
44 general office space. A- If no obstructions noted an exterior extinguisher can service both the
45 showers and office spaces if located on the exterior landing "if no obstructions are presenY'. This
46 exterior extinguishers shall be securely mounted in a protective case. B — Dormitory extinguisher
47 shall be located in the interior, in close proximity to the exits. T19 Sec. 567 & 568.
48
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 9, 2016
Page 13
1 B. Interior, internally illuminated exit signs with emergency lighting shall be located at exit. This
2 signage shall be hard wired with a battery backup capable of operation for a period of not less
3 than 90 minutes. CFC Sec. 1011.3 & 1011.6.3
4
5 C. All exit access, exits and exit discharges shall be continuously maintained and free form
6 obstructions. CFC Sec. 1030.2
7
8 D. Any drapes, hangings, curtains and other decorative material, that would tend to increase the fire
9 and panic hazard shall be made from a nonflammable material or shall be treated and maintained
10 in a flame retardant condition with a flame-retardant solution approved by the State Fire Marshal.
11 T-19 Sec. 3.08
12
13 E. New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers placed in a position to be
14 plainly legible form the street or road fronting the property. CFC Sec. 505.1.
15
16 F. Prior to receiving an occupancy certificate the Fire Marshal shall provide an inspection verifying
17 that all conditions for life and safety have been met, and that access to the exits are clearly open
18 and unobstructed. Essentially this means having all cots "40" in place so that the Fire Marshall
19 can visually see the layout and egress.
20
21 Building Department Conditions:
22
23 4. The applicant shall obtain a Building Permit prior to occupancy of the shelter facility. The following
24 items will be required upon submittal of the Building Permit:
25
26 A. 1 building permit application
27 B. 3 copies of a plot plan showing the property lines, the parking lot and any structures on the
28 parcel and distances from these items to the property line.
29 C. 3 sets of plans which includes the building data (building square footage, shelter square
30 footage, occupancy load, etc. a site plan, existing floor plan and a proposed floor plan that
31 show all of the bed locations, exit doors, door hardware, 110V illuminated exit lights, 110V
32 smoke detectors, bathrooms, water heaters, furnace, fire wall between the new temporary
33 homeless shelter and the adjacent tenant space, etc.
34 D. A plan for the landing and ramp to the portable office and shower unit.
35
36 5. All previous unpermitted work must obtain a building permit and be brought up to current code. There
37 is an open violation for the occupancy change to a motorcycle repair shop and the associated work
38 completed for this all without permits. This violation will need to be cleared (a permit issued and
39 finaled and a certificate of occupancy issued) prior to the issuance of any further permits including for
40 the temporary emergency winter shelter.
41
42 6. In addition to any particular condition, which might be imposed, any construction shall comply with all
43 building, fire, electric, plumbing, occupancy, and structural laws, regulations and ordinances in effect
44 at the time a Building Permit is approved and issued.
45
46 Planning Department Conditions:
47
48 7. The operation of the temporary winter homeless shelter shall be permitted from November 16, 2016
49 to March 15, 2017, unless an unusual circumstance arises, such as an extended cold winter season,
50 and after a specific written request, the Planning Director grants an extension of time.
51
52 8. The approved Inland Valley Emergency Shelter Policy shall be strictly followed and enforced by the
53 applicants. Failure to do so may cause revocation of the Use Permit.
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 9, 2016
Page 14
1 9. Prior to opening the temporary winter homeless shelter, City staff shall inspect the interior and
2 exterior portions of the facility to ensure that all pertinent components of the approved Inland Valley
3 Emergency Shelter Policy are in effect.
4
5 10. Shelter staff shall be diligent in disbursing shelter clients from the site and away from adjoining
6 residences and businesses a minimum of 1-hour before opening and 1-hour after closing. Loitering is
7 prohibited.
8
9 11. An outdoor area shall be provided for guests that wish to leave the shelter to smoke or take breaks
10 from the close quartering of the shelter facility. Shelter staff shall monitor the use of this area to
11 ensure that guests do not cause excessive noise, littering, or other nuisance impacts.
12
13 12. The grounds around the shelter shall be routinely cleared of litter and debris, and the site shall be
14 kept in a neat and clean condition. Additionally, the site shall be cleared of all existing debris
15 including: scrap metal, inoperable vehicles and boats, prior to commencing operation of the shelter.
16
17 13. Shelter staff shall meet with police and sheriff personnel to discuss proper police contact procedures
18 and law enforcement patrol schedules.
19
20 14. Shelter staff shall provide, if necessary a regular weekly meeting time to meet with neighbors of the
21 shelter property and staff phone numbers for emergency contacts.
22
23 15. The shelter facility shall be limited to a maximum of 56 guests.
24
25 16. A temporary privacy fence shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. The purpose
26 of the privacy fence is to separate the shelter operations from the existing businesses to the west.
27
28 Public Works Condition:
29
30 17. Approval of new sewer connection is limited to one-season use as a winter homeless shelter. Since
31 the proposed showers are a temporary connection, no sewer connection fees shall be due. The
32 applicant shall obtain a sewer discharge permit from the City of Ukiah prior to occupancy, including
33 payment of a one-time wastewater discharge permit fee of$420. Sewer usage will be measured from
34 the property's water service, unless a separate submeter is provided by the applicant.
35
36 Police Department:
37
38 18. Prior to Implementation of the shelter a viable operations plan be submitted and in place.
39
40 19. An identified 24-hour responsible party/parties with contact information for coordination.
41
42 20. An identified onsite supervisor with contact information.
43
44 21. An identified overall supervisor with contact information.
45
46 22. An identified process to address neighborhood complaints.
47
48 23. Coordination with surrounding stakeholders.
49
50 24. The facility provides adequate 24-hour restroom facilities.
51
52 Electric Department:
53
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 9, 2016
Page 15
1 25. The existing 100A Service Panel that feeds the proposed shelter (Building C) may be suitable to
2 serve the needs of the shelter, based on the information from the ApplicanUOwner. The COU Electric
3 Department would normally recommend that the Applicant/Owner determine estimated power
4 demand load/kVA and load calculation information for the proposed service panel/project.
5
6 a) Connected kVA and Load calculations —will help to determine if the existing transformer
7 bank or overhead secondary service size is sufficient for the 100A Service Panel, that will
8 feed Building C and the two (2)additional buildings at 1045 South State Street.
9
10 26. There is one (1) existing overhead secondary wire, which currently feeds all three (3) buildings at
11 1045 South State Street and may or may not need to be upgraded in order to serve the Inland Valley
12 Emergency Winter Shelter service panel requirements.
13
14 27. All future site improvements shall be submitted to the Electric Utility Department for review and
15 comment. At that time specific service requirements, service Voltage and developer costs and
16 requirements will be determined.
17
18 28. Any fees associated with the addition or replacement of any existing or upgraded electrical facilities
19 (transformers, secondary conductors) to the proposed building site at 1045 South State Street would
20 be the responsibility of the applicanUowner.
21
22
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 9, 2016
Page 16
��'�?�� , r -r"�~���r�i ��-� -tF
J S� ,S.; _ - - �.r.. r�.
�,I'� :. � .� 1 �• 1 V { 11 • J �. ' �, . ' � _
�r}1
I.s.�F::;.'I.�, }� r�p r• i� � �' 1:--' I� -�;,1�-_ � .. .• �
��,� 7N _�fl .i f•• - .. , .
i-
i- �
�r , _} _ j - 3
�' . i: - .xr • '-
� }'Li �'i-'�.:� ;}x�'. - . _ ',u ' . _ �
�: . , .; - _ � ';'� � . + �.�
��j'� ± ' x '• -•�; •--•' - �"- � � - .
'�:;���� I `.. . a��'�_- �• -_ _ •�. . i•�-}
�IT _s��E �I�}. . �. lI`� �r..�•} .ti .�Z .� :.• .._�
• �r- ': r� rl .r _ .—
�'=•� { .. . I � ' I. ' 'F , ?�E•. 4
� M1i• .. . ." • . . _ �
��'� 1 " . ... . I•" f. . 'r•. ' •+ �• �
ti�. .. • . ... . . , .
�,'�•I._ '+ _ _ .1,. �� I� '�". f�i' ' Af��
.�'�� �---- ---- ��'��II .��-' •�-=�•rr.._.�-`�+� `,�f
�:y����. . h � iI� �,':.�.'��-_:�. �,}r-u- r�I7J�
Y'�'' ��.� If�}.'• a�r��_I . {-_1 � �
Y`�� ';�1:; _ �..�'i �, �;� `
�]�... r:�'_ _
���r}, ��� ��lrl � �t :
��` _` .Y._ . ��; 1_: -
�:��1 !�� ::}} •�°4�II� L . � � �l.•�t. I.
�t� �-�.I � , ' ' ' � � •l ' .
- "y'■ ' ��� 4,�'^ � " " ' _� '�1
�, �'•- • • '��. ' ��� � ` ,� . �•.,�,i
�. - ti � : � .1sLWa� ...._ � - ..y _ �,i
I� �ii'.r_s.+• _. }. . .. .
��I 'i•i.'i � O�I . -?��.I . ,.,"_ ... " �I
�, - � �.�N. _ T = _Y _-' `� ';. =�
,�� , �'� �+ 'rr- ; 'r''�'�-. ��,
�1 ��.I' . w +��,r '` 1�� I ..}� — �
r i.��
� �� �[�=�i
� �� � -!V'y� ,.•O:+ - i ��
i�� 1 � ' � -
_ , i.0 � � .�
��. . � =>' ;N��� � . �
- �� ., .•—� ".� i � '�
� � { r, ; .
; .r. ,ti; � '.�-a :;,�, ..{_ � �� I
�' '� � � - I.,IJ� � ':r }.l�'•. -� -.,
a - � +I v�'��`- . ��',• - ' .
� y _ L.• ,� � �—+X� 1Fri7'1�`��
� � � � �.�.QL, �• • .-�
�- ` ._' :� � 3� � _.-.,� _ ::a �
��y.l�[i'' . ��. �r-. �T I _ .
� � ��,V � 1- ;_��- �.U:," _-. - �� �� - . _� � _ =
�r� �� �F' i'�"�. �i i r - �.
�• � • I� ' �,� . 7ti� ^ a: . .I " '
�.�- -:o- . � � _ . . .
�::. . • << :z :�� � _ . �
��. �. _ .. . �� _
_ . , ; : ;� ,
�� . � _ . . , ,
- � _ Q� _ . . �1
-- ;
��: � � � . . . , . �; : .�
:� . . � . ; • `j
�o � . t
� , _ , . 1
� � . �
_ - ,
� ' _ . �
�� � � -
;�;., � � - .. • .
4 ' i''' _ _ . _ _ I }�
�r-��'1 IFJG =�.:U, �i=i�.;.�.�:�r'-;• .r!'
I ' . s� � ' ....�' '� ;'i. _ � � _ ,L ... -ti�� • I - , .
y�: 'yi!�J �• �.�� �f '•- y�;�• i.i; 'r '�._{' ,
.� ' .I. J � • - _ :::•_;`iiii,�-i' 'I ' '� •'
'�Yr- r ,:���,���.-:.:'"
� �
. �
� �
�
• . � . � ,' �
..
• � . '
.
� � , � � •
. � .
.
• ' ' , � �
•
' • '. �
� • ,
• . , � � �
� �
� �
. �
• � . ,
• ' • . � ,
� � .
.
. • ,
� � � . � . �
� � • • • � . • �
� � . .
� � . � �
� �
�
. �
� � � . � • • �
� � . � �
• • � •
. � � • .
. . .
Y'"
� �`i . 3-'-i i i � i� rZ^ r" ��7 7 i !7 ��i ��' ti��i� r -
� ~*� '`.� �' _ . :J� .� -�, �� ��. . ,� r�� �, x. �-t F' ' .
' fr'��- '� y. i� . T-:�� �li���1 �� ,.-. ..- �i . "_ �L� ::�.,� i .�� a" . .
y •► �`_ l_ � Y_
�� r:�� - . •1: . . .•• '_ *•�� .�I •:,'}} I • J - -_I '::� ' . • -1,. '••.-_ �l� 'r`
� . � _ �.i. .__��r k{ -� � . . .i ��' ..- "�
f'- - • .., " _
ii��!Fir� • . - .. r _ �� : i'� • �.:::4. 'y.. Ylr.f�l�.l.. }''�;. . . ir.
.J� . i i' _ •Li: �. : i . ; �. � ._ . �• .��•i
- .�+�'T= - :��i � �ti7. ; i a�i�:'.���r'�i�� _!. -. �._.��►� �'� [
�• �,- f 'Ji . �:T _„ {'l�.r.. .. _ .t . . i�_: _ = I..y _. :
.rT � '.�II.. '• - _ L1 � I - � �I�� ,1 ��� 'r'� � � X��'•�f.;'fI
'�� I S, y '�.II • [ •�'Ji 'I� `f �1 l.� •� 1;LJ: .. �r
� . ._ : _ `5 �`� !! � r� '"S �:;'•� 4 . �� •r ": • _ ,-�
. . •J I •. . . ._�. S f. 1 =w' r. s
�.•�1 I• •I 5� I Ye�'--�.��� �� . �r���yl
� ���J �, I� � .• 'r�.r 1• :�F . �I • I�I. -,� �." ..a}^P
,y��. . ,, .- �. _ ,' - � �, . ,:�
� �� - . --i , , ��� I --�
�' - - � - � � • `+ � 1 _ - '�
- _ ,- ..�_.1�. i:�,-� ��:: . �r�
�,.. �'� 'k ,'� i `� � _�
p� . ' . ' ;. _� . �� � � _ ' ' ,�
�� . � — • �, I,s . �• . :
l�. - � ' �; `` �� . ' ',
L� li I
. _ yl
I
.• - ' - ' ' - � • I�. . � . I
�L • � - • 'f � I ��t�i - -�" � . •i
li�� � i . . _� 'e � r i � I. • . .�•I_• -. ����17'rn'r,;,,� „ '
� .. . . - � . . _ . _ _ . . ,� �I
y; ' . . . .__ J i::�� , • .• - • , t -�
r ' - - _ ' � .���=' I"' :. . ,. � � ' � � �i�
;_:�. � =� _. .�•. � ���,.:� :;,. ;�� � :' � - ;I •• . . � . ' � �, ;J '�
+�ry`r,�b` ►��:1����*r��5 r_ �{��='k' •=ivT�--.r:r G --�� :r�•.t� r..:i f
�i' f .`` ' __ :�:.��+ ��
'-;I• '..� �I� }-i��.`:� - i� �1� �i�}}���4 �(_"i�. . . ' ,r ' _ ` •' ::Ty . • . _ .� ._1 �.r.� �ti�,-'.:�
� �. � f i � ��� +� 7 _]i_'. -: ~ , I I�:►i �+y--. ,�'� �! .�.
.�y ,�����- ' r7�,y '�^-, Ii`�`G�wF�1r- �. �ti��'- —L'`�.1�.'�'�ti���kf+� •�.a.,y��� �� •~•r��:
- � •� �+5'�%rt�a1'�:~_� a•� �711 Iv• � I
.��i
i
' e o m o � o � e ��
� ' (Q '
, � � �.. � e
c � Q v �
_ .__�
• o a •
� -a cc
� � �"°� � � Q �
� � o a� � o
dn' -Q..v- � v � .
� O � � N � N I
vyi ' -d_� � °a ,� c�
.X • � p •o a
w ' a a ,. �
' r �
■
i ; ' ���
■ , f'�`f�=
. � ■ �
I
na
r�
�
n
�
�
N
�
61
N
O
a
0
a`
{
• � r � r � n � ■ �
� � +;� �
�i���
`,,. �
� � ' - �j
-E .:, I
I
� � .
,, � �
. �
,��
_ �
�_•. � - -- a
�
• � ,..--
.� • - _
:�1-tY �i
.� � �i
• r,,,,
,.. ' C/�
�
�
m
�
�
�
. • �f 1
�t
O
��� �' ., ��
�'/t �n� ~',
�.�:��r�����i��iii.'..=
�.�:,-._.,..,�,.:,»�
;s.:���i�i��iiiii� ��
■� .111111111111111 = ��
��.�.������1� `� �,.�. -��
- }y -'� fp p ���� �� :i"" , ,
i,. —�—�r
��--�;q �
_--������
�� - i `� ��,.�- .,
--.� .�:� .
� N����� �, �:.�,�.t�
� r ' � ��
■ �
'ti ,�._�,:,:,�»� �._ ,r�- �l
� _r r� �, �;�
�I- `- �_ z �,y• l�M � _,i �nt i ���.,.� ��.
l� r• � '��.,�= �� � �
��. �`'� ';������� 't,����l - � �� , ,re.:
�i�. � �r ,�\--, - z j�lll— t^����'� � �"
3��rr; � ' _��,� .� �� �
C., l', °�-�:. :
� � '��.� �1����/
�����.f���1, ���•�. �.
� ���'r'i`t ., J �! �'ii� +h �L: ,, �t�'+�
y � _ . � �L..-
� :.�. �.' }PiT�`��;�1"7_� }�� •�. — - �H ;. '�i7 . f� �:r ''�^�_ �I�� •• r:: `� 5:.. ..: i
�s �� :1.:.. I.• r;;l'.�_JI�_ _ '..-.. :� l � J M•:I---,1 y � -
- - �',• • - - �� "i I� • _ - � w
' � I� . .: .. . -- y I: .� �_ rr .�:] . -. = �I; �• 'f_k �:.".' � � .". �_
�_ r:� . .ti�- _,�.' - '~ ���_ _ .. '�.. .. '�� � _ :. - . - .. - :�
�-.��ti��V.:r..�4 • �7�}F'�, `;�-� _ _'_ -V�_ 1 - �. — � ,.' ��� . f `�i.
V4..� S i =�� . _ � . � �~ i]�� • _ �� •_ .- . - �_ -
� f� . . .^ _ f �„r� - - f'� ��'i 1
IC 14� -r, -_ ��' ,_ }• , -. Ir��^ �-� . .� . '.. ' _ . , , ' . .
RY. 11=- � �.�1 I . • �-� �I . .�. - : • . i
� . . •� _ � ,y . �- �:• I,_. . . , .. . ti _ ' €
�•:1 +—�!_ .��� . i�r'—.. . lii� � �c r . . ' � � . i . i ' ��
� � � _, „ y .. ..1 " � _ �
. ' ' i — ,
� _ , ' ' '�
� F � • - . . . . ' '
�•x.l� ' . . _ . . � �: � .�__ ,ti. _r •� , . — _ . . .-.
"� I
� i � . :. .. .. .. '_ . _ � _ ' � ' _ , -"]
J ' . � � � . . • �. � ' • . �i
7 .. . . � , - � ' . .. - r-- ��
� _ • �: � ;�
�. . � . . „ �
.
���
� • •- .- . . I • . • J
� I �i
: [ �I
Y. ._ f' ' � ; ��: .l • �'. -_ . i�
��� • . 4: . . � . . - � _'r' _ ' . i ' .. . :-
. „ . ' .
�i iti`.6['�yl F�F'I i�7]:.��fy . .�� '� — �.�. :7[•'�_��.•-;i�—" k� �}e..—+'... — -. � � , � �� 7 �,:l.Ji
k-iy� Ii:'_ � • •�": , ' , • k� F ,- i '� _ ' . .'• ._ ,
���` ii _ .. �"• J1'�.�� : i t•�," �
1 i�-� e '''�t ..y ii'r�,��.,.�j` : .' s�. •_, . _ .��j' • 5 .
./ � i� . T��{,. L ����` �. . i�■ �.'Y" { {-.I.y+. _•ri .
_ }'� y���l-.. �:fj'i _ � �ti �' • �S ��. �y' - �� . .•'_I . �1� • '�
'�R�-'�'r7�� _�_.,5�•� ��'�. ii .�.ir::.�'t=—..� .�
.
.N
O
Z
'�
C
.. �
� H
� �
� V ��
s .� u
� Q �
'Nv y �� c �
s a �
•• � � O � w �
u .. '� � Vi c e�
.. -
� c O �, ,3`, � e�d � C t �
a �
O �� •• � �i y� y i � b�0 �'
u +� �i .� v u � a c N J a
� i p. i G� Vf O O ,� � � i
L � � � � L +-+ � '�' i Q
� � N � �' � i i L � •� s
c � '� � a� � � a� �
s i .i� o - s °� 0 � s u �
v� I- v� � V v� O 2 v� v� v> >
p tl 0 ^,. G rJ 0 0 A 0 � 8
....'n.v�.+5 . .n... y.....��.o-w—!s . . _
..:.:: . ... . . . ..:::....
'�^.
;:;:, <.�:_. .: �.-. .�°::�z::.3�,�;�;;� ��: k��:-r�:.
.x,n.. Y w �.%��;
.. ,, .
:.�-. . _
>
,.:
p .:.3a
.. . .. . . . .�„� ..�:
..
.:
z..>
. .. . .:u�' '._'•:::ro
� .:."^:!:�
r:'
_ ... .. s, .: ..._.-, �.n=r', �+'i=; `.�.
�
�::..
.j
;;� �-��;.�-�
:��,,:���
;;:�.
:,
�
�
�
�
�
J
Q
z
Q
L.L
L.L
�
N
•-.��;:�:-�:�.-�
-,_ �-�,�; -
�:� �:�:;.
,#� �.. �
.: - .. -
;. .: -
:..
� _;
.:... .. �..
:. ,... .
. .�
,,. , ,w
•:�..: ..:...: :-::2;:.:, •< .:� p•� ;; �°;��'::....
, <.
. . �.. �. .. ,..�;.
...., .
-- tt : _
k..,- .. �� � 5::.. ..... .
_:-:.
.. ..r-�.:. ....,.._.:� ........... ... . ..... ....:..
� ...... .....�:::: ..... n:w:..
...... .. ..... .�.. ....:...... . ..:..:.�:: ....:-
.... ..: . ... � -
.�4wu::.'......::.;:: .L...........� ...,�...._
...... ...: ..s:..:.::�.3:.:.. .:er:::Y:::.;,�.
9
�
�
r �:= � .. - � - .r; ' . . . .: . - : � . -
,:. � : :, ', . -Y . , �`: I��� : ' . - • .� . . � ,. " . �.�
. :•II. . �' . . 4 . . I
• 1�� �. .. 'r • •J� . � Y -_�1 . _...... � . .._:. f•.. _ _', - ;
� . .. . _. I 'S I . . •'�. -- . � _ " ". . ' ., -. n ... ' . . �,�r,
. � . � . _ '1�'1� _ t . - _ � , _ I .. , _}�• . . . _
� �� ' _�. :: � � .� � - .�I .i :� � - • : �I l : .
�
�_ „ . _ ... �.. . _ '� +w . ., . , , ,, ' ' �. .. . .
� , , . . _. �� ;, ;= . : .: . �� . �
, -- ' i� 'p
�� . . . � +.,. � . ,� ,i
�1 :�.. +-� c � 'I
� ` '. : : � . . ;-,. c � �� ' �•�
;' '.�:.: � a� -. �" �
�. c
�I ' " � � ' - - .� f �iL' �L= :C. 4� . ' L . . . . _ �
~ Rf Q' '�.. i_' ���
t`. I ' _ 7 "` N .3 ' � � _ }� , ' _ � �
� • V � � ,:
5. � - . � :e�� �.. .p = :� � --r
�
i • -� : � 'I 'v' a '� u .+L--' . ��
• . LL •p. � " �
- _ m � W i
.. I�
. N
•, . • �. . . . . ' - � .. ' . �
_ ' ' • ' ' _ ' �I
.. . - .. " . . ' ' ' . �'li
1l
Fy.� I . . . . • � .� '-� - �r . " � .. - . ��
']_ . . _�_ . . � � ;` '. . -.. . _ : , . .�JII
� '�.� ;� ..r �i� � ��~� r r. T. .. �, . "--_' �s�-�:' i' � ;�
=�, _ - . -. . .' � i: ' �['�. -�1 ��:�I'+ ' , .•f , . �
3'.' f� . � � �' . ,`_ _ ..' :� ~ ti� -• ti
._ . . -.i� r.���r•+i�T. . � _ r. � Y: ��
: � �' �Y� ��� �� ��If� }'�-. , �i_ '•'1't�,.: '�- '•r� �-Y.�:.� �1.
� �.A:,'y� '�7. — .'.. J rr .. ier' ��� '�
- � _ �'�r1:'c��i�-��: .-
fU
�
�
�
fQ �
.� � �
O � '=
`}- •L fB
•� � � V
� Wv� a
.�_ � ���_____
_... ,.. ..w�:: � .:m T:� :� �.
� .. _�.
. .�y��-�--�-.. �.��.�: ...� � .� �... . _ _
� � � ��� :�_ .� {� � ��
� n .
:s
£.. _ �� { . ...
. _ �r
.: . . . . .
.�
-�.�_:�� �.�
::: �: �.� ��.
_ w .
ce � .
.
. .; �.
� _ ..Y � . �.
. M �
:. . ..: .
� � .
-,,..:L�T•.
L�
� .�:'.'.�`. .�y'%�i-.. '::�^:.
a _
y�3.M �' ����� _
�:�.
�~ �
�v:. �
W �
�N X
` W �
�:
�
J
, J
Q
� :�
Z �
W
�
� Z
O �.
� �
� .
Z
W '
�
;�:�;:e.�:�:<r ..�;
�. --�:�::::<.:< _ -
<�' _
��� -:.. �:... - - -
�� i.. ����.� .
_ . .
....:..:-. � .
..,:�::-.; . .. �
�-.."� . , :.
..
. .. .. •:�._..
.. .. � . � .. �
.-
.. ,..,�rf. � ,�.
�t��:,. F . . ' ::
x
-•�,,...,: . ....� .. .w x,.... �... � ��,in.i::,:;'..�:r
;.
. . .::�.� �� �
. s::.„��.�., '.:;�..:.
; ;.
.
,q.
w-�:,...N:.:.,..:.. .• z:�r,. :-:.�--�s::::. .w.-.. .-�., :.�.�;::.
F �:;:..
�
�:�.::.-::�...:::._.:,.,,.:.<...-,,:.---.-.:,•:•—,..r...:,�..„ �,. _,€• _ ^y:j�- �:;:�.,.
_
Y
. �.= . .....: , ,_. ••rM. �::
.�
�.,.� . n. -
�--_____ �,.4.._;�.,�.,�.._�..���. .___�-_� , .•.. ,
z
0
�
Q
0
z
W
�
�
0
U
w
oC
�
�
Q
F--
c�
� - �f`��i.�-r� - � ��- �} ���
�� f1 ' i��r_•'�•�"� .': � ' _ •�� '�:�''•;;� l�� ' �"�i.y
� _'._r� ;�._.. � __ ,� .J`l':�a �� �` x. t� ti -
�t.• . :� T.' � " F_� �;+y ,... _ .�'.�' . � _ � -'`ti
i r :•ti i ' - '. - �f u i�� � �: _ `�• r. . :.7- i � � „ i i� ... .
!�ti.�_._.•f •: ..: ���'.,. _ -_� r;' �.b-: �'I '- � ';F=�' � " _� ' � :� . i;�' �
—fl� � I�`~i�7. I�I I•� .��I '1 ^', ,.'� - I _. a . 7j_�' U... • I._ �I
F�� ����IC c�r � ."r� _ -�ii ; .* f�L '. ��^ �L7i� ^ 1 _ '.�� _} �•�
� . { . � ,.
�:�__'� ��. _ -,..—�1~i F7� ~r. . . . . _ .. .. V' _
. �� • � r L � ` �.
•Il •,. ± ,.fL� 'I 7�J.1.. � �1' .l-.. .' _ � . . A •i . .:_ .�Ir�� :�
�.j _ • I:+ — � 'I
I I� � - . • . . �i4 .. � .�
� .�f I� ' . JI_I �. �;--• • {�' _ " I � _: .�I
r� — �r, i. �ifi�. — � • ; j� ��,. • .
I� '1��. r• ..iTr'. J I `.�. i L':�i � L � o . � „ _ iy
� , y � - �' i.
. � i I.• :. � ' . _ • . _ Q •= , �
r . . � - _ . . . .. . . .e. -
_. . _• _ ._ .. �' - I .� .�. - J
��h'•__ +�;.. �• + ... . ..�. � • _ .� � : `^a o ,� '. ; � .� • .
� .. - � .. .�. : � - - • - �� o �. ..
71r: � .. ... � � • : ��- . � • i ti . . e . _ ... . . . . .�
�: _ _- �' y � _ - : - •� � . ,�. _ • - � •
_ a � .
�_.. _. ,: .. 1.' 4 I . fT _ _ �" o_
�r7 �
S � . . � .. � • -- ' �; . .l.� ° .
'• - .. - - �"~~j G
,, . , . � � � � �
� . - _ .. . . . � � � � .
�; .. . _ . _ -: _ ; _ °� � �; ° � � -�
� _. _-:s._ = . . � ;,
,� :,
. o � v o:
��. .- _• _ . a � �.
���-_ _.:;=`•.{:�. - . - s GI �' � -1
�]t.�'�1=— —j��{,r:,,;r1M r ' .�r�x. - ' ; *:'�''-�m_.fi ..:� :�...�.
vr�ri i•, ' • .1� .. -�—+ ,�:� ��si �y.., .� '' ' 0 �; .
�f• ��:'�.=�_ " : . . ti ;r;,'• _ �� . : ��:�-�' �!i..._= -,L
� Lr��r�y„- ' r...�7 i`�,C�_�H��. ''I����� ry.�.- � .�i� �r ` I ' `.1. !il��—I
' .J_ " � 1 ■ .1' •Y� - •� �, �i
•��.� �IIR 17 _1 C1� - -_ _ `� y � i_ �1
•R
�+ v E � � E �; � y w w c � y w
� , d � � � C � � LL � s � � .'-'0- y � � O 'r3
� p p 'D p N � � � .a � p y L +� �j � v � p � y N p N
� u � L � t y � C � C � O 4- L N � C � C � � d Y
E ': Le y p � v, � � n� � � � ,� p � a -v p +� o t''
� L o � � �` aLi c � X :J E -° s oo c � � •� a'+� —y +� G a •,�-,°, y`� �
�p 3 a �e ,.� � � � c •� :c y c d � cv � � � � `$ ° 'p `^ w
c c -o � '�' s t� �; � °� ' ° 3 �y o � � c h � p a� .� � $ 3
� o °� o � �' y o y i3 L � y' a � �v � >. U 6�o O L y � � N w
'� � !� N y N !V a+ C N in • y'3 j L '� N C � C � E � a+ y a'S
� � � � c� E .� � � y � d w �' � `w 'o " � a�i w .Q � � � v
� — ld L O U � OO•N !' �q� V.. +"� � C .N � ftil Gl � —,� ��t N
.0 p �„i 3 7 w L ed U � N .a 'J � N � � � 4� d � �G ed jn > C
� C � O V C u � y L 7 � b0 � N N O y � O p � O C L �N
y td � 'N � :D C O � � � C C �p 7 b0 L C � O �' � d 7
� '^ a p o � 3 .c a�i c � � o � o ,.°c1 L L `° � �, " � v -� r� °°
L � N �1! � C �N � .0 C C L �0 � L � � .� N .� � Gl E L O .��il
3 ~ '�e I— `� � �.�—° '° � � °/ � °' � � t ani � a $ � w � u�
ai a � � � � b d �y � �' � o � v '� � � �3 �u -$ c � w
� � � � � a u .G � 'si'� � � p � � � c � � � � � o L � � �
E � �. �' c °' ,'3 > '�' � � c L �a � � ;� � � � m � �'i � � °' .k
� L L 1..' � � � 0 y � � •Q� L O ��y � � Gl N N ed � — �L �
7 U O O � � C � L N fd � L Y � X y� VI u V y O � � O �
y � -� C � L O E N C � b0 Q � L C7 "O y � s � u L '�
� o b y •,� o y °1 ;y E c o v � .c v !9 d d �
t� � u � V �± tn O �C 'O y �+ N 7 a.+ � > N V +' Q �y
� � p 3 � O Gl Q�l C�y ��. i � �1 � O y 7 O 'D t N L L 'C.+� a
� I..i it) C t L3.� L7 � 4I � L Id � C N �N N � N C 0
d"�q b�0 N � � L O � � 4= � 3 G/ C L N a+ N y .a�+ L L N L N y�,i C L
— 7 C � � td N L � � � tn � � Q a�.i � C � 'L � � u y � � Q C �.�+
a � ,t � v�i v�i C � L L � p C � — L V O [V N Lv � d �''i � v1 `p N N
L�1 � V Y� � y � � ��V VI ltl � � N � � � � yi C N � 0. � � N
......av,.a: r....�-.-.�--...T--•.-;�
:...r:....�...........�:.....,..� ........ .-:'---..-.-.—._t....�..-.—a--��
... ,.Y,..x..v.. .,. � .. ........�. .. ....:�� — �"9'
...:....x......
ti . �� . ..::.:. � ....�...;�< .;.:K�..r.�� ?:�;:
:::r.. v'-..,. .' . ....... . ..;-....:Y :.� :sn ..
���, �:�•:, .... �:�::�:. �:,,::
�' ;��;:::
r
M ._... .:,..::. � �.�:;
.. +z..�.. _..... :?c.. � ......:y/'*...'� '.: .:�c ::::l.�M '•P'�... :��:
.:r.., -:.3�;
� _
�..:� ... .,::.r:. . � ,w::�'''. .A.vr'`"�' .'.', `��':.
ro.:.--..
a'�•
-. .
��
��
$' "a� : 'f
'�'.: ��"�',
_ .�i.�;-..::�i.
C
� �
€ �`
/
O
�
�
�
�
�
O
V/
Z �
O
�
�
Z
O
U
���:;�� �_ ,�'-
n �.:� r� ; ,:�
:�., .
_
:i .
�
<�.
���
.
� .
: _..
..,._�
..
. �
::: �, . � _
: �: - W � -�..w;�._
_ �
_
�
:� ._ . , :��::, � �� .�. ;�.:�� �"����..�
. �, ,,.
:�
_._..._...---�......_€-......... ..... ...:�.:-.:�=;. �:_ ,.�;,.;.
.�:'�>':=�.�`
>;�
x,:::.�
.,...::
�:..
__.. ..... �. .�:. �
:....
�:...
.,,;:.... ..... ..
..::..��...:,: :..
___ ---- ... . .. . .,•�,-„1=�: ,s,::. - ,.._._.._
A�#achm�nt # _ �,,,
� � Mendocino County Health & Human Services Agency
� 7feaCthy 4'eopCe,.�feaCtky Communities
Public Health
Mtn
Mendocino County Environmental Health "'
� s.�, �,
Ukiah Office: 860 N Bush St, Ukiah CA 95482 Phone: 707-234-6625
Fort Bragg Office: 120 W Fir St, Fort Bragg CA 95437 Phone: 707-961-2714
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning& Community Development Dept, City of Ukiah November 3, 2016
SUBJECT: File#Munis 2235, Inland Valley Emergency Winter Shelter
SITUS: 1045 South State Street, Ukiah CA 95482 (APN# 003-083-02
Comments:
No food service was indicated to be provided at the proposed shelter. Should the facility provide
food prepared on-site the Homeless Services Action Group shall contact Mendocino County
Environmental Health to obtain a permit to operate a food facility.
Environmental Health recommends the following conditions be implemented for the shelter:
1. Equip bed mattresses with covers impermeable to liquids to prevent contamination.
2. No head to head beds for sleeping.
3. Beds are spaced three feet apart.
4. All bedding linens, towels, washcloths are to be laundered and disinfected with an
approved disinfectant such as chlorine bleach.
5. All hand sinks be equipped with permanent mounted soap and paper towel dispensers.
6. Provide access to a medical professional to address health issues of clients when
applicable.
7. Personal toiletries are made available for all who need them.
Thank You,
Brian Hoy
Consumer Protection Program Manager
Mendocino County Environmental Health Division
860 N Bush St,
Ukiah Ca 95482
707-234-6625
��eie
�'�'���rchm;�nt # 3
------- �
November 9,2016
Mr. & Mrs.George Michael Dunn
665 Live Oak Ave.
Ukiah, CA 95482
Ukiah Planning Commission
City of Ukiah
300 Seminary Drive
Ukiah, CA 95482
In regards to the winter homeless shelter being proposed to the Ukiah Planning Commission
We are property owners of 182 Thomas Street, Ukiah, CA 95482. We purchased the property
for$140,000. In 2001.We rented it out to a government agency, Northern California Adaptive Living
Center for 8 years. We had nothing but problems with the property next door for the entire time we
owned the building. Squatters, drug dealers, dog breeders and pot growers occupied the property.
We complained to the city and county for many years. We lost our renters after 6 years because
of the mess on the property next to us, 180 Thomas Street. The city promised to do something about it,
but never did. We found the squatters at 180 Thomas hooked up to our water and electricity. The
building was un-rentable for at least 5 years due to the mess at 180 Thomas.
We had to refinance the building after 10 years and it appraised for less than we paid for it,
again because of the mess at 180 Thomas. Our current renter, a cabinet maker has given notice that he
will be vacating next year. At that time,we plan on selling the property.
Who do you think would purchase or lease property adjacent to a winter homeless shelter?
Granted it is not the best neighborhood in Ukiah, but the homeless shelter should be closer to The Ford
Street Project, Food Bank and other services needed by the homeless.
'ncerely,
�N � a
�rge M' I Dunn •
Mary�J�e nn
. ��F��r��-.►,t �� LI
---____-
RESOLUTION NO. 20 1-15
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH
ESTABLISHING HOMELESS SHELTER
USE AND DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES FOR SITING,
DESIGNING AND USING HOMELESS FACILITIES
WHEREAS, in 1988, the City of Ukiah adopted Article 15.5 (Homeless Facilities) of
Chapter 2, Division 9 of the Ukiah Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, since 1988, the siting, design, and operational needs for homeless
shelter facilities has changed, which has rendered the existing 1988 regulations out-dated
and inflexible; and
WHEREAS, on July 12, 2000, the City Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing to consider revisions to Article 15.5 (Homeless Facilities) of Chapter 2, Division 9
of the Ukiah Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, after the conduct of the public hearing,the Planning Commission voted
unanimously to recommend City Council adoption of the Ordinance revising the Municipal
Code, and approval of a Resolution establishing Homeless Shelter Use and Development
Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, On August 2, 2000, the City Council, after the conduct of a public
hearing, approved a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, and adopted an
Ordinance revising Article 15.5 (Homeless Facilities) of Chapter 2, Division 9 of the Ukiah
Municipal Code; and
RESOLUTION 2001-15
Pape 1 of 2
EXHIBIT "A"
RESOLUTION 2001-1 S
HOMELESS SHELTER FACiLtTY
USE AND DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES
I. Purpose and Intent
In recognition of the growing numbers of homeless persons in the Ukiah area, these guidelines
are intended to provide a guide by which a temporary or long-term homeless shelter could be
established within the City of Ukiah. They are also intended to ensure that the public's health,
safety, and welfare are maintained. The term "homeless shelter" means the same as "homeless
facility."
II. Permit and Planning Requirements
Use Permit: All homeless shelters require Planning Commission approval of a Use Permit,
consistent with the provisions contained in Ukiah Municipal Code §9262. Use Permit
applications are on file in the office of the Planning Department. Conditions of approval shall be
imposed by the Planning Commission in accordance with Article 15.5, Chapter 2 of the Ukiah
Municipal Code. Decisions of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council.
Shelter Management Plan: Shelter providers shall establish a Shelter Management Plan in
conjunction with the required Use Permit. Shelter Management Plans shall address issues such
as transportation needs, client supervision, food service (if any or if allowed), client services,
interior and exterior building improvements for client and neighborhood welfare, pets, and any
other component which might bear on ensuring that the shelter is operated in a safe, efficient,
and sanitary manner. The Shelter Management Plan shall also include measures to be
implemented that will ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses.
lil. Operational Standards:
A. Minimum Distance to Nearest Residential Development: Homeless facilities shall be
located a sufficient distance from residential developments so that they will not create
adversely impacts. Factors such as topography, landscaping, structures, and other
natural or man-made features shall help to determine whether or not a proposed facility
could have an adverse impact on residential areas.
B. Minimum Distance to Nearest School or Public Park: Homeless facilities shall be
located a sufficient distance from schools and parks so that they will not create
adversely impacts. Factors such as topography, landscaping, structures, and other
natural or man-made features shall help to determine whether or not a proposed facility
could have an adverse impact on schools and parks. School and public park hours of
use shall alsa be considered when determining the appropriate distance from schools
and parks.
exHieR•n•
RESOLUTION 2001-15
Pepa 1 of 2
�A;�a�hn!�:nt �� s
L�iiiah 3�alley �Vledical Cenx,er `-
...�►dve�t�st �ea�th
Housing Those with Serious Mental Illness: State-wide Crisis, Local Opportunity
October 2016
Kael Loftus (kael.loftus@ah.org), Street Medicine Program Manager � UVMC
Homelessness, which overlaps with the lack of services for those with serious mental illness, is a regional
problem that has hit crisis levels.
According to HUD, in 2015 California
• had 21%of the nation's homeless (but only 12%of the population)
• had the second highest rate of increase in homelessness (after New York state)
-�.� ; . � . � .
• had the highest state rate ofl�unshelteredlhomeless (i.e., living outside, in cars, etc.): 63.7%
Lake County= 91.4% (second highest rate in the nation); Mend,'o_cin`_ofCo�nty�85.�/!I'
The problem of homelessness is so bad along the west coast, as of July 2016 seventeen communities have
formally declared "Homeless Emergencies," including many on the list below. (All data taken from official 2015
HUD Point-In-Time counts and U.S Census figures):
Continuum of Care (CoC) Region 2015 Homeless population Homeless Rate
PIT Count Per 10k
Clark County,WA(Vancouver) 662 443,817 15
King County, WA(Seattle) 4,505 2,117,125 21
Trinity+Glenn+Colusa Counties, CA 136 62,568 22
Alameda County, CA(Oakland) 4,040 1,638,215 25
San Diego, CA 8,742 3,299,521 26
San Jose, CA 4,063 1,026,908 40
Los Angeles County, CA 41,174 10,170,292 40
Detroit, MI 2,748 677,116 41
Lane County,OR(Eugene) 1,473 362,895 41
Multnomah County, OR(Portland) 3,801 790,294 48
Lake County,CA 315 64,591 49
Island of Oahu, HI 4,903 998,714 49
San Luis Obispo County, CA 1,515 281,401 54
Sonoma County 3,107 502,146 62
Berkeley,CA 834 120,972 69
San Francisco, CA 6,686 864,816 77
Humboldt County, CA 1,319 135,727 97
Santa Rosa, CA 2,051 174,972 117
Mendocino County,CA 1,032 87,649 118
Mendocino County,CA 1,277 87,649 146
Mendocino County,CA 1,230 87,649 140
2015 Mendocino PIT eount
Average of 2011, 2013,and 2015 PIT counts
* Unofficial estimate of Jan 2016 PIT count
While official Point-In-Time count data suggests there was a 29% decrease in the homeless population
in Mendocino County between 2011 and 2015, UVMC's data during that interval documents:
• a 21.7% increase in patients matching a homeless/likely homeless (H/LH) profile "
• a 29.9% increase in service deliveries (E.D. visits + in-patient days) for H/LH patients
(This common "address profiling"technique used to identify homeless patients probably undercounts them by
a factor of�3, based on unpublished research done by Lehigh Valley Health Network in 2015.)
Homelessness and Serious Mental Illness (SMI) have high co-incidence:
• � The National Coalition for the Homeless reports (2009) that nationally;20=25% of the
homeless have_seri�us rrienfal illne"ss, as compared to 4.1% of the overall population.
Healthy Mendocino's Community Health Status Assessment (June 2016) reports:
• 41% of Ukiah's homeless self-report mental illness* (a high rate); 46% self-report
substance use disorder/ addiction problems (a common rate, nationally)
• Per 2014 data, 66.5% of our county's homeless mentally ill are totally unsheltered*
UVMC's data indicates that fully a third�of the internal:transfers made'from the UVMC Emergency
Department�re fQr'beh—avioral health�`reasons. �
One measure that would help address the problem of the unsheltered mentally ill is a
permanent supportive housing facility, like that currently proposed by RCHDC — similar
to the Arcata Bay Crossing housing project in Humboldt County— done on a scale that
ensures it is financially sustainable, i.e., 30-40 case-managed single occupancy units.
"Housing First with Intensive Case Management leads to substantial and rapid improvement in housing stability in an
ethnically diverse sample of homeless adults with mental illness.The intervention also leads to significant reductions in
probability of hospitalization, community functioning, and number of days experiencing alcohol related problems."
--Pathways to Homelessness among Older Homeless Adults, Brown, et al.,PLoS One. 2016; 11(5): e0155065
What are the risks for Mendocino County?
• Do nothing, and we'll simply perpetuate the status quo,which will likely worsen in the future.
• Do nothing, and we'll burden future leadership with the problem, but with less financial resources(as
federal and state budgets continue to be cut and re-purposed to address other crises).
• Act, but insufficiently(creating a< 10 unit project), and we'll fail,and thereby waste resources.
• Act boldly, championing a 30-40 unit permanent supportive housing project, integrated as part of Sheriff
Allman's proposed mental health initiative,and we'll risk a NIMBY backlash from some community members
—but we'll have acted to address a serious regional crisis.
Mendocino leaders should consider declaring a homeless/housing emergency,and appointing a Housing Czar who can
coordinate best-practice�esponses to this problem by"leading a public+private+NGO task force on housing.
'2014 PIT Count;http://www.healthymendocino.org/content/sites/mendocino/Appendix_C�_2015_CHTStatus_Assessment=_FINAL_for_Public_Distrlbution,pdf
1 ITEM NO. 9A
Community Development and Planning Department
city of Zlkah 300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
plannin�@cityofukiah.com
(707)463-6203
2
3 DATE: January 11, 2017
4
5 TO: Planning Commission
6
7 FROM: Kevin Thompson, Interim Planning and Community Development Director
8
9 SUBJECT: Proposed General Plan Land Use Amendment and Rezoning for 350 N. Orchard Ave.
10 File No: 2044 GPA-RZ-PC
11
12
13 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review and consider the
14 proposed General Plan Land Use and Zoning Ordinance Map amendments and Mitigated Negative
15 Declaration (Attachments 1&2) changing Land Use Designation and zoning from High-Density Residential
16 to Commercial for a .66 acre parcel located at 350 N. Orchard Avenue (Attachments 3&4).And if
17 appropriate, make a recommendation to the City Council concerning adoption of the proposed action.
18
19 BACKGROUND:The subject parcel was created in 1997 as a part of the Kmart Project Use Permit and
20 Subdivision.The initial zoning for the parcel was R2 (Medium Density Residential). The parcel was then
21 rezoned from R2 to R3 in 1996 as part of a City-wide General Plan Implementation effort.The 1996
22 General Plan envisioned a much larger Ukiah that spread throughout the entire valley.At the time,the
23 population was expected to increase dramatically, however,this has not occurred. This population
24 projection created the perceived need to rezone parcels to high-density throughout the City. Based on
25 the analysis below,this proposed rezoning will not affect the City's ability to meet its housing needs for
26 the foreseeable future. A letter written by the Planning Director at the time of the 1996 rezone,
27 indicated the option for the applicant to apply for a rezoning (Attachment 5).
28
29 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project proposes a General Plan Land Use Amendment and rezoning of a
30 .66 acre parcel located at the corner of Clara Avenue and Orchard Avenue at 350 Orchard Avenue.The
31 parcel is situated in the northeast corner of the existing Home Depot parking lot(Attachment 6).The
32 current zoning is R3 (High-Density Residential) and the proposed zoning is C1 (Commercial).The current
33 General Plan designation is HDR (High-Density) and the proposed General Plan Designation is C
34 (Commercial). The site is fully improved with curb,gutter,sidewalk, improved shared access off of
35 Orchard Avenue, and 36 parking spaces, with the use of an additional 10 parking spaces available
36 through an agreement with Home Depot.The center contains a total of 479 parking spaces,46 of which
37 are shared with the subject parcel.The Home Depot's parking requirement is 456 using the 1 per 250
38 sq.ft. Further, as mentioned previously,there is an existing shared parking agreement between the
General Plan Landuse and Zoning Map Amendment
350 N.Orchard Ave
Project#2044
1
1 subject parcel and the Home Depot for the use of the 46 overflow spaces. The purpose of the rezone is
2 to bring the site into conformance with existing land uses surrounding the property.
3
� � R3
� �1
- -= - �2
� ' �
' ' + 5 Pio�ett S�fe
. �
- - ii �� f �
' ;�
;� �_ � ' '
a�
�
�
�
0
w
� �� � �
4
5
6 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY: Staff believes the proposed amendment is consistent with and will help
7 to implement the goals and policies of the General Plan as described in the General Plan Consistency
8 Table below.
9
10 Table 1:
Goal/Policy# Consistency Determination
Goal/Policy Text
Goal ED-1 Support a strong local economy The proposed rezoning could enable the future development
of a commercial use that will create jobs.
Policy ED 1.1. Take steps to reinforce the The proposed rezoning could enable the future development
Valley's economy. of a commercial use that will create jobs.
Implementation Measure CD-9.2(a) The site is located in the Home Depot parking lot.Given the
Require that new building designs be Home Depot's long hours of operation (Mon-Sat 6 a.m to 9
complementary to the overall character of p.m,Sunday 7am to Spm)and intensive commercial use,the
the neighborhood in which a project is site is better suited for commercial uses.
located.
Goal GP-2:Promote business development, The proposed rezoning could enable a local business to locate
emphasizing local ownership of businesses in on site.
order to keep capital and growth within the
General Plan Landuse and Zoning Map Amendment
350 N.Orchard Ave
Project#2044
2
Goal/Policy# Consistency Determination
Goal/Policy Text
community.
Policy GP-29.3 Promote public transportation, The proposed rezoning could enable the construction of a
services within walking distance in neighborhood commercial use that will serve the neighborhood and
neighborhoods,and any other feasible means promote walking.
of preventing needless vehicle use and
pollution.
1
2 ANALYSIS: HOUSING- The 2014 Housing Element through its "Vacant and Underutilized Land Survey"
3 demonstrated the availability of appropriately zoned parcels needed to accommodate the City's
4 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) (Government Code Sections 65582(a)(3) and 65582.2(a) (See
5 table below). The parcel proposed for this rezoning was among the parcels identified to meet the City's
6 RHNA. This rezoning represents the loss .66 acres of R3 High-Density residential. Based on the amount
7 of vacant land identified in the survey, this rezone will not result in the City's ability to accommodate its
8 RHNA. Further, high-density residential is an allowed use with a Use Permit in C1, the proposed zoning
9 for the site. This mean that future development could, even with the C1 zoning designation, include
10 high-density residential.
11
12 Ukiah Regional Housing Needs Allocation(RHNA)as defined in the 2014 Housing Element
13
14 Table 2:
Years Extremely Very Low Low Moderate Above Total
Low Moderate
2014-2019 9 11 7 7 20 46
(RHNA)
Approved to 5 16 21 0 26 68
date:
15
16 The proposed project will rezone a total of.66 acres of high-density residential zoned land that could
17 accommodate approximately 17-units of housing including the parking area.The Vacant and
18 Underutilized Land Survey demonstrated the City could accommodate a total of 879 units on both
19 vacant and underutilized properties throughout the City. The total housing needs for the City is 46
20 according to the RHNA. Based on the availability of vacant and underutilized land and the fact that C1,
21 the proposed zoning, allows high-density development,the loss of.66 acres of high-density(R3) is
22 viewed as having no impact. Given that a portion of site is currently used for Home Depot overflow
23 parking, with hours of operation from 6:00 a.m.to 9:00 p.m., a rezoning that could allow future
24 commercial uses, brings the parcel into conformance with the surrounding area.
General Plan Landuse and Zoning Map Amendment
350 N.Orchard Ave
Project#2044
3
1 ANALYSIS: POTENTIAL USES:The proposed zoning is Commercial C1.The following table illustrates what
2 potential uses could be established by right and conditionally with a Use Permit in the future:
3 Table 3:
Allowed Use Permit
by right required
* Potential Uses in C1 zoning:
Community care facility(6 or fewer patients) x
Condominiums x
Hotels, motels,and bed and breakfast establishments x
Personal improvement and personal service establishments x
Places of religious worship,assembly or instruction x
Professional offices and banks x
Public or private schools x
Restaurants x
Retail stores x
Small family child daycare home(8 or fewer children) x
Small homeless facilities x
Auto repair shop,auto body and painting shop x
Bar,dance hall, live entertainment establishment and nightclub x
Billiard parlor,amusement arcade,and bowling alley x
Cabinetshop x
Community care facility (for more than 6 patients) x
Large family child daycare(8 or more children) x
Machine shop x
Mini/convenience storage x
Mixed residential and commercial land uses x
Outdoor sales establishments x
Parking lot x
Single-family dwelling,duplex, multiple-family residential units, x
and mobile home park
Social halls and lodges x
Theater x
Veterinarian x
4 *Site Development permit may also be required.
5
6 The current zoning, R3 would allow the following uses by right, or with a Use Permit:
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
General Plan Landuse and Zoning Map Amendment
350 N.Orchard Ave
Project#2044
4
1 Table 4:
* Potential Uses in R3 zoning: Allowed Use Permit
by right required
Accessory buildings and accessory uses. x
Community care facility,which provides service for six(6)or x
fewer persons
Home occupations x
Manufactured homes x
Public or private parking lots for automobiles x
Second dwelling units x
Single-family dwellings,duplexes,condominiums,apartment x
houses,and rooming or boarding houses.
Small family child daycare home,which provides care for eight x
(8)or fewer children
Barbershops, beauty shops. x
Churches,chapels,and other places of religious assembly x
Coin operated Laundromat x
Dwelling groups. x
Florist. x
Hotels, motels,and bed and breakfast establishments. x
Mobile home parks. x
Mom and pop"convenience grocery stores,delicatessens, x
bakeries,and coffee shops.
Nursery schools and large family child daycare homes x
Parks,community gardens,and playgrounds. x
Professional offices. x
Public buildings. x
Rest homes, hospitals, pharmacies,and community care x
facilities serving more than six(6) persons, but not more than
twelve(12)persons.
Video rentals/sales. x
2 *Site Development permit may also be required.
3
4 FINDINGS: Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 9265: Zoning Map Amendments,the City Council is
5 required to make findings supporting their action when advised by the City Attorney. Based on the
6 above analysis,the project is consistent with the City of Ukiah General Plan.
7
8 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Planning Department staff prepared an Initial Environmental Study(IS) in
9 order to evaluate the potential impacts that could result from the Project(see Attachment 1). The IS
10 found that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment, and a
11 Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared.
12
13 The Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and public notice for both the
14 Planning Commission and City Council public hearings were made available in the following manner:
15
16 ■ posted at the County Clerk on December 16, 2016
General Plan Landuse and Zoning Map Amendment
350 N.Orchard Ave
Project#2044
5
1 ■ mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the parcels included in the Project December
2 16, 2016
3 ■ published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on December 18, 2016
4 ■ posted at the Civic Center(glass case) on December 16, 2016
5 ■ posted on the City's Web site December 16, 2016
6
7 PUBLIC NOTICE: Notice of the proposed amendments where provided in the following manner:
8
9 ■ mailed to owners of property located in the area on December 16, 2016
10 ■ display ad published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on December 16, 2016
11
12 PUBLIC COMMENT:As of the writing of this staff report, no correspondence has been received in
13 response to the public notice.
14
15 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Planning Commission:
16
17 1. Make a recommendation to the City Council to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)
18 based on the findings (Attachment 2); and
19
20 2. Make a recommendation to the City Council to introduce an ordinance by title only an
21 amendment to the Zoning Map (Attachment 3).
22
23 3. Make a recommendation to the City Council to adopt a Resolution amending the General Plan
24 map (Attachment 4).
25
26 ATTACHMENTS
27
28 1. Findings for Mitigated Negative Declaration
29 2. Mitigated Negative Declaration/ Initial Study
30 3. Draft Ordinance amending the Zoning Map
31 4. Draft Resolution amending the General Plan Map
32 5. 1996 letter from Staff to applicant regarding the zoning of the site
33 6. Email from Wagonseller Neighborhood Association
34 7. Home Depot Site Plan
35
General Plan Landuse and Zoning Map Amendment
350 N.Orchard Ave
Project#2044
6
1 ATTACHMENT 1
2
3
4 FINDINGS TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR
5 THE THOMAS GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS
6 350 NORTH ORCHARD AVENUE
7 FILE NO.:2044
8 PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
9 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT("CEQA")
10
11
12 1. The Project will approve an amendment to the Ukiah General Plan from a High Density Residential
13 to a Commercial land use designation and approve a rezoning to Commercial (C1). There is not
14 specific project proposed at this time.
15
16 2. The City of Ukiah as lead agency has prepared an Initial Environmental Study and a Mitigated
17 Negative Declaration dated December 19, 2016 to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of
18 the General Plan Amendment, and rezoning.
19
20 3. The Initial Environmental Study examined areas of potential impacts and based on the conclusions
21 reached in the Initial Environmental Study, it has been determined that the proposed project, as
22 mitigated, would not have significant adverse impacts on the environment for the following reasons:
23
24 A. A mitigation measure has been included to reduce any impacts related to light and glare to less
25 than significant. Impacts to visual quality were determined to be less than significant or no
26 impact.
27
28 B. The Project would not have an impact on any existing or future agriculture use. There are no
29 parcels within the City zoned Agriculture and no agricultural uses on or proximate to the Project
30 site.
31
32 C. The project does not involve construction that would violate air quality standards, result in a net
33 increase in pollutants,expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or
34 create objectionable odors. Furthermore, the rezoning does not conflict with applicable air
35 quality plans. However,the rezoning could facilitate commercial or residential development on
36 site. This may result in additional pollutants and a cumulative increase in criteria pollutants. A
37 project that involves construction will be subject to project-specific environmental review. At
38 such time, determination will be made as to whether that project will result in potentially
39 significant impacts to air quality.
40
41 D. The City's general plan includes goals and policies related to the conservation and
42 replenishment of valley oaks, and the maintenance and enhancement of the urban forest and
43 shade tree canopy. The project site contains no trees.
44
45
Findings for Mitigated Negative Declaration
Thomas General Plan Amendment and Rezone
350 S Orchard Avenue
File No.:2044
1
1 E. The Project area is not identified on the Area of High Archeological Sensitivity included in the
2 City of Ukiah General Plan. It is highly unlikely that there are archeological resources or human
3 remains on the parcels included in the Project. In the unlikely event that cultural resources or
4 human remains are discovered during grading operations for the Project, mitigation measures
5 have been included to reduce the impact to less than significant.
6
7 F. The Project site is not known to be in an area with unstable or expansive soil. The Project site
8 and surrounding area are relatively flat; therefore, there would be no impacts related to
9 landslide. The Project has the potential to result in erosion or the loss of top soil. Mitigation
10 measures for Air Quality have also been applied to Geology and Soils. Implementation of these
11 mitigation measures would reduce the potential for the Project to impact top soil and result in
12 erosion.
13
14 G. The Project site is not located on any list of hazardous waste disposal sites compiled pursuant to
15 Government Code Section 65962.5.
16
17 H. The Project is not within the Mendocino Airport Land Use Comprehensive Land Use referral
18 area.
19
20 I. The Project does not propose any construction and therefore would not modify the drainage on
21 the site which has the potential to result in erosion, siltation, and/or to increase the rate or
22 volume of runoff. Future projects will be subject to review and evaluation.
23
24 J. Future Projects will be subject to the Storm Water Low Impact Development Technical Desi�n
25 Manual adopted by City Council on June 18, 2014 which became effective upon adoption and
26 applies to applications submitted on or after June 19, 2014.
27
28 K. The project is not located within a 100 year flood hazard area or within a 100 year flood zone as
29 mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
30 delineation map.The Project is located within Zone X(areas determined to be outside of the
31 0.2%annual chance floodplain) on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map#06045C1512F, Panel#1512
32 of 2100, dated June 2,2011.
33
34 L. No mineral resources are located within or proximate to the project area.
35
36 M. Future Construction of the Project could result in a temporary increase in noise levels in the
37 Project area. Residential uses are located proximate to the Project. Mitigation measures for
38 future projects have been included to limit the hours of construction and reduce noise from
39 construction equipment. These mitigation measures would reduce construction noise impacts
40 to less than significant.
41
42 N. This rezoning represents the loss .66 acres of R3 High-Density residential. Based on the amount
43 of vacant land identified in the survey,this rezone will not result in the City's ability to
44 accommodate its RHNA. Further, high-density residential is an allowed use with a Use Permit in
Findings for Mitigated Negative Declaration
Thomas General Plan Amendment and Rezone
350 S Orchard Avenue
File No.:2044
2
1 C1,the proposed zoning for the site.This mean that future development could, even with the C1
2 zoning designation include high-density residential.
3
4 O. New developments, resulting from the rezoning would be required by existing regulations to
5 provide adequate public services consistent with the City's General Plan. Future projects will be
6 subject to CEQA review, including potential impacts on public services. As a result, impacts are
7 considered to be less than significant.
8
9 P. The Project would not result in climate change or greenhouse gas impacts. The Project does not
10 violate any plans or policies adopted to address climate change/GHG. Future development that
11 is proposed because of this rezone will be evaluated for greenhouse gas emissions. If it is found
12 that a future development will increase greenhouse gas emissions appropriate mitigation
13 measures will be imposed.
14
15 Q. Reasonable and feasible mitigation measures have been identified that would eliminate or
16 reduce significant impacts to levels of insignificance.
17
18 4. The Initial Environmental Study examined areas of potential impacts that may result from the
19 implementation of the Project. Based on the conclusions reached in the Initial Environmental Study,
20 it has been determined that the proposed Project has the potential to have significant
21 environmental impacts on aesthetics, air quality, and noise without the implementation of
22 mitigation measures. The analysis and conclusion reached in the Initial Environmental Study
23 identified mitigation measures that would reduce the potential impacts to less than significant
24 levels.
25
26 5. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City of Ukiah that the
27 Project, as mitigated, would have a significant effect on the environment.
28
29 6. The Initial Environmental Study was prepared and demonstrated there is no substantial evidence
30 that supports a fair argument that the Project, as mitigated, would have a significant effect on the
31 environment.
32
33 7. Based upon the analysis, findings, and conclusions contained in the Initial Environmental Study, the
34 Project, as mitigated, does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the local or regional
35 environment.
36
37 8. Based upon the analysis, findings, and conclusions contained in the Initial Environmental Study, the
38 Project, as mitigated, will not result in short-term impacts that will create a disadvantage to long-
39 term environmental goals.
40
41 9. Based upon the analysis, findings, and conclusions contained in the Initial Environmental Study, the
42 Project, as mitigated, will not result in impacts that are individually limited, but cumulative
43 considerable.
44
Findings for Mitigated Negative Declaration
Thomas General Plan Amendment and Rezone
350 S Orchard Avenue
File No.:2044
3
1 10. Based upon the analysis, findings, and conclusions contained in the Initial Environmental Study, the
2 Project, as mitigated, will not result in impacts that will cause substantial adverse effects on human
3 beings, either directly or indirectly.
4
5 11. A Notice of Intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration was made available in the following
6 manner: posted at the Mendocino County Clerk on December 16, 2016; mailed to property owners
7 within 300 feet of the parcels included in the Project on December 16, 2016; published in the Ukiah
8 Daily Journal on December 18, 2016; and posted on the Project site on December 16, 2016 in order
9 to notify interested parties of Planning Commission consideration of the Mitigated Negative
10 Declaration at its January 11, 2017 and the possible City Council consideration of the Mitigated
11 Negative Declaration at its meeting.
12
13 12. A Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared to ensure compliance with
14 the adopted mitigation measures and the project proponent has agreed to the mitigation measures
15 included in the MMRP.
16
17 13. The Initial Environmental Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and record of proceedings of
18 the decision on the Project are available for public review at the City of Ukiah Planning Department,
19 Ukiah Civic Center, and 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA.
20
21 14. On January 11, 2017 the Planning Commission held public hearings to receive public comment and
22 consider the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Thomas General Plan Amendment and rezoning.
23 At the January 11, 2017 meeting, the Planning Commission voted to make a
24 recommendation to the City Council to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Thomas
25 General Plan Amendment, and rezoning.
26
27 15. A Notice of Intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration was made available in the following
28 manner: mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the parcels included in the Project on
29 December 16, 2016; published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on December 18, 2016; and posted on the
30 Project site on December 16, 2016 in order to notify interested parties of City Council's
31 consideration of the Mitigated Negative Declaration at its meeting.
32
33 16. On the City Council voted to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Thomas
34 General Plan Amendment, and rezoning.
Findings for Mitigated Negative Declaration
Thomas General Plan Amendment and Rezone
350 S Orchard Avenue
File No.:2044
4
1
_s� ATTACHMENT 2
�; v...�
.:��- .�
�.
� ` _ �� � '��� Initial Environmental Stud
t y
. �..� �
��t, . --� ':�::.; ..... ; ,
�,., t.�;;
j� � :�
x�'�° ���� �
�'J r - �}t- - - - and
� _�- � .4�� .;� . . �� -�
���- �:x _�� .�,�r,,�z
, :
j�p; 4
�. �, Negative Declaration
os�����:�� �.�
Project Information:
Project Title: Thomas General Plan Amendment and Rezone
(Application#2044 REZ)
Lead Agency: City of Ukiah, Planning and Community Development
Project Location: 350 North Orchard Avenue
Project Sponsor and Address: Dan Thomas, 135 W Gobbi Street, Ukiah Ca. 95482
General Plan Designation: High Density Residential
Zoning: R3 High Density Residential y�
Surrounding Zoning: South and East: C2 (Commercial)
West:C1 (Commercial)
North: R3 (High Density Residential)
Surrounding General Plan Designation: South and East: Commercial
West: Medium Density Residential
North: High Density Residential
Assessor's Parcel No. 002-370-270
Contact Person: Kevin Thompson, Interim Planning Director
Phone Number: (707)463-6207
Date Prepared: December 19, 2016
City of Ukiah Thomas Rezone
December 19, 2016 Initial Study/Negative Declaration
z
Project Description
The project proposes a General Plan Land Use Amendment and rezoning of a .66 acre parcel located at the
corner of Clara Avenue and Orchard Avenue at 350 Orchard Avenue.The parcel is situated in the northeast
corner of the existing Home Depot parking lot.The current zoning is R3 (High-Density Residential)the
proposed zoning is C1 (Commercial).The current General Plan designation is HDR(High-Density)and the
proposed General Plan Designation is C(Commercial). The site is fully improved with curb,gutter, sidewalk,
fully improved access off of Orchard Ave.,and 36 parking spaces on-site,with an additional 10 parking spaces
available through an agreement with the Home Depot. All the parking was installed as a part of the previously
constructed K-mart, now the Home Depot.The purpose of the rezone is to bring the site into conformance
with existing land uses surrounding the property.
- R3
- C1
� - C2
Project Site
�
w
� �
z �
City of Ukiah Thomas Rezone
December 19, 2016 Initial Study/Negative Declaration
3
Environmental Setting
The Project is located in the City of Ukiah, Mendocino County,California.The City of Ukiah is located approximately
110 miles north of San Francisco,and is situated along US 101 in southeastern Mendocino County. US 101
freeway traverses the City of Ukiah in a north/south direction.State Route(SR)222,also known as Talmage
Road,is a short east/west state highway that intersects US 101 in the southern portion of the City of Ukiah.US 101
connects Ukiah to Santa Rosa and San Francisco, providing major regional access to the City.SR 253, located at the
south end of Ukiah, begins at US 101 and travels in an east/west direction connecting Ukiah with SR 1 along the
coast.
City of Ukiah Thomas Rezone
December 19,2016 Initial Study/Negative Declaration
4
�,
Pr�x�mit� M��
Cll�Ciflp�`AiitFt� _
� `S�y� � "
� � ��
� � �
:�S 4 �
C .�'�"'`i �
� ._� ;:� .
, �i �rf'��_,
Y � liine�e r�� • �, �,
`t �.
��� :.. .
� .1.� �
S� �
T'"_ y �' ' � �
Environmental Checklist
The Project's potential level of impact is indicated as follows:
Potentially Potentially significant environmental impacts.
Significant
Potentially Potentially significant impacts which can be mitigated to less tt}�"n �"6, .
Significant and significant levels.
Mitigable
Less than lmpacts which are considered less than significant and do not require
Significant mitigation.
No Impact No impacts related to the project.
Environmentally Factors Potentially Affected
None of the environmental factors would be potentially affected by this project.The environmental factors
below are discussed in this document.
1. Aesthetics X 10. Land Use Planning
2. Agricultural Resources _�.1.Mineral Resources ,
_ .. . . ._ ._. _ _.. . .
3. Air Quality X 12. Noise X
4._ Biological Resources _ 13. Pqpulation and Housing. _ _ _ __ ,
5. Cultural Resources 14. Public Services
, . . �. -- -- - _ � -.. . . _.. �. _. _. . - - . - _ - -
6. Geology and Soils _ _ _ _15. Recreation _ _ _
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 16.Transportation and Circulation
- - - -- - - - -- -- . _ -
8. Hazardous Materials 17. Utilities and Service Systems _
9. Hydrology and Water Quality 18. Mandatory Findings of Significance
City of Ukiah Thomas Rezone
December 19,2016 Initial Study/Negative Declaration
5
Determination (Completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
�X �,
1�.�.3 made by or agreed to by the project proponent.A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or"potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been
❑ adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets.An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects
that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects(a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
❑ NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Purpose of this Initial Study
This Initial Study has been prepared consistent with CEAQ Guidelines Section 15063,to determine if the project,as
proposed, may have a significant effect upon the environment. Based upon the finding contained in this report,the Initial
Study will be used in support of the preparation of a negative declaration.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers expect"No Impact"answers that are adequately supported by
the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question.A"No Impact"
answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not
apply to projects like the one involved(e.g.the project fall outside a fault rupture zone).A"No Impact"
answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards(e.g.
City of Ukiah Thomas Rezone
December 19,2016 Initial Study/Negative Declaration
6
the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,based on the project-specific screening
analysis).
2. All answers must take into account the whole action involved,including offsite as well as onsite,cumulative
as well as project-level,indirect as well as direct,and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur,then the checklist
answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant,less than significant with mitigation,or
less then significant with mitigation or less than significant."Potentially Significant Impact"is appropriate if
there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more"Potentially
Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required.
4. "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated"applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from"Potentially Significant Impact"to a Less
Than Significant Impact".The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures,and briefly explain how
they reduce the effect to a less than significant level mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier
Analysis" may be cross-referenced.
5. Earlier analysis may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEAQ process,an effect
had been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case,
a brief discussion should identify the following:
a. Earlier Analysis Used.Identify and state where they are available for review.
b. Impacts Adequately Addressed.Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of an adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legai standards and
state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based in the earlier analysis.
c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are"Less than Significant with Mltigation Measures
Incorporated." Describe the mitigation measures,which were incorporated or refined from the
earlier document and the extent to which they address site specific conditions for the project.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts(e.g.general plans,zoning ordinances). Reference to previously prepared or outside
document should,where appropriate,include a reference to the page where the statement is
substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources:A sources list should be attached,and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
Less Than
Potentially Significant with ��Tha� No
1.AESTHETICS.Would the projed: Significant Mitigation Signfficant �mpact
Impad �ncorporated Impad
a)Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X
b)Substantially damage scenic resources,including, but not X
limited to,trees,rock outcroppings,and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
c)Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality X
of the site and its surroundings?
City of Ukiah � Thomas Rezone
December 19, 2016 Initial Study/ Negative Declaration
7
d)Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would x
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Significance Criteria: Aesthetic impacts would be significant if the project resulted in the obstruction of any
scenic view or vista from the public right-of-way, damage to significant scenic resources within a designated
State scenic highway, creation of an aesthetically offensive site from the public right-of-way, substantial
degradation to the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings,or new sources of light or
glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, including that which would directly
illuminate or reflect upon adjacent property or could be directly seen by motorists or persons residing,working
or otherwise situated within sight of the project.
Discussion: The proposed General Plan land use amendment and rezoning does not propose the construction
of a project. Potential indirect impacts, such as damage or degradation of scenic resources or visual character,
effects on scenic vistas, and new sources of light and glare will be considered at the time site specific projects
are proposed. However,the following analysis applies to the project:
a. The project is located in an established residential / commercial neighborhood any subsequent
development as resulting from this rezoning will be consistent with other development in the
surrounding neighborhood, both in terms of use and intensity.
b. The project is not located within a scenic area; and therefore, would not damage scenic resources
including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings. Furthermore,the rezone is
not located in or visible from a scenic highway.
c. Any subsequent development resulting from this rezoning will be reviewed by the Design Review Board
(DRB). The applicant will be encouraged to incorporate the recommendations of the DRB into the
project.Therefore,the rezone would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and
its surroundings and any proposed development would be consistent with existing development in the
area.
d. The project would establish zoning that could lead to development of a new source of substantial light
or glare which might impact neighboring residential uses. In order to ensure a less than significant
impact from light and glare resulting from a potential new project, the standard mitigation measure
listed below will be imposed on any future project.
Mitigation Measu�es:
a. All outdoor light fixtures shall be located,aimed, and shielded so as to minimize light trespassing over
property lines and avoid directing tight towards motorists and pedestrians. Fixtures shall be nighttime
friendly and International Dark Sky Association (IDA)approved or equivalent. Prior to installation of
the exterior lighting, any project will be subject to review and approval at time of building permit.
Should any development occur on this site, lighting shall be positioned in a manner that it will not
result in light being spilled to the north thus not impacting the residential uses.
Impact Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant
City of Ukiah Thomas Rezone
December 19, 2016 Initial Study/Negative Declaration
8
less Than
II.AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. Potentially Significant with ��Than No
Signiflcant Mitigation Signifipnt � �mpact
Would the project: Impact Impact
Incorporated
�
's
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,or Farmland of '.
Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps
� prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring X
Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural
use?
b)Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a x
Williamson Act contract?
c)Conflict with existing zoning for,or cause rezoning of,forest
land(as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), X
timberland(as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526),
or timberland zoned Timberland Production(as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))? �
d)Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land i x
to non-forest use?
e)Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of x
Farmland,to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land
to non-forest use?
Significance Criteria: Significant impacts would occur to agricultural resources if the proposed project would
hamper existing agricultural operations or convert agricultural land to urban uses.Significant impacts would
occur to agricultural resources and non-farmland to non-agricultural.
The proposed project may encourage the development of commercial uses within walking distance to
established residential neighborhoods.The General Plan contains policies that encourages infill growth where
infrastructure and service capacity is available to support growth. Furthermore,the City of Ukiah has no
agriculture within its boundaries.
No Impact
Less Than
III.AIR QUALITY.Where available,the significance criteria Pote.ntially �ess i'han
Sigoiftcant wRh No
established by the applicable air quality management or air Stgnfficant Signfftcant
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the �mpact Mitigation �mpa� Impaa
following determinations.Would the project: �ncorpo.rated
a)Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air x
quality plan?
b)Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to x
an existing or projected air quality violation?
c)Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment X
under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
City of Ukiah Thomas Rezone
December 19, 2016 Initial Study/ Negative Declaration
9
standard (including releasing emissions which exceed '
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? �
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant x
concentrations?
; e)Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of x
� people?
Significance Criteria: Air Quality Impacts would be significant if the project results in any of the following:
■ Conflicts with or obstructs implementation of any applicable Air Quality Plan;
■ Violates any air quality standard or contributes substantially to an existing or project air quality
violation, including a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria for which the region is in
nonattainment as defined by Federal or State regulations. For the Mendocino County Air Quality
Management District,the applicable daily thresholds for criteria pollutants would be significant if they
exceed any of the following:
■ Reactive organic gases(ROG) 220 Ibs.
■ Nitrogen oxides(Nox) 220 Ibs.
■ Sulfer oxides (Sox) 220 Ibs.
■ Particulates (PM10) 80 Ibs.
■ If carbon monoxide (CO) exceeds 550 Ibs./day, dispersion modeling is recommended to determine the
significance of the impact upon Federal or State standards.
■ Exposes sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations;or
■ Creates objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
Discussion:The project does not involve construction that would violate air quality standards, result in a net
increase in pollutants,expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations,or create
objectionable odors. Furthermore,the rezoning does not conflict with applicable air quality plans. However,
the rezoning could facilitate commercial or residential development on site. This may result in additional
pollutants and a cumulative increase in criteria pollutants. A project that involves construction will be subject
to project-specific environmental review. At such time, determination will be made as to whether that project
will result in potentially significant impacts to air quality. Standard mitigations that would be imposed on any
project proposed as a result of this rezoning will include:
Mitigation Measures:
1. 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.
2. All inactive soil piles on the project site shall be completely covered at all times to control fugitive dust.
3. All 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.
City of Ukiah Thomas Rezone
December 19, 2016 Initial Study/ Negative Declaration
10
4. low emission mobile construction equipment, such as tractors, scrapers, and bulldozers shall be used
for earth moving operations.
5. A!I earth moving and grading activities shall be suspended if wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts)
exceed 25 miles per hour.
Impact Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant After Mitigation
Less Than
Potentially Less Than
IV.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Signfficant wfth No
Signiflcant Significant
Would the project Mitigation Impad
Impact Impact
Incorporated
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through
habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans, x
policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b)Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
x
plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c)Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to,marsh,vernal pool,coastal,etc.) x
through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or
other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established x
native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the
use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e)Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or x
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan,or x
other approved local, regional,or state habitat conservation
plan?
Significance Criteria: Project impacts to biological resources would be significant if any of the following resulted:
■ Substantial direct or indirect effect on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special status
species in local/regional plans, policies,or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or any species protected under provisions of the Migratory Bird treaty Act;
City of Ukiah Thomas Rezone
December 19, 2016 Initial Study/Negative Declaration
11
■ Substantial effect upon sensitive natural communities identified in local/regional plans, policies, or
regulations or by the agencies listed above;
■ Substantial effect(e.g.,fill, removal, hydrologic interruption) upon Federally protected wetlands under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act;
■ Substantially interfere with movement of native resident or migratory wildlife species or with established
native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites;
■ Conflict with any local policies/ordinances that protect biological resources (e.g.,tree preservation policy
or ordinance).
Discussion: The proposed rezoning or subsequent development will not adversely impact biological
resources, special status habitat, wetlands,wildlife movement, tocal policies protecting biological resources,or
conflict with an adopted habitat conservation plan or state habitat conservation plan based on the following:
a. The project site is surrounded by existing residential and commercial development and 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.
b. There are no riparian areas or riparian habitat on the 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.
c. There are 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.
d. No migratory path for wildlife species, no connection with any wildlife habitat, no water courses are
located on the parcels included in this project. No trees would be removed as part of this project.
e. The City does not have a tree preservation ordinance that applies to this project,furthermore the
project site does not contain any native trees and no trees would be removed as part of this project.
f. The parcels included in the project are not subject to an adopted Habitat Consenration Plan, Natural
Community Consenration Plan, or other approved local, regional,or state habitat conservation plan.
g. Environmental review procedures (CEQA and the City's Environmental Review Guidelines) currently in
place and administered by the City will ensure that adequate mitigation measures will be identified for
future projects that will achieve"no net loss" of sensitive habitat acreage,values, and function.
There is not physical development of the site proposed as a part of the project.
No Impact:
_-----...---�------...------� - � - ------- -- -.-.—:.-.:_ __.__....---...__ .__
City of Ukiah Thomas Rezone
December 19, 2016 Initial Study/ Negative Declaration
12
V.CULTURALRESOURCES. PoteMially ��The� l.essThan
Significantwith • No
Signfficant Signiflcant �
Would the project: �mpa� Mitigatioe �mPa� Impact �
Incorporated
a)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a x
historical resource as defined in§15064.5?
b)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an x
archaeological resource pursuant to§15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological x
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d)Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside x
of formal cemeteries?
Significance Criteria: A significant impact to historic and cultural resources would occur if implementation of
the project would:
■ Cause a substantial change in the significance of a historical or cultural resource;
■ Result in the removal or substantial exterior alteration of a building or structure or district that may be
eligible for listing in the National Register or California Register;
■ Result in the removal or substantial exterior alteration of a building or structure so that it results in the
loss of a designated county landmark in the City of Ukiah;
■ Result in the destruction of a unique paleontological resource,site or unique geological feature,or
disturbs any human remains.
Discussion: The proposed project does not involve any construction. Future development will be consistent
with the City's General Plan and is not expected to negatively impact land that has historical, archaeological or
paleontological significance as described in the General Plan. Future discretionary projects will be subject to
environmental review,specific projects will be evaluated for the possibility of the disturbance of any
archaeological or historical resources, includ+ng human remains assoc+ated with these resources. As a result,
no impacts to cultural resources will occur.
The Historic and Archaeological Element of the General Plan Update includes four policies for the protection
of cultural resources: Policy HA-1.2, HA-5 and HA-7. The General Plan Update and implementation of these
policies reduces the potential impacts to cultural resources.
No Impact
Less Than
• VI.GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Potentially Signifiqant Less Than
No
Significant w�th Significant
Would the ro ect: Impact
P 1 Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
a)Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse x
effects,including the risk of loss,injury,or death involving:
i)Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued x
by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
City of Ukiah ^ Thomas Rezone
December 19,2016 Initial Study/Negative Declaration
13
substantial evidence of a known fault?Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii)Strong seismic ground shaking? X
iii)Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? X
iv)Landslides? X
b)Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
x
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that
would become unstable as a result of the project,and x
potentially result in on-or off-site landslide,lateral spreading,
subsidence,liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life or X
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where X
sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
Significance Criteria: A significant geologic impact would occur if a project exposed people or structures to
major geologic features that pose a substantial hazard to property and/or human life, or hazards such as
earthquake damage(rupture,groundshaking,ground failure,or landslides),slope and/orfoundation instability,
erosion, soil instability, or other problems of a geologic nature that cannot be mitigated through the use of
standard engineering design and seismic safety design techniques.
A significant geologic impact would occur if a project exposed people or structures to major geologic features
that pose a substantial hazard to property/or human life,or hazards such as earthquake damage.
Discussion: While the rezoning does not propose new development, it does introduce zoning that could lead
to additional construction and development. Future projects will have a less than significant impact on
seismic or geological risks based on the following analysis:
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones are mapped within the project area, and applicable state and local
regulations will apply. General Plan policies and implementation measures, in conjunction with seismic
provisions of the California Building Code (CBC),will minimize the impact of strong seismic shaking. In
addition,future development will be evaluated on a project-by-project basis for potential seismic or geological
risks. As required by the City Planning and Building Department, specific sites will be reviewed to ascertain
whether the soil has the potential for landslides, erosion,subsidence, liquefaction, expansion, and is capable
of handling septic tanks or other wastewater disposal systems.
Fault Rupture. No known active fault zones cross the rezone area based on official fault maps. The Macaama
fault zone is located to the east of the project site and therefore,fault rupture hazard is considered low since
research has shown that the Maacama Fault is confined to a limited zone with little or no splaying. Impacts
related to fault rupture are less than significant.
-. _. ,,,, , __.........._
City of Ukiah Thomas Rezone
December 19,2016 Initial Study/Negative Declaration
14
Seismic. A future project will be required to comply with the seismic design standards included in the
California Building Code. Compliance with these requirements would reduce impacts resulting from strong
seismic ground shaking to less than significant.
Liquefaction.According to the Soil Survey of Mendocino Countv, Eastern Part, and Trinity Countv
Southwestern Part published by the U.S.Soil Conservation Service,the subject property is underlain by an
"urban mix"that includes native soils mixed with non-native fill materials that are only partially covered by
patches of asphalt and hard-packed gravel. However,the project site is not in an area with any known
deposits of soils that are unstable,or that would become unstable as a result of the project,or potentially
result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse
landslide.The project parcel and surrounding area are relatively flat and no new slopes would be created as a
result of the project;therefore,there are no impacts related to landslides related to seismic activity.
Soil Erosion. With construction of a future project it is possible that soil erosion and/or loss of topsoil could
increase on the site if soils are left exposed to winds or storm waters for any substantial period of time during
the construction. Such impacts would generally be short-term in nature, but could cause significant erosion if
normal grading and site preparation techniques are not utilized during the development phase of the project.
In this case, however, the soil protection measures included as Mitigation Measures 1-5 in the Air Quality
discussion, above,will sufficiently reduce soil impacts to less than significant levels.
Future projects will be required to comply with Division 9,Chapter 7,Sediment and Erosion Control of the
Ukiah City Code which includes requirements intended to reduce erosion and sedimentation. Implementation
of these requirements through the building permit process would reduce impacts to less than significant.
Landslides:A future project would not result in on-or off-site landslide since the site as well as the
surrounding area is relativety flat. A future project would not create any new slopes.
Expansive soils:There are no known deposits of expansive soils,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code.Additionally, the project site is relatively flat,and it is not anticipated that future development
would require extensive grading, cutting or filling, or other site preparation activities that would cause
substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
Wastewater:A future project will not include the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems; therefore,there is no impact.
However, as noted above,the current proposal will not result in any development occurring as part the
rezoning request.
less than significant:
Less Than
VII.GREENHQUSE._GAS EMISSIONS. Roteotially lessThan
- - — Slgriificant with No
Signfficant Signfficaot
Mitigation Impad
Wou..ld the p�oject: Impact �Impact
leco_iporated
City of Ukiah Thomas Rezone
December 19, 2016 Initial Study/ Negative Declaration
15
a)Generate greenhouse gas emissions,either directly or
indirectly,that may have a significant impact on the X
environment?
b)Conflict with an applicable plan,policy or regulation adopted
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse X
gases?
The proposed project would result in significant adverse environmental impacts if any of the following occur:
■ Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly,that may have a significant impact on the
environment; and/or
■ Conflict with an applicable plan, policy,or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
GHGs.
Discussion:While the project does not propose any construction, it does introduce zoning that could lead to
additional development. Future development could lead to increased greenhouse gas emissions. The City of
Ukiah does not have an adopted climate action plan. Ukiah does have General Plan goals and polices that
address energy use which may reduce or minimize GHG emission.The rezoning would not conflict with any
plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHG. However, any future
development that is proposed because of this rezone will be evaluated for greenhouse gas emissions. If it is
found that a future development will increase greenhouse gas emissions appropriate mitigation measures will
be imposed.
No Impact
Less'7fiah - -
V.III:.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS'MATERIALS. P..oteritially Less�Tha�
. � Signfficarttyrkh < No ;
Signlftcant = STgnificarK
Mitigation. Impact J
Would the project: Impact I�n�iacE
Incb.rporated i
I
a)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use,or disposal of hazardous x
materials?
b)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions x
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter x
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d)Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section x
65962.5 and,as a result,would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,would the project result in a X
safety hazard for people residing or working in the project
area?
City of Ukiah Thomas Rezone
December 19, 2016 Initial Study/ Negative Declaration
16
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or X
working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation X
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury
or death involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are x
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
Significance Criteria: A significant impact to the environment and the public associated with hazards and
hazardous materials would result from a project if any of the following occurred:
■ Creation of a significant hazard to the public or environment by routine transport, use or disposal of
hazardous materials or from foreseeable upset and accident conditions;
■ Emission and/or handling of hazardous, acutely hazardous materials, substances,or waste within%
mile of an existing or proposed school;
■ Location of a project on a listed hazardous materials site compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5;
■ Be located within an adopted Airport Land Use Plan and expose people to a safety hazard;
■ Be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip and expose people to a safety hazard;
■ Impairment/+nterference with adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan;or
■ Be located in or near a wildland area and expose people to risk due to wildland fire.
Discussion:While the rezoning does not propose any construction, it does introduce zoning that could lead to
additional development. Based on the following analysis, no impact is expected for hazardous materials:
a. Any proposed development resulting from this rezoning,would not involve the use of hazardous
material based on the allowed uses in the C1 Zoning District. Therefore, it is anticipated that a
proposed project will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
the routine transport, use,or disposal of hazardous materials.
b. The parcel included in the rezoning is not located on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
c. The project rezone site is located outside of the Airport Compatibility zone.
d. The project rezone site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
e. The City of Ukiah does not have an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan. The
project has been reviewed by the Police Department and Fire Marshal and no negative
comments were received related to emergency response or evacuation.
City of Ukiah Thomas Rezone
December 19, 2016 Initial Study/Negative Declaration
17
f. The project site is located within an established residential and commercial neighborhood and
surrounded by urban development.The project site is not located in or adjacent to a wild land
area.Therefore,the project would have no impact related to exposing structures or people to
risk related to wild land fires.
No Impact
. . _.. .. _..- -
. _
..; .. • � ,...:._,Less,iTfian . . . ...
" 'IX:.HYDROCOGY.AND'WATERQUALIIY: ' Pbtetitialyi= : -. l:essThae `
--- Significanf with . No .
S78nificaM • .:=- Signiflcant i ,
,IVlitlgation. ! [inpact
Would the project: Impact - 'Injpacf
Incorporated
a)Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge x
requirements?
b)Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level(e.g.,the production rate of pre- x
existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
c)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream x
or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on-or off-site?
d)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface x
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-
site?
e)Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or x
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f)Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? x
g)Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood X
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h)Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which x
would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury
or death involving flooding,including flooding as a result of the x
failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? x
City of Ukiah Thomas Rezone
December 19, 2016 Initial Study/Negative Declaration
18
Significance Criteria: Significant impacts associated with hydrology and water quality would result from a
project if water quality standards or waste discharge requirements were violated; groundwater and surface
water quality and quantity were substantially altered; drainage patterns were substantially altered that would
increase erosion/siltation and increase surface runoff; increase runoff that would exceed capacity of existing or
planned drainage systems or add a substantial source of pollution; located on a 100-year floodplain; or expose
people to hydrologicat hazards such as flooding or inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow.
Discussion:While the project does not propose any new development, it does introduce zoning that could lead
to additional development. Future project evaluation for hydrology and water quality risks will include: the
prevention of toxic materials and other debris from entering the storm drain a�d waterway systems (section
9704). Based on the following analysis, no impact is expected for hydrology and water quality:
a. Building permits from the City of Ukiah are required. The permits require compliance with specific
standards designed to comply with water quality standards and to avoid illicit discharge. Compliance
with these requirements would result in no impact from the project, including Low Impact
Development Standards.
b. Construction associated site improvements would not impact groundwater because new landscaping
would be included along with drainage swales that would provide opportunity for groundwater
infiltration.The project drainage plan has been reviewed by the Public Works Department.
c. Orr Creek is%2 block away to the north.
d. Future projects will be reviewed by Public Works to ensure existing stormwater system has adequate
capacity to serve the project.
e. The rezoning would not degrade water quality. Any future project is subject to compliance with
requirements Ukiah City Code.These requirements are intended to protect water quality. Compliance
with these requirements would result in no degradation of water quality.
f. The site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map.
g. The project is not located within a 100-year flood zone.The project is located within Zone X(areas
determined to be outside of the 0.2%annual chance floodplain)on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) #06045C1512F, Panel#1512 of 2100,dated June 2, 2011.
h. The site is not located within a flood zone. Portions of the Ukiah Valley would be subject to inundation
due to the failure of Coyote Dam at Lake Mendocino. In the highly unlikely event of a dam failure,
inundation is predicted to occur within most creek channels from the river nearly to the base of the
foothilts on the west side of the valley. The main channel of f�ooding is expected to follow State Street
or US 101,whichever is furthest west.
i. The site is located inland and therefore would not be subject to inundation by seiche,tsunami,or
mudflow.
City of Ukiah Thomas Rezone
December 19, 2016 Initial Study/Negative Declaration
19
No Impatt
- less Than -
X:LAND USE AND�PLANNING. 'Potentially _ . Less=TFian
- --- Sigr}lftcarit:with No_
SigniflcarK Sigri_fficant; '.
- Mitigation ilmpact�.,
Would#he project: Jmpact Impact
. _ . . - . li�corpoiated� ` . .
a) Physically divide an established community? x
b)Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including,but not limited to the general plan,specific plan, x
local coastal program,or zoning ordinance)adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c)Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
x
natural community conservation plan?
Significance Criteria: Significant land use impacts would occur if the project substantially conflicted with
established uses, disrupted or divided an established community, or resulted in a substantial alteration to
present or planned land uses. Proposed project consistency with the Ukiah General Plan and zoning and any
other applicable environmental plans and policies is also evaluated in making a determination about potential
land use impacts.
� R3
- C1
- C2
Project Site
�
ro
w
� �z I
City of Ukiah � Thomas Rezone
December 19, 2016 Initial Study/ Negative Declaration
zo
Discussion: The rezoning of the site will not result in the physical division of the community based on the
existing surrounding landuses. The site is surrounded on three sides by established commercial and
residential uses including the Home Depot to the west, Kohl's retail to the east, a commercial parking lot to
the south and high density residential to the north. Given the surrounding land uses, and the incompatibility
between a large-scale retail operation (Home Depot), and residential,this rezoning makes the site more
compatible with the surroundings. The site is currently developed with a parking lot and vacant area,the
parking lot serves the Home Depot and potential future uses of the site.The proposed rezoning of the site
from R3 to C1 will result in a consistent land use pattern for the area. Rezoning the site will result in a more
appropriate land use designation given and surrounding uses.
No Impact:
Less.Thari
XI.MINERAL RESOURCES. Potentially Le"ss Than
Stgntflwrrt with No
Slgnificant Signfficant
Mitigation Impad
WOUId the projeCt: Impait Impad
Incorporeted
a)Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the x
state?
Significance Criteria: Impacts to Mineral and Natural resources would be substantial if the proposed project
resulted in the loss of significant or locally important materials such as minerals,gravel,sand,and heritage trees.
Impacts to mineral and natural resources would be substantial if the proposed project resulted in the loss of
significant or locally important materials such as minerals, gravel, sand, and heritage trees. Impacts to mineral
natural resources would be.
Discussion:The site is currently partially developed with a parking lot and associated improvements,and serves
the Home Depot immediately to the south.
a. The parcel included in the rezone is located in an existing neighborhood.There are no known natura�or
mineral resources on the site.
b. The parcel included in the rezone is not delineated as an important natural or mineral resource recovery
site on the City's General Plan Map or on any specific plan or other land use plan.
Based on the above,the rezoning would have no impact on natural or mineral resources.
No Impact.
XII.NOISE Potentlally �The� iLessThan
Significant with •. No
Significant Signiflcant
Would the project result in: � p Mitigation p _. tmpad .
Irti act Im ad
Inco_rpordted
City of Ukiah ^ Thomas Rezone
December 19, 2016 Initial Study/Negative Declaration
21
a)Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or x
noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive x
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c)A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in x
the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
d)A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without X
the project?
e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,would the project expose X
people residing or working in the project area to excessive
noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would
the project expose people residing or working in the project X
area to excessive noise levels?
Significance Criteria: A project will typically have a significant noise impact if it meets any of the following
criteria:
■ Exposes people to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local General Plan or
Noise Ordinance.
■ Causes a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project.
■ Expose people to excessive ground borne vibration or noise levels.
■ Causes a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels without the project.
■ If located within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of a public airport,expose people to excessive
noise levels.
■ If located within the vicinity of a private strip,expose people to excessive noise levels.
Discussion: While the rezoning does not propose the construction of new development, it does introduce
zoning that could lead to additional development. Future development will be subject to the following noise
standards:
,. ,,.,._,,,,.., ._ ..,,,., .,..,. „ ..,. ..... ...._
City of Ukiah Thomas Rezone
December 19, 2016 Initial Study/Negative Declaration
zz
Maximum allowable ambient noise levels:
Sound Level A, decibels
Zone Time Ambient Noise Level
Ri and R2 10 p.m.to 7 a.m. 40 decibels
R1 and R2 7 p.m.to 10 p.m. 45 decibels
R1 and R2 7 a.m.to 7 p.m. 50 decibels
R3 10 p.m.to 7 a.m. 45 decibels
R3 7 a.m.to 10 p.m. SO decibels
Commercial 10 p.m.to 7 a.m. 60 decibels
Commercial 7 a.m.to 10 p.m. 65 decibels
Industrial Anytime 70 decibels
Section 6053:Machinery,Equipment,Fans and Air Conditioning: It shalt be unlawful for any person to operate
any machinery, equipment, pump, fan, air conditioning apparatus, or similar mechanical device in any manner
so as to create any noise which would cause the noise level at the property line of any property to exceed the
ambient base noise level by more than five (5) decibels between seven o'clock (7:00) P.M. and seven o'clock
(7:00)A.M.(Ord. 748,Article 1, adopted 1980)
Section 6054: Construction of Buildings and Projects: It shall be unlawful for any person within a residential
zone, or within a radius of five hundred feet (500') therefrom, to operate equipment or perform any outside
construction or repair work on buildings, structures or projects or to operate any pile driver, power shovel,
pneumatic hammer,derrick,power hoist or any other construction type device(between the hours of 7:00 P.M.
of one day and 7:00 A.M. of the next day) in such a manner that a reasonable person of normal sensitiveness
residing in the area is caused discomfort or annoyance unless beforehand a permit therefore has been duly
obtained from the Director of Public works. No permit shall be required to perform emergency work as defined
in §6046 of this Article. (Ord.748,Article 1, adopted 1980).
A future project will be subject to the following noise standards and standard mitigation measures:
Mitigation Measures:
City of Ukiah ^ Thomas Rezone^
December 19, 2016 Initial Study/Negative Declaration
23
1. Provided the subject site is developed at a future date as a result of the rezone,construction hours are
limited to Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m. and from 9:00 a.m.to 4:00 p.m.on
Saturday Construction hours are prohibited on Sunday and all holidays recognized by the City of Ukiah.
Interior work that generates negligible or no noise at the property line is allowed outside of the
construction hours noted above.
2. Approval of additional construction hours may be requested in writing from the Planning and
Community Development Director and Public Works Director for extenuating circumstances. The
written request must be submitted a minimum of 14 days prior to the date for which the change in
construction hours/days is being requested and shall explain the need for the extended construction
hours, describe the extenuating circumstances, and identify the additional construction hours
requested, including the duration.
3. Signs shall be posted at the project site prior to commencement of construction of the proposed
project for the purpose of informing all contractors/subcontractors,their employees, agents, material
haulers, and all other persons at the construction site(s) of the basic requirements of mitigation
measures for Noise.
4. Signs shall be posted at the construction sites that include the permitted construction days and hours,
day and evening contact number for the job site, and a contact number in the event of problems.
5. An onsite complaint and enforcement manager shall be designated for the project and shall respond
to and track complaints and questions related to noise.
6. Equipment and trucks used for proposed project construction shall use the best available noise control
techniques (e.g. improved mufflers, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures,and acoustically-
attenuated shields or shrouds,wherever feasible).
7. Impact tools(e.g.jack hammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills) used for project construction
shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with
compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools.
8. Stationary construction noise sources shall be located as far from sensitive receptors as possible and
they shall be muffled.
9. No outside amplified sources(e.g. stereo "boom boxes") shall be used on site during project
construction.
Impact Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant
, _�. „ .. ... ._........_ �._.
City of Ukiah Thomas Rezone
December 19, 2016 Initial Study/Negative Declaration
24
�I,�I,POPULATION AND HOUSlNG. Potentially �Than ��,�,ha� I
- - • Signi$cant wRh , No
SignHErant ' Signfficant
Would th.e projectt �mpact MRigation �mpa� Impact
Incorpqrated
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,either
directly(for example,by proposing new homes and businesses) x
or indirectly(for example,through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, X
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating x
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Significance Criteria: Population and housing impacts would be significant if the project induced substantial
direct or indirect(e.g., road extensions) population growth in an area and/or displaced substantial numbers of
existing houses and/or substantial numbers of people,thus requiring replacement housing elsewhere.
Discussion:The 2014 Housing Element through its "Vacant and Underutilized Land Survey" demonstrated the
availability of appropriately zoned parcels needed to accommodate the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(RHNA) (Government Code Sections 65582(a)(3) and 65582.2(a) (See table below).The parcel proposed for this
rezoning was among the parcels identified to meet the City's RHNA. This rezoning represents the loss.66 acres
of R3 High-Density residential. Based on the amount of vacant land identified in the survey,this rezone will not
result in the City's ability to accommodate its RHNA. Further, high-density residential is an allowed use with a
Use Permit in C1,the proposed zoning for the site.This mean that future development could, even with the C1
zoning designation include high-density residential.
Ukiah Regional Housing Needs as defined in the 2014 Housing Element
Years Extremely Very Low Low Moderate Above Total
Low Moderate
2014-2019 9 11 7 7 20 46
Total 5 16 21 U 26
Approved
to Date:
The proposed project will rezone a total of.66 acres of high-density residential zoned land that could
accommodate approximately 17-units of housing.The Vacant and Underutilized Land Survey demonstrated
that the City could accommodate a total of 879 units on both vacant and underutilized properties throughout
the City. The total housing needs for the City is 46 according to the RHNA. Based on the availability of vacant
and underutilized land and the fact that C1,the proposed zoning,allows high-density development,the loss of
City of Ukiah Thomas Rezone
December 19, 2016 Initial Study/Negative Declaration
zs
.66 acres of high-density(R3) is viewed as having no impact. Given that half the site is currently used for
parking for the Home Depot, a rezoning to commercial brings the site into conformance with the surrounding
area.
City of Ukiah Thomas Rezone
December 19, 2016 Initial Study/ Negative Declaration
26
ClTY OF UKIAH
VACANT& UNDERUTILfZED LAND 2014-2019
GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
OfM�17�p �$[ q }�S
�� � �i
�r�� �
� �� Vacant Underutilized
`�,�„ 3 Q 53(acres) 51(acres)
� � 3 � � 533(units 346(units
,�� �,g;,q �k,�,,,m �y„ accommodated) accommodated
7dur Are
[i*��� . r�eqo
� �� Z� ��
� � g �
+,:y,� �a�sv ti
,�
Ao� td� �,�
,yo__ ilfr,nsT
•nkr� � 7
•T
��� � rdD
C.,.M[y�wec'�'i tiaSu�,lc� �
oar�`�' �"
as � ���� �7 � �
mmb/t7►�re � a �y�Mas �� �r a-
�� �s�.� �� � � .
� �� �
@ �, �► � a o ��
.��y� � LK � � 4
� P
�w4 �'�+x �6 i q�a* . � .
� �� �
�
L�"'� rll� " �
�. TAyE, �� j � F
�
V�� � � _
�A45 W[M�� ;'
1��� �{A�' a
. �'��N����� �� �
� �
� �7 W
� w�mrrslairn w�SlS�• o-�� e �'�
� NCL'L4
x
� � a
�
� � � x� �
� 9 I�
Ff� a
��.�
���s�
aF
.�
Legend "�-�W
�
�u�acr uasuxa ur�► �c�a »_�� �
_
-vsca,et tr+uan Patr,els 11_11 �� -
Uluah Parioe�s 11 11 �
Q Uki3fi CityLimits �,��'
0 �i5 U.3 a e 9.9 1.2
Miles
City of Ukiah Thomas Rezone
December 19,2016 Initial Study/Negative Declaration
27
No Impact.
- —- . .._ Less'Tfiao _ ._
� Pbtentiallyi Less.Than
• Si nificant with : . - No
f......_. .._........._......_..................; : Signifi_cant B -- SigniflcaM
�LIV.PUBLIC SERVICES. �Mitigation ' Impad
... . i
-- !ImpacC !I�pact .
; Incorpo'ated
_. _.._. .... .. _ .. .. ..
a)Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities,need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities,the construction of which could x
cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
x
Police protection? x
Schools? x
Parks? x
Other public facilities? x
Significance Criteria: Impacts to public services would be significant if the project resulted in adverse physical
impacts upon capacity that would lead to construction of new public facilities or substantial alteration to existing
governmental facilities to maintain acceptable service levels or performance levels.
Discussion:New developments,resulting from the rezoning would be required by existing regulations to provide
adequate public services consistent with the City's General Plan. Future projects will be subject to CEQA review,
including potential impacts on public services. As a result, impacts are considered to be less than significant.
No Impact
City of Ukiah Thomas Rezone
December 19, 2016 Initial Study/ Negative Declaration
zs
Less rne�
Potentially Si niRcantwith ��Tha� No
XV.RECREATION. Signfficaet � B Signiflcant
---.-.--.- Mitigation Inipact
Impact Im.pact
Incorporated
a)Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that x
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
b)Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might X
have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Significance Criteria: Impacts to recreation would be significant if the project resulted in an impact upon the
quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities or required the creation of new recreational facilities.
Discussion: New developments, resulting from the rezoning would be required by existing regulations to
provide adequate recreational facilities consistent with the City's General Plan. Future projects will be subject
to CEQA review, including potential impacts on recreational facilities. As a result, impacts are considered to be
less than significant.
No Impact
LessThan
XVI.TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Potentially lessThan
Signifieant wlth No
Significant Signfficant
�Mltigation Impact
Wou.l.d.the proje.�t: Impact Impact
Incorporated
a)Conflict with an applicable plan,ordinance or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of
the circulation system,taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel x
and relevant components of the circulation system,including
but not limited to intersections,streets,highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths,and mass transit?
b)Conflict with an applicable congestion management
program,including,but not limited to level of service standards
and travel demand measures, or other standards established X
by the county congestion management agency for designated
roads or highways?
c)Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in X
substantial safety risks?
d)Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses X
(e.g.,farm equipment)?
e)Result in inadequate emergency access? X
f)Conflict with adopted policies, plans,or programs regarding
public transit, bicycle,or pedestrian facilities,or otherwise X
decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
City of Ukiah Thomas Rezone
December 19, 2016 Initial Study/Negative Declaration
29
Significance Criteria: According to the Ukiah General Plan Circulation Element,the minimum acceptable level
of service (LOS)on City commercial streets/intersections is LOS "D." Other criteria include whether the
project would have substantial effects upon air traffic patterns; whether the project would increase traffic
hazards due to design features;whether the project has inadequate emergency access; and whether the
project would create conflicts with adopted policies, programs and plans for alternative transportation.
Discussion:The rezoning of the site from R3 to C1 will likely result in an increase in traffic volumes in the area.
The Focused Traffic Study(November 16, 2016)(Attachment 1)completed by W-Trans compared various land
uses that could be constructed as result of the rezoning, in all cases,the C1 zoning would result in higher
traffic volumes. The greatest increase would occur if the site was developed as pharmacy. The traffic study
concluded that:
"Under projected the cumulative conditions which include the Ukiah Railroad depot project and the
recommended widening at the East Perkins Street/Orchards Avenue intersection, it is anticipated that
acceptable operation would be maintained, even upon adding trips associated with the highest trip generator,
which is a pharmacy. It is therefore concluded that development of the parcel with any of the C1 land uses
listed in this report would cause a less than significant impact as the intersection would continue to operate
acceptably under the City standards".
The rezoning does not increase or change air traffic patterns or substantially increase hazards. Amending the
zoning does not involve changes to airports or prompt changes in air traffic patterns. Furthermore, no design
features that would substantially increase safety risks are proposed as part of the rezoning.
The rezoning does not propose any changes to emergency access. Any project proposed for the site is subject
to environmental review, including review by fire and police to determine adequate emergency access.
Less than significant.
- - .
Less Tfian,
...---... . Potentlally ' : , Less Than :
XVII..UTILI7'IES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. '. S.tgnificar�twith. • No
_. .. , Significsnt , : .::.. ... _ . 'SigniftcarK
Would the;project: .... . iMltigation. _ Ihipacf
Impect � - ,Impact
; Incorporated
--- _ .. . . ...... , . . _
a)Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the x
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b)Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing x
facilities,the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c)Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the x
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
d)Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources,or are new or X
expanded entitlements needed?
City of Ukiah Thomas Rezone
December 19, 2016 Initial Study/Negative Declaration
30
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has x
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing commitments?
f)Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to x
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g)Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and x
regulations related to solid waste?
Significance Criteria: Impacts to public services would be significant if the project resulted in adverse physical
impacts upon capacity that would lead to construction of new pubtic facilities or substantial alteration to existing
governmental facilities to maintain acceptable service levels or performance levels.
Discussion: The rezoning will result in nominal impacts to municipal services,schools,and parks,given the small
number of new units.The Project has been reviewed by Public Works,the Police Department, Fire Marshal,and
Electric Utility. The Project would not require the need for new city facilities or services as the site is currently
developed with utilities.Therefore,the rezoning would have no impact on public services.
No Impact
Less Than
Potentially Signfficant Less Than No
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Significant with Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact �mpact:
Incorporated
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of
the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal x
community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable?("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are x
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects,the effects of other current projects,and the
effects of probable future projects)?
c)Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either X
directly or indirectly?
A. As discussed in the preceding sections,the project does not have the potential to significantly degrade
the quality of the environment, including effects on animals or plants, or to eliminate historic or
prehistoric sites.
City of Ukiah Thomas Rezone
December 19, 2016 Initial Study/Negative Declaration
31
B. As discussed in the preceding sections, both short-term and long-term environmental effects
associated with the project will be less than si�nificant.
C. When impacts associated with the project are considered alone or in combination with other impacts,
the project-related impacts are insisnificant.
D. The above discussions do not identify a� substantial adverse impacts to people as a result of the
project.
No Impact
Attachments:
1. Original Subdivision Map dated 12/21/03
2. General Plan Map
3. Zoning Map
4. Focused Traffic Study(November 16,2016) completed by W-Trans
5. Mitigation Monitoring Plan
City of Ukiah Thomas Rezone
December 19, 2016 Initial Study/Negative Declaration
32
Attachment 1
� �
GtEiNtERG FAiKOW
�
I ��� frYf�l�Ifd4RI��11�1'�
I -_-_ " - —_' - .. --_ ____ - _- e. ea�tiemw� �op
� �wm rs.� �•.��f's(�K{
� �. _ _ ' — _ -� - i �. -� �- f9 CtI�L �.1Y I/K�
� � � ..:•�� �{p�p� f�
..� .-Y�'n�`... _ _ i _. I � ���...., (� �L� ...,� , taw�RP m/D[ � JL'I.i
� � 'i � � � , � � ��'i U d � � �, � �"`�ai,..�, �,g
� ii ! I , � I ere�%�dr�..�
� �� I I � !i� +'�ti T � e„�..,'�� ..xa
� _ xa
� I� V�m�Y�It M E�� ;WO�wf��Tw����a 1
�' , i. �' _ � .7�/ _ tf wau v a�'�n f tl w I
_ =�.L_� ..�—�'�� _� t :��,�.: �
�+3- �. ,�,fr +narr,r�e�rr�,..
� �� �� I�: ~ r °'����I � �� �� �'..�.°.cn.ee� �
I � K�� „•.;...� _ ri '�. �iri� w..w.�.c
i� _� � �� {�i� �� ��.' �. � ,�.,rs _
-, � $ �� i�rf �`i�+, _ � �, :�a
i _ o.,�. -:-
—�� � -�K���� � THENOMEDEP07 ' ' � .a..,
y,7:8 5��� �y • �^�-+�f�I � �. M mnq "'w.a
�..iwc �� � ' �i �arr�•e�
—�'� tass+� ! „ ° 1 ��'(� L`.S4L'
� � ' rnrwc..w��6�rc � I'�"� � . �..va ro� .,.o.''"�m
I !_ gy.y�� (�u^'- =i l� + f ��1 ��k�11�t x i ' m�o noam a a.m r�c
' �� �� _ m���+rr o r w¢
� �raYUVn m�o.v�
r i , I� .�i m�L.n"'°im ':.�i.'
! �`. 'E'M L�mn'' ��dlYfB•.79Q,�...�_
•i�wr m�a
I r_' � _ _'—' r � ,'I ;i 3' I.t � �i��S+�i".13��
Ii I �•�I� � � 1 1 �':':".�i.�. °'�^"°°'�,�..:
� T�t�� ' ��= � �Iloro
� ""�"� � ` �T���
� � � �xa � �f �$ << I
� =". � >;! "���:�� �-�
� - � ..,_• i ,.,.,...md
�. �� � r � t�- ° � �.:�
� i, =��-+-- �".�:•
1 I 'I '__ _ " .. srti ��i+mN
+ _ y I�. �1 y 2 i�fj"1X alr�
, Y�^ �V�QAH CA�EP�T
� l- ,
� -=�:=- .....�..
� � ��
��:�:� � � ,
' �:�"���= CA-438e
City of Ukiah ~ Thomas Rezone
December 19,2016 Initial Study/Negative Declaration
33
Attachment 2 General Plan Map
� - - -� -- � .._,.,,._,,.,.,.., _, _.._.... _.. _�.
City of Ukiah Thomas Rezone
December 19, 2016 Initial Study/Negative Declaration
34
. , � _ �.
.. - �
� �_ _. "T � _
!
Y . �
4-
x ,.,,�� .t - -
' � ' i `t � r
- i � � - -; _ ` ��
i � ' -
. . _ . � � _
, } ; t
�
i
,r
_ _ F^y f 1
i.R: '1 �� �
�� jl� - ,
,�,, .
4
� - /
��:` �
t"' ' ' I
��
� - �
fi
d �
-�. �Y
,�
f:f�
J_
- Y.w
. � ___ � : 'f t
� - tq
_ F'` _ �
. � 2
\ • �` -
�t e �'u ,
i'
�� — �� __
.(�� —
- . . , 'x�a �}.r. I . -
�
+ � _ ' *�
:J
y �! ' _
V;.
.�, s- �
� �
��i, General Pla � �f-� �
,�.
y �
.- - -�-' -
�i�,_..,._., -
�AfDR........« ..
_NDR+�+� � � .
�RR""""' . -. ' -
_C `_.. � i�' �^� ° -
�P «. �...
_��"" -
._'—�� ..W -�,._
_MPA�-��
� " . .�._...s--�. -
Attachment 3:Zoning Map
City of Ukiah ` Thomas Rezone ^
December 19,2016 Initial Study/ Negative Declaration
� , i L .
�,ry�`..
r.;_ •_ ,;�.;;[i�>���
._!��,'..-,-.�::,-�°�,
P�}
�ry.f-y`;.- �jr;�.; �
� F" � � ��� : ',�� t :
��'.�I� _r � �1I�.
���� 1, �' '
�•� �
I �.�. � ��:r�� �:
.- ' • 1 .'..� .1 � ��, �
( , �
�M �'..�{� LS._J.' I'�.
,_l' J„ ��•:,..{''., � `
I1M� �,�- y_ � . . �
��~'��:F=�41 a*.'��'��'7 �� _-�
�. ��_�, � ,;��� , {
r• � �
,�. r �. _
•, M,i7j���T�•.�t �� .
�� : 1 '��-.�?ti;: ' . �
��-.:{�: i r:._•`: � i � �
:t.a.A._._
��Y'� `� J;-'; �'.�,��i�, i �
7}#1i i��1 � �4 Y- "R'. __ FL�.I.
�il.� �i. y�k- :Lq ti 1 �._w ? , -
�wl ���'��•� .1= �:i•.�•Ci �� : , y G,•-'. L-" l,��,'•
�.y�.�i'*�.i���}LS'�i�•� �.�f.� � � . ' R_ ';••. -�':���.1
r�;�x_°.y I�yt''y[rtal- 9:i . '
� � ivr i"1 � I�'�� ��xr'�-S -.��`'::�.
�y ��'_:�'��`''�'.�i.��i �e a;ri� - I '
����'L' ='r'� _ ��.� � ��,��r' �1
. F�• �� ;Lf ��:�,.+y. i 'r � i}'
11:��:.'�'� : '!�.���.: � 1 �J '' �
�"� ''`•'_ .7: '. 'ti
�' ., i, i� � f� �
..t`� ;•;;;;"=i��= ' i- ��;
i�; �:i ;�•'Yi�[;°`� . .. , �'F.
''�'�r��;.�. ��".I�� �) .�J�r �
������ Y o�� '!�" ry . •���
� .� ..:FF_1 ,_��.t. . _ �I,���GS�
i ���1�-�-q`Jr�'!:'i�,�`y.'��. � . �,�. i�c._'�i��
j �' �.4�J�� �' ,i� .. � 'yc'G'
� °h.1.�:rrF�_ ��Q.:t.r1'��
�'`':� �
�„J `i���-{.- _ � �'3a
�' _f n� 1'a`
�_�: :•"��';��i���'F�'+�i �F-���' ��'
1 B:• �;.� .'•�,. 'v��� , r. ;�i � I
a �,-;
� ����;6�'�.r.���a�l�:' �1�
r ��.�„r����iy�., �
►�.r.� i'1,'�L�'� � , t:—fl�T=l7
�- �:��r'� ,i — . ■'17�'l—`�
F�:�
^mti-
��� ^.ai������i �! ��
Y;�''�air.rii���_ �� �yr t.
��:' !.�u�•,i�: { ���---*�-T�
.. " p o�.����
� ���--:-�
� � �ra.�.-:-�,-�-�
� • 0�
t 0�
� b4'. � o���
�._- m�=�
�r�r.._.—.r�
���
� ��-'--=�
�s�_^�r-�
I � ��
� Ea
I '�� ��
� �� �'�;-r 0����
L _ .�,s--�:-�
I ����
�s�--r-�
- if�
ti
_
_ �. _.
� I � '• � � •' • � • • � ' '� �
� � � ' •
1 ' �' � � � � 1' �
36
Attachment 5
City of Ukiah � Thomas Rezone ~
December 19, 2016 Initial Study/Negative Declaration
37
MITIGATION MEASURE
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Thomas GPA Rezoning
350 North Orchard Street, Ukiah
MITIGATION MEASURES MONITORING HOW AND WHEN VERIFICATION FUNDING
RESPONSIBILITY SIGNATURE RESPONSIBILITY
Aesthetics:
b. All outdoor light fixtures shall be located, Applicants and Inclusion of a final Planning Applicants
aimed,and shielded so as to minimize light Staff landscaping/ Department staff
trespassing over property lines and avoid lighting plan prior
directing light towards motorists and . to the submittal
pedestrians. Fixtures shall be nighttime
friendly and International Dark Sky Association of a Building
(IDA)approved or equivalent. Prior to Permit
installation of the exterior lighting,any project
will be subject to review and approval at time
of building permit.Should any development
occur on this site,lighting shall be positioned
in a manner that it will not result in light being
spilled to the north thus not impacting the
residential uses.
Air Qualitv
6. All activities involving site preparation, Applicants and During all phases Planning and Applicants
excavation, filling, grading, road construction, Grading/Site of construction Public Works
and building construction shall institute a preparation Departments staff
practice of routinely watering exposed soil to Contractors
control dust,particularly during windy days.
7. All inactive soil piles on the project site shall be
completely covered at all times to control
fugitive dust.
City of Ukiah Thomas Rezone
December 19, 2016 Initial Study/Negative Declaration
38
8. All activities involving site preparation,
excavation, filling, grading, and actual
construction shall include a program of
washing offtrucks leaving the construction site
to control the transport of mud and dust onto
public streets.
9. Low emission mobile construction equipment,
such as tractors,scrapers,and bulldozers shall
be used for earth moving operations.
10. All earth moving and grading activities shall be
suspended if wind speeds (as instantaneous
gusts)exceed 25 miles per hour.
Noise
1. Construction hours are limited to Monday Applicants with During all site Planning Applicants
through Friday from 8:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m.and Staff oversight preparation and Department staff
from 9:00 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Saturday construction
Construction hours are prohibited on Sunday
and all holidays recognized by the City of Ukiah. phases
Interior work that generates negligible or no
noise at the property line is allowed outside of
the construction hours noted above.
Approval of additional construction hours may
be requested in writing from the Planning and
Community Development Director and Public
Works Director for extenuating circumstances.
The written request must be submitted a
minimum of 14 days prior to the date for which
the change in construction hours/days is being
requested and shall explain the need for the
extended construction hours, describe the
extenuating circumstances, and identify the
additional construction hours requested,
including the duration.
2. Signs shall be posted at the Project site prior to
commencement of construction of the
proposed Project for the purpose of informing
all contractors/subcontractors, their
-- -- - -- �...�
City of Ukiah T Thomas Rezone
December 19, 2016 Initial Study/ Negative Declaration
39
employees, agents, material haulers, and all
other persons at the construction site(s) of the
basic requirements of mitigation measures for
Noise.
3. Signs shall be posted at the construction sites
that include the permitted construction days
and hours,day and evening contact number for
the job site, and a contact number in the event
of problems.
4. An onsite complaint and enforcement manager
shall be designated for the Project and shall
respond to and track complaints and questions
related to noise.
5. Equipment and trucks used for proposed
Project construction shall use the best available
noise controi techniques (e.g. improved
mufflers, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine
enclosures,and acoustically-attenuated shields
or shrouds,wherever feasible).
6. Impact tools (e.g. jack hammers, pavement
breakers, and rock drills) used for Project
construction shall be hydraulically or
electrically powered wherever possible to avoid
noise associated with compressed air exhaust
from pneumatically powered tools.
7. Stationary construction noise sources shall be
located as far from sensitive receptors as
possible and they shall be muffled.
8. No outside amplified sources (e.g. stereo
"boom boxes") shall be used on site during
Project construction.
. . ,._._...._.,,,,,,,..,., ......_..............---......_--._ ...�...
City of Ukiah Thomas Rezone
December 19, 2016 Initial Study/Negative Declaration
�
November 16,2016 ��Trans
Mr.Dan Thomas
Moreno and Company
P.O.Box 1028
Ukiah,CA 95482
Focused Traffic Study for Re-zoning 350 North Orchard Avenue
Dear Mr.Thomas;
W-Trans has completed a focused traffic study for the proposed re-zoning of the existing vacant parcel located at
350 North Orchard Avenue in the City of Ukiah. It is understood that the parcel,located on the southwest corner
of the intersection of North Orchard Avenue and Clara Avenue,is currently zoned R3 for residential development.
Due to the proximity of other commercial uses,it is proposed that the zoning be modified to C1. The purpose of
this analysis was to determine the potential impacts associated with any increase in trip generation that might
result from the change in zoning.
Study Area and Operational Analysis
The study area includes the signalized intersection of East Perkins Street/Orchard Avenue as the location most
likelyto be significantly impacted by any additional trips. The analysis presented in the Railroad DepotSiieTraffic
Impacr Srudy Report (TIS), February 13, 2015, by GHD was used for the basis for evaluating potential impacts
associated with the proposed re-zoning.
In the TIS,the East Perkins Street/Orchard Avenue intersection experiences higher delay during the p.m.peak hour
under all scenarios analyzed. Since commercial uses typically have much higher trip generations during the p.m.
peak period,this time frame was evaluated to capture the highest potential impacts.
Level of Service(LOS)is used to rank traffic operation on various types of facilities based on traffic volumes and
roadway capacity using a series of letter designations ranging from A to F. Generally,Level of Service A represents
free flow conditions and Level of Service F represents forced flow or breakdown conditions. A unit of ineasure
that indicates a level of delay generally accompanies the LOS designation. The City of Ukiah has adopted LOS D
as the minimum acceptable level of service at signalized intersections. For a signalized intersection,the threshold
where operation drops to LOS E is at 55 seconds of delay.
Cumulative Conditions
Since the change in land use would require an update to the Ukiah General Plan,and further because there is not
a specific project proposed, the potential impacts of the rezoning were evaluated under future conditions to
capture the ultimate potential change to conditions from those currently planned at build-out. The cumulative
scenario,as detailed in the Railroad Depot traffic study,represents the projected conditions for the year 2034. The
cumulative volumes were derived from the population growth data in the Ukiah Valley General Plan and Growth
Managemen[Program and applied as a growth rate of one percent per year for 20 years. In addition to the
projected future volumes, Ukiah's planned roadway improvements were assumed to be complete. At this
intersection,these improvements include the coordination of the traffic signal with the new signal planned at East
Perkins StreeUUS 101 South Ramps intersection. The Railroad Depot traffic study reported for the cumulative
scenario with the addition ofthe railroad depot project trips that the intersection is expected to operate deficiently
at LOS E,with an average delay of 57.8 seconds. Any increase in trips due to the rezoning of the parcel would
result in additional delay at the intersection.
Since the study intersection was identified as operating deficiently at LOS E,the report recommended widening
improvements on the west leg of East Perkins Street. The widening of the west leg would change the eastbound
lane configuration to include left-turn,through,and through/right-turn lanes. With these improvements under
the cumulative volumes in addition to the Railroad Depot project,the intersection was reportedly expected to
operate acceptably at LOS D,with 43.0 seconds of delay on average.
490 Mendocino Avenue,Suite 201 Santa Rosa,CA 95401 707 542 9500 w-trans.com
SANTAROSA•OAKLAND•SANJOSE
Mr.Dan Thomas Page 2 November 16,2016
Trip Generation
The trip generations for buildout of the study site with its existing zoning as well as with the proposed change in
zoning were determined based on standard rates published by ITE in Trip Generaiion Manual,9�h Edition,2012.
The site as currently zoned could accommodate a maximum of 17 multi-family dwelling units; the ITE rate for
"ApartmenY'(ITE LU#220)was used for this land use zone. The proposed change would be expected to result in a
maximum of 15,000 square feet of building area devoted to commercial uses. It is noted that if a restaurant were to
be developed,the maximum anticipated size for this use would be about half as much,or 7,500 square feet;the
remainder of the site would be devoted to parking and landscaping. Various allowed commercial uses were
considered for use in this analysis as listed on the enclosed sheet. The specific uses for which the trip generations
were developed are listed below in descending order from the highest p.m.peak hour trip generator to the lowest:
• High-Turnover(Sit-Down)Restaurant(ITE LU#932)
• Pharmacy(1TE LU#880)
• Nursery/Garden Center(ITE LU#817)
• Hardware/Paint Store(ITE LU#816)
• Building Materials and Lumber(ITE LU#812)
• Tire Store(ITE LU#848)
• Shopping Center(ITE LU#820)
• Specialty Retail Center(ITE LU#826)
• General Office Buifding(ITE LU#710)
The trip generation difference between the site under its current zoning and with the use that would result in the
highest trip generating potential,a pharmacy,is 1,238 daily trips including 115 trips during the p.m.peak hour.
The lowest difference,which would occur with General Office Building use,would result in a net increase of 52
daily trips,of which 11 would be during the p.m.peak hour. The p.m.peak trip generations for the above land
uses are summarized in Table 1.
. . . �
Land Use Units Daily PM Peak Hour
Rate Trips Rate Trips In Out
Existing R3 Zoning
Apartment 17 du 6.65 113 0.62 11 7 4
Proposed C1 Zoning
Restaurant 7.5 ksf 127.15 954 9.85 74 44 30
Pharmacy 15 ksf 90.06 1,351 8.40 126 62 64
Nursery Garden 15 ksf 68.10 1,022 6.94 104°' S2 52
Hardware Store 15 ksf 51.29 769 4.84 73 34 39
Lumber Store 15 ksf 45.16 677 4.49 67 32 35
Tire Store 15 ksf 24.87 373 4.1 S 62 27 35
Shopping Center 15 ksf 42.70 641 3.71 56 27 29
Specialty Retail 15 ksf 44.32 665 2.71 41 18 23
General Office Bldg 1 S ksf 11.03 165 1.49 22 4 18
Maximum Net Difference 1,238 115 55 60
Minimum Net Difference 52 11 -3 14
Note: du=dwelling unit;ksf�1,000 square feet;*=directional split not provided,50/50 assumed
Mr.Dan Thomas Page 3 November 16,2016
Trip Distribution
The pattern used to allocate new project trips to the street network was based on the counts collected September
18,2014,at Orchard Avenue/East Perkins Street for the Railroad Depot Study. It was assumed that 80 percent of
the trips generated by the study site would traverse the study intersection and the remaining trips would use
other routes to get to and from the site. The applied assumptions for distribution of trips at the study intersection
are shown in Table 2.
. . � � . . � . �
Route Percent
To/From the East via Perkins St 11%
To/From the West via Perkins St 43%
To/From the South via Orchard Ave 26%
TOTAL 80%
Impact Analysis
The potential impact due to the proposed rezoned parcel was analyzed using the volumes from the Cumulative
plus Project scenario in the Railroad Depot TIS. The minimum and maximum net increase in trips were added to
the Railroad Depot study volumes, assuming completion of the recommended road widening improvement.
Upon the addition of trips associated with the highest and lowest generators that might result from the rezoning
the study site,the study intersection is expected to continue operating acceptably. These results are summarized
in Table 3,and copies of the level of service calculations are enclosed.
. . . . . . �
Study Intersection Cumulative PM Lowest Trip Generation Highest Trip Generation
(Baseline) (Office) (Pharmacy)
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
East Perkins St/Orchard Ave 43.1* D 43.4 D 49.4 D
Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle;LOS=Level of Service;
*=delay differs slightly from value of 43.0 reported in Railroad Depot traffic study
With the recommended road-widening project detailed in the Railroad Depot Site Traffic Impac[Study Report,the
intersection is expected to maintain acceptable operation even with the highest projected trip generation
increase associated with a pharmacy. Based on this analysis,development ofthe study parcel with any of the land
uses that could be included in a C1 zone would be expected to result in a less-than-significant impact on operation
of the intersection of East Perkins Street/Orchard Avenue. It should be noted that without the widening project,
the intersection would be expected to operate unacceptably with or without the rezoning.
Because this analysis was focused on the (ong-range impacts of allowing rezoning of the study site, it is
recommended that a more detailed study be completed at such time as there is a specific project proposal to
address potential short-term impacts.
Conclusions and Recommendations
• Based on the current R3 zoning designation,the study site would be expected to generate 113 daily trips,
which includes 11 during the p.m.peak hour.
�
Mr.Dan Thomas Page 4 November 16,2016
* With the proposed rezoning to C1,the site could generate as many as 1,351 daily trips,including 126 trips
during the p.m.peak hour,if developed with a pharmacy. The net increase compared to what is currently
anticipated would be 1,238 daily trips(115 p.m.peak hour trips).
• If developed with an Office use the study site would be expeded to generate 165 daily trips,with 22 during
the p.m.peak hour. This would result in a net increase of 52 daily trips and 11 p.m.peak hour trips compared
to the projected trip generation under the site's existing zoning.
• Under projected the cumulative conditions which include the Ukiah Raiiroad depot project and the
recommended widening at the East Perkins Street/Orchards Avenue intersection, it is anticipated that
acceptable operation would be maintained, even upon adding trips associated with the highest trip
generator,which is a pharmacy. It is therefore concluded that deve�opment of the parcel with any of the C1
land uses listed in this report would cause a less-than-significant impact as the intersection would continue
to operate acceptably under the City standards.
■ If the rezoning is approved,a more detailed traffic study should be conduded at such time as there is a specific
project proposal to identify any potential near-term impacts.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to provide these services.
Sincerely,
� . �QROFESS/p�,l
���^� . � y����� J Wy��lFyc
Briana Byrne,EIT ,,",, Q n m
Assistant Engineer °C ° TR001552 � �
* *
� `�'q �'AFF�� ���'
Dalene 1.Whitl c PE,
PTOE �� CAI�F��
Principal
DJW/bkb/UKI074.Lt
Enclosures: List of Allowed and Permitted Land Uses
Level of Service Calculations
§9081 ALLOW�D USES
The following uses are allowed in the Community Commercial(C-1)Zoning District:
Accessory uses to any of the uses allowed in this District.
Community care facility which provides service for six(6)or fewer persons,with the residents and operators of the
facility being considered a family.
Condominiums.
Hotels,motels,and bed and breakfast establishments.
Personal improvement and personal service establishments.
Places of religious worship,assembly or instruction.
Professional offices and banks.
Public or private schools.
Restaurants.
Retail stores.
Second dwelling units as allowed in the R-1 districts in section 9016 of this chapter.
Small family child daycare home,which provides care for eight(8)or fewer children,including children under the
age of ten(10)years who reside at the home.
Small homeless facilities, pursuant to section 9171 of this chapter. (Ord. 1006, §1,adopted 1998;Ord. 1047, §1,
adopted 2003)
§9082 PERMITTED USES
The following uses require approval of a use permit pursuant to the provisions contained in section 9262 of this
chapter:
Auto repair shop,auto body and painting shop,car wash,auto service(gas)station,and new and used car sales.
Bar,dance hall,live entertainment establishment and nightclub.
Billiard parlor,amusement arcade,and bowling alley.
Cabinet shop.
Community care facility for more than six(6)persons,but not more than twelve(12)persons.
Large family child daycare home for a minimum of seven(7)to fourteen(14)children inclusive,including children
under the age of ten(10)years who reside at the home.
Large homeless facility,pursuant to section 9171 of this chapter.
Machine shop.
Mini/convenience storage.
Mixed residential and commercial land uses on one parcel provided they are found to be compatible.
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary PM Cumulative Project plus Improvements
7: S. Orchard Ave. & E. Perkins St. �0����2o�s
� � � � ~ t �1 I l� � t �
�BL - �B' V.W W T NB B SB'L SB �B
Lane Configurations � �'� � �� � � '� � �j '� �
Volume(vehlh) 99 640 83 58 437 339 117 227 143 398 218 73
Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-BikeAd}(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1,00 0,97 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj Sat Flow,vehlhlln 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863
Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 100 646 84 59 441 342 118 229 144 402 220 74
Adj No.of Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Peak Hour Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap,vehm 140 773 100 98 786 341 149 517 431 433 814 689
Arrive On Green 0.08 0.25 0.25 0.07 0.30 0.30 0.08 0.28 0.28 0,24 0,44 0.44
SatFlow,veh/h 1774 3148 409 1774 3539 1535 1774 1863 1553 1774 1863 1577
Grp Volume(v),vehlh 100 363 367 59 441 342 118 229 144 402 220 74
Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhlln 1774 1770 1787 1774 1770 1535 1774 1863 1553 1774 1863 1577
Q Serve(g_s),s 5.0 17.5 17.6 2.9 9.5 20.0 5.9 9.1 6.6 19.9 6.8 2.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 5.0 17.5 17.6 2.9 9.5 20.0 5.9 9.1 6�6 19,9 6.8 2.5
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.23 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 140 435 439 98 786 341 149 517 431 433 814 689
VIC Ratio(X) 0.72 0,83 0.84 0.60 0.56 1.00 0.79 0.44 0.33 0.93 0.27 0.11
Avail Cap(c_a),vehlh 315 435 439 315 786 341 256 517 431 434 814 689
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.66 0,66 0.66 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Defay(d),slveh 40.5 32.2 32.2 40.7 28.0 31.7 40.4 26.8 25.9 33.3 16.2 15.0
Incr Delay(d2),slveh 6.7 13.1 13.2 3.8 0.6 40.1 9.0 2.7 2.1 26.4 0.8 0.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),slveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
°�ile BackOfQ(50°k),veh/ln 2.7 10.2 10.3 1.5 4.7 12.2 3.3 5.1 3.1 12.9 3.7 1.1
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 47.1 45.3 45.4 44.6 28.6 71.8 49.4 29.5 28.0 59.7 17.0 '�5.3
LnGrp LOS D D D D C F D C C E B B
Approach Vol,vehlh 830 842 491 696
Approach Delay,slveh 45.6 47.3 33.9 41.5
Approach LOS D D C D
Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 25.9 29.0 9.0 26.1 11.6 43.3 11.1 24.0
Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 22.0 16.0 16.0 20.0 13.0 25.0 16.0 20.0
Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 21.9 11.1 4.9 19.6 7.9 8.8 7.0 22.0
Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 1.6 0.1 0.3 0.1 3.1 0.1 0.0
t ,
HCM 2010 Ctii Delay 43.1
HCM 2010 LOS Q
10/11I2016 Baseline Synchro 8 Repo�t
Page 1
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary PM Cumulative Project plus Improvements
7: S. Orchard Ave. & E. Perkins St. �0���12o�s
� -► � � ~ � � T � � 1 �
Lane Configurations � �'� � �� � � � �► � � �
Volume(veh/h) 98 640 83 58 437 338 117 226 143 404 222 75
Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj Sat Flow,vehlhlln 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863
Adj Flow Rate,vehm 99 646 84 59 441 341 118 228 144 408 224 76
Adj No.of Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Peak Hour Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap,veh/h 139 772 100 98 786 341 149 517 431 434 815 690
Arrive On Green 0.08 0.25 0.25 0.07 0.30 0.30 0.08 0.28 0.28 0.24 0.44 0.44
Sat Flow,vehlh 1774 3148 409 1774 3539 1535 1774 1863 1553 1774 1863 1577
Grp Volume(v),vehlh 99 363 367 59 441 341 118 228 144 408 224 76
Grp Sat Flow(s),vehmAn 1774 1770 1787 1774 1770 1535 1774 1863 1553 1774 1863 1577
Q Serve(g_s),s 4.9 17.5 17.6 2.9 9.5 20.0 5.9 9.1 6.6 20.3 6.9 2.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 4.9 17,5 17.6 2,9 9.5 20,0 5.9 9.1 6.6 20.3 6.9 2.6
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.23 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 139 434 438 98 786 341 149 517 431 434 815 690
VIC Ratio(X) 0.71 0.84 0.84 0.60 0.56 1.00 0.79 0.44 0.33 0.94 0.27 0.11
Avail Cap(c_a),vehm 315 434 438 315 786 341 256 517 431 434 815 690
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.66 0.66 0.66 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 40.5 32.3 32.3 40.7 28.0 31.7 40.4 26.8 25.9 33.4 16.2 14.9
Incr Delay(d2),slveh 6.6 13.3 13.4 3.8 0,6 39.4 9.0 2.7 2.1 28.8 0.8 0.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
°r6ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.6 10.2 10.3 1.5 4.7 12.1 3.3 5.1 3.1 13,4 3.7 1.2
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 47.1 45.6 45.7 44.6 28.6 71.0 49.4 29.5 28.0 62.1 17.0 15.3
LnGrp LOS D D D D C E D C C E B B
Approach Vol,vehlh 829 841 490 708
Approach Delay,slveh 45.8 46.9 33.9 42,8
Approach LOS D D C D
Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Dura6on(G+Y+Rc),s 26.0 29.0 9.0 26.1 11.6 43.4 11.0 24,0
Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 22.0 16.0 16.0 20.0 13.0 25.0 16,0 20.0
Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 22.3 11.1 4.9 19.6 7.9 8.9 6.9 22.0
Green Ext Time(p c),s 0.0 1,6 0.1 0.3 0.1 3.1 0.1 0.0
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 43.4
HCM 2010 LOS D
10/1112016 Baseline-General Office Building Synchro 8 Repo�t
Page 1
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary PM Cumulative Project plus Improvements
7: S. Orchard Ave. & E. Perkins St. 10111/2016
-� � � � '- �- � f r� �► 1 �
-B B wa B s
Lane Configurations � �'� � '�'� � � '� � � '� �
Volume(vehlh) 105 640 83 58 437 363 117 241' 143 424 234 80
Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1,00 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj Sat Flow,veh�hlln 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863
Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 106 646 84 59 441 367 118 243 144 428 236 81
Adj No.of Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Peak Hour Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
Percent Heavy Veh,°Ia 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap,vehlh 146 784 102 98 786 341 149 509 425 434 808 684
Arnve On Green 0.08 0.25 0.25 0.07 0.30 0.30 0.08 0.27 0.27 0.24 0.43 0.43
SatFlow,vehlh 1774 3148 409 1774 3539 1535 1774 1863 1553 1774 1863 1577
Grp Volume(v),veh�h 106 363 367 59 441 367 118 243 144 428 236 81
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 1770 1787 1774 1770 1535 1774 1863 1553 1774 1863 1577
Q Serve(g_s),s 5.2 17.4 17.5 2.9 9.5 20.0 5.9 9.8 6.7 21.6 7.4 2.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 5.2 17.4 17.5 2.9 9.5 20.0 5.9 9.8 6.7 21.6 7.4 2.8
Prop In Lane 1.00 023 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 146 441 445 98 786 341 149 509 425 434 808 684
V/C Ratio(X) 0.73 0.82 0.83 0.60 0.56 1.08 0.79 0.48 0.34 0.99 0.29 0.12
Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 315 441 445 315 786 341 256 509 425 434 808 684
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.66 0.66 0.66 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 40.3 31.9 31.9 40.7 28.0 31.7 40.4 27.3 26.2 33.9 16.5 15.2
Incr Delay(d2),slveh 6.7 11.9 12.0 3.8 0.6 61.4 9.0 3.2 2.2 39.7 0.9 0.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
°�ile BackOfQ(50°�),veh/ln 2.8 9.9 10.1 1.5 4.7 14.2 3.3 5.5 3.1 15.4 4.0 1.3
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 47.1 43.8 43.9 44.6 28.6 93.1 49.4 30.5 28.3 73.5 17.4 15.6
LnGrp LOS D D D D C F D C C E B B
Approach Vol,vehlh 836 867 505 745
Approach Delay,s/veh 44.3 57.0 34.3 49.5
Approach LOS D E C D
Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 26.0 28.6 9.0 26.4 11.6 43.0 11.4 24.0
Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 22.0 16.0 16.0 20.0 13.0 25.0 16.0 20.0
Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 23.6 11.8 4.9 19.5 7.9 9.4 7.2 22.0
Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0,0 1.5 0.1 0.4 0.1 3.3 0.1 0.0
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 47.6
HCM 2010 LOS D
10111/2016 Pharmacy-High Side Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
1 ATTACHMENT 3
2
3 ORDINANCE NO.
4 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH AMENDING THE OFFICIAL
5 ZONING MAP FOR THE CITY OF UKIAH, CALIFORNIA AND
6 ESTABLISHING THE COMMERCIAL ZONING (C1)
7 AT 350 N. ORCHARD AVE.
8
9 The City Council of the City of Ukiah does hereby ordain as follows:
10
11 SECTION ONE-FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS
12
13 1. The proposed Zoning Ordinance text and map amendment are consistent with the findings
14 required for adoption of an ordinance to approve a zoning ordinance amendment as required by
15 zoning ordinance section 9265.
16
17 2. General Plan: The Project is consistent with General Plan because it implements General Plan,
18 Goal ED-1, Policy ED 1.1 and Goal GP-2.
19
20 3. The City of Ukiah as lead agency has prepared an Initial Environmental Study and a Mitigated
21 Negative Declaration dated December 19, 2016, to evaluate the potential environmental
22 impacts of the Zoning Ordinance map amendment.
23
24 4. The proposed project has been reviewed according to the standards and requirements of the
25 California Environmental Quality Act(CEAQ) and an Initial Study Environmental Evaluation
26 Checklist has been prepared for the proposed project.The Initial Study has determined that
27 although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there will not
28 be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed
29 to by the project proponent.
30
31 5. On the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing and after receiving public
32 testimony and conducting due deliberations, voted to: adopt the Mitigated Negative
33 Declaration for Zoning Map Amendment.
34
35 6. Notice of the Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration and notice of the rezoning was provided in
36 the following manner:
37
38 ■ posted at the County Clerk on December 16, 2016
39 ■ mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the parcels included in the Project December
40 16, 2016
41 ■ published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on December 18, 2016
42 ■ posted at the Civic Center(glass case) on December 16, 2016
43 ■ posted on the City's Web site December 16, 2016
44
45
1 Pursuant to the procedures set forth in Ukiah City Code Section 9009, the Official Zoning Map for the
2 City of Ukiah is amended to change the landuse designation of 350 N. Orchard Avenue, APN 002-370-
3 270 from High Density Residential (R3)to Commercial (C1).
4
5 Section Two
6 Pursuant to the procedures set forth in Ukiah City Code Section 9009, the Official Zoning Ordinance for
7 the City of Ukiah is amended to change the landuse designation of 350 N. Orchard Avenue, APN 002-
8 370-270 from High Density Residential (R3)to Commercial (C1).
9
10 Section Three
11 This amendment will result in a more appropriate land use designation given and surrounding uses.
12
13 Section Four
14 The Planning Commission held a public workshop to provide direction on the location of the proposed
15 zoning map amendment on January 11, 2017. The Planning Commission voted to recommend the City
16 Council approve the Zoning Map Amendment.
17
18 Section Five
19 This ordinance shall be published as required by law in a newspaper of general circulation.
20
21 Section Six
22 This ordinance shall become effective thirty(30) days after adoption.
23
24 Introduced by title only on XX by the following roll call vote:
25
26
27 AYES:
28 NOS:
29 ABSENT:
30 ABSTAIN:
31
32 Passed and adopted on by the following vote:
33
34 AYES:
35 NOS:
36 ABSENT:
37 ABSTAIN:
38
39 Jim Brown, Mayor
40
41
42 ATTEST:
43
44
45 Kristine Lawler, City Clerk
46
47
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
ATTACHMENT 4
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO
THE UKIAH GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP 350 NORTH ORCHARD AVE. APN 002-370-270
WHEREAS, the City adopted its current General Plan, including land use maps for the City in
December, 1995; and
WHEREAS, Dan Thomas (owner) has applied for a General Plan Amendment to change the land
use designation on APN 002-370-270 from High Density Residential ("HDR") to Commercial ("C1") to
facilitate a more appropriate land use designation given and surrounding uses; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is deemed to be in the public interest because it could
facilitate infill development in proximity to established neighborhoods, foster economic development,
and reduce needless vehicle trips as called for in the Ukiah General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the other goals and
policies of the General Plan, particularly the Economic Development which identifies support for the
local economy as a strong need in the community; and
WHEREAS, the potential impacts of the proposed amendment have been assessed and have
been determined not to be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare because after
mitigation it would not create impacts to the neighborhood, nor would it be out of character in terms of
use and design because other commercial developments are in the area, and the design would be
similar to the adjacent commercial uses; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment has been processed in accordance with the applicable
provisions of the California Government Code and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An
Initial Study was prepared and demonstrated that there is no substantial evidence that supports a fair
argument that the project, as mitigated, would have a significant effect on the environment. The Initial
Study and the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration were publicly notices as
required. The amendment has been processed as required by the California Government including the
requirement to provide public notice of the project and public hearing.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearings to consider the General
Plan Amendment and after receiving testimony, considering the staff report, and due deliberation, the
Planning Commission formulated a recommendation to the City Council to adopt the Resolution
amending the General Plan;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that:
1. The City Council hereby approves the Mitigated Negative Declaration and General Plan
Amendment to change the land use designation on APN 002-370-270 from Commercial High
Density Residential ("HRD"),to Commercial ("C1").
1
Resolution No.
General Plan Thomas Rezoning
PASSED AND ADOPTED on 2017 by the following Roll Call Vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Abstain:
Absent:
Jim Brown, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kristine Lawler, City Clerk
Attachment: Project Plans
2
Resolution No.
General Plan Thomas Rezoning
3
Resolution No.
General Plan Thomas Rezoning
: , � �:
r '
c
G'� �� a�
300 S VE., UKIAH, CA 95482-5400
• ADMIN. 707/463-6200 • PUBUC SAFEfY 463-6242/6274 •
• fAX Jt 707/463-6204 •
December 12, 1996
Mr. Daniel C. Thomas
Pear Orchard Associates
P.O. Box 748
Ukiah, CA 95482
Re: Properties at 577 and 565 Clara Avenue
Dear Dan:
Please be reminded that the parcel located at the southwest corner of Orchard and
Clara Avenues, and shown on the KMart site plan as "Pad A", is zoned for residential
use, and is not a component of the KMart Use Permit. Indeed, this parcel was originally
zoned R-2 (medium density residential), and was recently rezoned to R-3 (high density
residential) as part of the City-wide Rezoning Program associated with implementation
of the Ukiah Valley General Plan. Accordingly, while it continues to be depicted as a
component of the KMart commercial site, the property actually is not zoned or classified
for any use other than residential, nor does it possess any commercial relationship to
the KMart land use entitlements.
The parking area shown to the west of"Pad A" along Clara Avenue is also in the R-3
zone, although City Code §9176 B allows parking lots by Use Permit in any R-1, R-2, or
R-3 zone which is adjacent to a commercial zone. The locational parameters of the
subject site apply, and it is my understanding that the KMart Use Permit encompassed
the parking areas west of"Pad A." Thus, the parking lot area in the R-3 zone is
acceptable, although, as previously stated, the "Pad A" area cannot be considered
developable as a commercial site at this time. Some limited commercial-type uses are
allowed in the R-3 zone with the approval of a Use Permit, although restaurants and
typical commercial retail uses are not among the list of such uses. (I have included a
copy of the R-3 zone provisions so that you may better understand the limits of the use
and development potential of the subject site.)
Commercial development of the "Pad A" site (other than certain non-retail and office
� uses) will require a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and a rezone to accomplish.
"We Are Here To Serve" �
. ; � , f �
GPA's and rezones require Planning Commission review and City Council approval,
and would be initiated and sponsored by private application. If Council approved a
commercial designation and commercial zone, then the site could accommodate a
commercial use such as a restaurant, although a Site Development Permit approval by
the Planning Commission would also be required. Please bear in mind, however, that
the new General Plan has only been adopted for about a year, and the willingness of
the City Council to amend it so soon after its adoption may be questionable.
This courtesy letter is only intended to remind you of the restrictions associated with the
subject corner lot ("Pad A"), in light of its past and current zoning, and in light of the
KMart site plan showing it as a probable commercial rather than residential site. I
simply did not want there to be any misunderstandings as you set about committing the
westerly parcel to shared parking with KMart. Indeed, the "Pad A" configuration and lot
area, along with the shared parking to the west, would seem to severely constrain the
corner lot's development potential if some use other than a restaurant or small
commercial retail use is required, as a function of the existing and underlying zoning. I
have also included an excerpt from the pending Parcel Map (where "Pad A" is
encompassed by newly created "Parcel B") which would create the overall development
boundaries of the subject area, which, as stated, is now in the R-3 zone. In any case,
the decision is yours to make, and I just wanted to make sure you had the relevant facts
as I glean them from reviewing the file and the zoning code, and from consulting with
the prior project manager for the KMart project (Mike Harris).
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need additional information, or if you have
questions pertaining to the contents of this letter.
Sincerely,
-
Robert Sawyer
Planning Director
Attachments: Site Plan Excerpt ("Pad A")
R-3 Zone Provisions
c: Candace Horsley, City Manager
Rick Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Dave Lohse, Associate Planner
�
� 16 LF. x 4'-0° PRECAST �
. . . Cpt�'"�E7E FENCE
, ( � � . � .
� . : . .' t
� t
• �
. • �
. '. � 20' � {..
' �-. N0�
: �. x 6 HiGH P ECAST. �G : - � ._ �;�� '
� ' � � 119 . . . � � . . � - '- .
_ C C , . i' �
' , ' ' �
.. . . . . , . :i
•• �
- • • y
C . , C C ?+i ,
. C. C • �.
_ . � • �
— • C
_ . • �
� . :
_ . C C • . . � . � _ .
_ : � � . . .
— c C � . • .
� . ■ • , . . : �
C � � '
— � � C � ,
_ ,,'��:- '
• C C .' � - `�
C , : " . , pVp
_ C C � � ' .
— • l� . �
C C p ' . . � .- �
_ �I ' .
_ , � � �
� �
� � � � . g
� � PAD � 'A' - L. .�o
. . _ � 4,�80� � s.f. _� ^ .. ;. .
I � . � �� � t . g
1 � . .
� �s � . . � . .
,
i
- ..W_ - _ -- ----_ ._� _ � � . •
.._��^- _ __-�"�_._..._� \ IY01�.3'S4"f-- ---�LS.r! , +���
- -- _ __.. -- _ - . ... __...4 ,�� � - --- . . _ -- ` __._
- -- �. _ .___._�ls�� __������.1'.
. : : �- �C��c p� ; N1»a� ���D iv� s� a n� �
.. � Ar��� c,�T��+� � �4-Ig
����T►►�� � ���� � �
+
_
E i� �
, P�o�'�'p,���• ��, ' ..•
" ••• _ _ _ _ 220 '-,� - I
� I �
. �--- � I I
4 � r) rr' � I � � �
� J�� f�J r- r� �PROPOSED I �-�i I
� ,. �.� �� "I PA D � � ��'�
g �m qRCEL B I i �
�; � 1 P o. �a A.�. � � � I � �::
� � 29, 7�B S•F ± �,----� I I
� I
�
� 2/0't N 69°44'S/•• {N I
� �� ��
� I
I I
� �
� I
�� �- � � I
� ►, � �,��r I � i
�
I ' � ,
I �
� � � � ;
► ,�r.% ` � ` � `
7 � � � � � �a
� �
N
I � , W
I i3 �
,� I I � W
a . � ,
� Q
I� o �I�
� � ��
�
_ ��(� ��1�_�i�' •„ . I
� / 1
I ��i�-t��� �� � _ � / �
� '�_— -- __.--_ _. '� — �, �
�-------- --- --� , i ,
� � • � C i
§9045 §9046
CHAPTER 2 � }
ZONING
ARTICLE 5. REGULATIONS IN GENERAL
MULTIPLE-RESIDENTIAL (R-3) DISTRICTS
SECTION:
§9045: General Multiple-Residential or R-3 Districts
§9046: Uses Allowed
§9047: Uses Permitted Subject to First Securing e Use Permit
§9048: Building Height Limits
§9049: Bu(Iding Site Area Requfred
§9050: Front Setback Lines; Reduction in Partially Developed Areas
§9051: Yards Required
§9052: Parking Requ(red
§9053: Add(tional Requ(rements � __
.}
§9045: GENERAL MULTIPLE-RESIDENTIAL OR R-3 DISTRICTS: The regulat(ons
contafned in this Article shall apply in all General Multiple-Res(dential (R-3)
Districts and shall be subject to the provisions of Article 16 of this Chapter. The
purpose of thls Section (s to (mplement the General Plan policies for h(gh density
residential areas as a transit(on zone between residential and commerclal with the
emphasis upon resldential uses. (Ord. 793� §2, adopted 1982)
§9046: USES ALLO�VED: The followfng uses are allowed in General Multiple-
Residential (R-3) Districts:
All uses allowed or perm(tted in any R-1 or R-2 District except dwelling groups and
rest homes. (Ord. 793, §2, edopted 1982)
i
:�
9062
. • ' � �
§9047 §9049
,..
§9047: USES PERMITTED SUBJECT TO FTRST SECURING A USE PERMIT: The
following uses may be permitted in General Multfple-Residential (R-3)
Districts subject to f(rst securing a use pe�m(t, as prov(ded in this Chapter� in each
case:
A. Dwelling groups. '
B. Moblle home parks.
C. Profess(onal ofiices.
D. Rest homes, hospitals, pharmacies.
E. Hotels, mortuaries, motels.
F. Florist.
G. 'Mom and Pop" convenience grocery stores.
H. Nursery schools.
I. Bed and breakfast establishments.
J. Barber shops, beauty shops. (Ord. 793, §2, edopted 1982; amd. by Ord. 817�
§1, adopted 1983; Ord. 827, §1, adopted 1984)
§9048: BLTILDING HEIGHT LIMITS: The followfng shall be maximum Ilmits for
heights of bu(Idings in General Multiple-Residential (R-3) Districts:
A. For main buildings a maximum hei�ht of forty feet (40')� unless abuttin8 an R-1
or R-2 lot In which case a maximum height of thlrty feet (30').
B. For accessory build(ngs a maxlmum heiDht of thirty feet (30'), or the max(mum
height of the main bu(Id(ng, whichever fs less. (Ord. 793, §2, adopted 1982)
§9049: BUILDING SITE AREA REQUIRED: In Qeneral Multiple-Residentfal (R-3)
Districts the building site erea required shall be as follows:
A. For each building or group of buildings a minimum building site area of six
thousand (6�000) square feet with a minimum width of s(nty feet (60') on interior
lots; a minimum oi seven thousand (7�000) square feet with a minimum width of
seventy feet (70') on corner lots.
9083 �
r�
, � , �. �:
§9049 §9051
w)
)
B. For each family unit intended to occupy any bullding or group of bulldings on
such building site area there shall be at least one thousand flve hundred (1,500)
square feet of site area.
C. For each mobile home park a mfnimum of two (2j acre&. (Ord. 793, §2� adopted
1982)
§9050: FRONT SETBACK LINES; REDUCTION IN PARTIALLY DEVELOPED
AREAS: Except as othervvtse provided in this Chapter� in General
Multiple-Residential (R-3) Districts no bu(Iding construction shall be permftted or
allowed at any distance closer to the street right-of-way Ilne along any adjacent street
than the following:
A. On interior lots the front setback line shall be a mintmum oi ten feet (10')
measured from the street rlght-of-way Iine fronting such lot, except in cases
where fifty percent (50%) ot one side of the block is elready built out the
average setbacks shall appiy. Garages and carports perpendicular to the street
shall be set back twenty feet (20'). Two (2) story structures shall be a minimum
of fifteen teet (15') measured from the street �ight-ot-way Ilne front(ng such lot.
8. On corner lots there shall be a front setback Nne on each street side of a
corner lot. The front setback Ilnes shall be a minimum of ten feet (10') .f
measured from the street �ight-of-way Iines fronUng such lot. (Ord. 793, §2, y
adopted 1982)
§9051: YARDS REQUIRED: In General Multiple-Residential (R-3) Districts the
yards shall be requtred in the following min(mum widths:
A. Front yards: The minimum depth required shall be the area included within the
front setback ereas as defined by §9050 hereof.
B. Side yards: The width required shall be a minimum requirement of flve feet (5'),
except as provided for in §9032E.
C. Rear yards: The minimum depth shali be ten feet (10').
D. Special yards and distances between butldings: Minimum widths shali be as
iollows: �
1. The distance between any bulidings in any dweliing group shall be a
minimum of ten feet (10').
-- �
]
9084
" ' . {
�9051 �9053
xY" D) 2. Slde yard provldin� access to slnDle row dwellinp proup shall have e
minfmum width of twenty feet (20').
3. Inner court providinp eccess to double row dweilinp qroup shall have a
min(mum width oi twenty feet (20'). (Ord. 793� §2� edopted 1982)
�9052: PARKING REQUIRED: The min(mum park(nD erea requlred in Qeneral
Multiple-Residentlal (R-3) Distrlcts shall be that determ(ned by Sect(on 9198.
(Ord. 793, §2, adopted 1982)
§9053: ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS:
A. All new construct(on, exterior modificat(ons to existing bu(Idings or on-site work
shall require a site development permit pursuent to Sect(on 9208.
8. There shall be provided on-slte a minimum covered store�e area of forty (40)
square feet for each dwelling unit. (Ord. 793� §2� adopted 1982)
.
- toro�
9085 �
r+
Cathy Elawadly
From: Ann Kelly<aakelly@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2016 2:25 PM
To: Kevin Thompson
Subject: Re: Rezoning at Home Depot
Hello Kevin,
Thank you for reaching out to us. I
did read the notice posted on the corner.
We had an impromptu neighborhood meeting
last night, and as far as our group goes, we
have no opposition to the re-zoning. It makes
sense to zone it commercial. I doubt if
we will come to the meeting. If you need
something from us, let me know.
I still owe you some minutes about the
groups' park site preference.
Have a wonderful New Year!
With All Best Wishes
Ann
Wagenseller Neighborhood Association
468-0901
From: Kevin Thompson <kthompsonCa�citvofukiah.com>
To: "aakellvCa)sbcqlobal.neY'<aakellvCa�sbcqlobal.net>
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2016 2:49 PM
Subject: Rezoning at Home Depot
Hi Ann,
I wanted to let you know that the rezoning of that parcel in the Home Depot is proceeding on Jan 11 tn
at the Planning Commission, it will have to go to the Council after that.
See the attached for more info, more to come later. I'll keep you informed.
Thanks,
Kevin
Kevin Thompson
Interim Planning and Community Development Director
City of Ukiah
Ph: (707) 463-6207
Fax: (707) 463-6204
x
300 Seminary Ave.
Ukiah Ca. 95482-5400
http://www.citvofukiah.com
z
� .
� �
� � �
= m ,
,
� • -
.... -
GREEN�BERG FARRQW
.
. , ; .
. . . .
�
15101 RED.HILL AVE. SUITE 2QQ l'USTIN, CA 92780
VOICE.-714L?59.Q500 FAX 714/259.5480
.
_.
LOCA-TION MAP : G l�-IVIART
� -
EXIS
_ ,
:
.. T/N . ; SUMMARY
: ; . _
_ : . . , .:
:
.
, . , ,
; :
,,
� � �
,; . ' :S/TE.4REA
. . , -: ..
: :,_
, _ . . - _ :.
:
, .. , _ -
: CLARA AVENU., : : K MART PARCEL AREA: t�1 p:
-- :_
, _.,. . . . _ :
,.: .
� : - - ;,.
:
q.. . ,. ,. ,
_ - ,.;. . .
- ; _ . . , , :, t0.68 ACRES
_ T.
E - .
U --
_ . _ �
vEN ;
A -
_
N85'48'40_E - `
�ARA - : .
z
C -_ . _ _ - . . , . , .........--� A: 10.91 ACRES
_. - ..... .. is.o1. ` p �� TOTAL PARCEL 'ARE f .
� _ . --- ... . -.-�. .... J z
. ...... . . ,..
_ - , ........ ... .. _..: _ �,
....
.....
... .....
______ - . . _ . . � ... �. -
_ ......... , . , , � : SITE C4VERAGE: 26.14%11 386 F
_ - .... .... ............. �ws .., _.. .,. _ _ > � .
;. .: .
_ _ . �
_ R O:W. , ;.: . . .. . . . 200.50 N4T 12 27'W °•: 30':. :
6 0 _ _ : .,.-.-:-- ___ _ � � -�
..
. _ __
� iA�
_ _ - C � _ , ,3.sa� B.UILD/ .N.G AREA
, _s�.57- ': �: '"�
� , ..
; . - , ,
; ,.
_ ', 0
� ,. _ . t , ,, � FA:CEL B . ` : , ; .:. ,.. .. .' . ' � - - .
. . . . :,, : .:. , . . �;;. , ,. : _ .
,. , , PARCEC MAP.0. MINOR;SUBDMSION , : :. : . . OSP�TAL%D : Q ; ': K , MART.': 92�4S.O SF
o N85 48 40 E , �. r.
� 20.00' : �'! : _ 7YR -i8. . __,. . .. , , _
- AUTO CENTER : 4 750 ;SF
,. . $ �; � G2 064. RGS.99-102 ' . 3 , :� +.
... ..
, : .
, ,
I � INDOOR GARDEN CENTER: 4,675 SF
, � -- � --.____ ,:�
��r - ? _
f _� : , � : , `'. :�s
� �-M � TOTAL COVERED:
.
�1 �--, : � . : �- , " _ � � � 101 101,905 .SF
; `': ti ' � � wAY I° MEZZANINE: 5,545 SF
J;t I`: ; o � l �-
I t ' . . . -�� : �.�,' � � . .�ONE � � � . I'� �'.
^ _ T ARDEN CENTER: 9�033
OU.TD
.�A� 2 �. ,. �"M�. . . . ;. .
■
: I ____._
, ' .: T PER�11�S
,
, _ _
; j ` :• � ; �------ � s '~ I� .N ~ : EAS _ gF TOTAL: 1 g,4
.
. I .
. . �
K .
: MART
. L, _� �` �o N�;: ."� .Z -� I ' � � : .. ,:: PARK/NG C.O. UNT SUM ARY _1.
, ,
�------- � . �� : . : � . .
83 SF
�,� � ,. . 6 :. � _
M
�. •� . I ,
�� �.r a: . :. : _
. :
_...;
, _
z.,� I I, : : ' . i' . - : KE MART �81 2 0 RATIO.. . : ,
r----
`-.�' �� : ' , . yj���. � , : Includin GARDEN CENTER 4fi6 SPACES
� N �� s i � ■ . i = : {
� �� �� . . . i..i � WW � s. �r° . ' _ �
:
' a� o . h I ... _ -0.0 ,
.. . . .
9:
:. ; . -
. .. .
, �. .
i - --=�= ,
... � _
Z :, ti . ;- � .; . , ,. : � ..... .._ _ ° ...4 .... - : . , :: � EXISTING PARKING PROYIDED:
� �.� . ...,-2 : ': .����-...����.� �L .�,�� ."TG. . . . - �����.�0 -
� __- ; , -�- �� _ :TE.
� � , , _ „- ,
, ..
, ; ..
. i ; . , � � � y ,. t••::ao.��` � t(�
?
� . . : , I :; : � ' __��--_,� � � . .� ' ' ; ° ` `,. , , :MART;
� ' ' . �
� i �snNC sMU.ww.i E F. ,. t � .. I, PACES
�----� . � _. ( � , ! L_ oc :: : ... - .. _ _ . _
1.. ;A L EXI$TING LANDSCAPE .T0 REMAIN.
--- � � ` ;. E -.:: . _.._ _ �� . ,: � . • :COMPA T P � •
. 1 , i 9TYP.
. .
S _
.
......................... � , ,
. �
..... .. �� i
, ,.
. I �
I
. .
� .......................... : _
C R.
� .. �
............................ _ :
_ .��s ,. ;- .- , , _ i 7.6 9a. �
, - ----- -
. . -
, ............... ,,,�.. G�n.,,r -- -- - - --
� _____ ...........:................. . �a� . _ . . _- �NOTE• �EXI TI
: • �_� �_�_. � ,__._� � ~�. l i.
1 c ...__ • ....................................... .___.__- S._._ f/ . , '
� .
_ -
,i
88 P
. . ..... . ,. -- .
o . ...� � ,
, :S AC
.o . � �W�_...� _--.-_- - � •-
. o . ,� _ ,.. , _�__-- .. . -- _ _ _ ,_ : ... '.. ,.
• . � � .... .. 8 30 E 52 r
. -, .... 54 ..�..��e..�.�,..,w . _
I . ..... Ns E
. ..... ..� ._.��k -____--- _. _...,,.. . . , ,. . - - .- .-_ � G. '4 .E
.
.... . .
�
: � ....!............ -. .,,a...�..,..,.,.� _._ �.----- _ _ J.
...... _._
..... r� ..._ �-- .,, _ __�___:_. , , ? - -__ ; . 9 X •20 STN
. . __� :
. . i___.__ ........................ � AQ� - - -
. . ............ .� �_--_k���a�� ---- - -
. ,:.,. ..___ ; , �;�, ALLS / I24 AIS
� - �3 BAY
. ............... ... . �....... ---- t
:.
. . � ............ . -� , _------- .,:.. : ., ,. _ -- - , : - ; �
�t
. . ............... �_
�.....�. . � .
... �, -----
N85 30"E . . ..................... . �� ��_� _ . _
....... ���..�._ ---- ... ... ... ,..,. . _ _ _:
. . ............. _........ - - --
� • ..:;
_
S
LES
, .. _....... � -_ . - ---
, . .�---r-��. _--__�-- ,,__ _ �' -
� .._� . . ...�.._� �,, .. -
�____ . . �.. ------
.... ,_:.... _ . �--_-_-_-.------�--�-- ,� . ;,. , ... . : . ;: :�, ._ :, t ? `; K _MART FR.ONT FIELD PARKI .
.4s . �...,..�.��....... -�_-------- ,. . ; ,.. � . _ _ :� ,. G.. 435 SPACES
, J ��-- _
: ...._...._„_.,W
..
N
� _ . , :
. ,_�� ----. -. .. _ _ ,; . . _ �p
, � _ �,s�+a�r <. :. . , __ � ' 8 :., �____ . ;: ' K, MART RATIO P ` ,; ,.
. : . , � -- �a csc �mi.mr. , ..� _ __ � 1 DED. 4:32 1 OQ0
- � � �--. o�tsn : ----- -- --� C; �
. . , /
. . �.
. ... ... . ��-- � �
� �
i � , ___._. --- � �
� ---- ---- � 2�:SUDFE ,
a � , :-_ _ � <.` �.
!�� �
_. � � , . � r
;
_ YI
,....
'. y
- , '
:■ . �.�.
; 9 X2� ' � s
:�
:
,.,. :
° : .
� P
, STALLS WITH 24 AISLE IYP. " '�
� ' ----
_ �� •� _`�_- N i ,
■ ,
D
: _ _
;, .. .
. , ,: ,: _
_ ..
. ... .. ..::, .. .
. _ _
. � � �,- . - ,,,. I �\ ,,,� , , ;
. .
.
. ; ., .. .: 264.67'
�
, �.: ',i ;, ,..... : .-- � . , a::� . _ � 'i r ` 30.'
:. ,
� � `. _ . .`
: � :
� ;' i .„ ELF C011TAfNED i ., � �J . n, . � '' � � ' ' _ . .
_,:: . ,
29� SLOPE • _
i ■ i .. . H:COMPACTOR ` i.. ' � :. � . . b .. a. : i .
SITE,AREA
, � --t . , i. �� TR{�S , _
_ . ; � •
: , �, , :: o� : : � �' ,�;.: . . � • , . ° - 24 1 �; +, LLI � HOME DEPOT PARCEL AREA: t 1
: �' � : � �� � zs.o .
,
�� .
. _ � ! � ► .� _--- - . T
j . .. � , : 0.23 ACRES
. . , .� i ,r-, , -- .; � .; _ : ,.�, . , � . , _.. ,. : ,, . � ; � N0_ A PART:
;I �. r i ,' i i�; i � ., , : � : .. : � .; , ; , , t0.68 ACRES
:: ''� _ � .F"s ! ;I�� ; . '' `:`' `;` �a 4 ,..- C C ; . � � . 5. . . � , � : TOTAL PARCEL AREA: t 10:9:1 `ACRES
.:; . � { .
� � � i �!�.i � � I I � �� �� STiNG tliiLllY EASEMENT �,�, + � I , � � `
- : r
I _ .
�� .I ' � (11�_�1 �� _ `.: .�\.� � ' ..�.�.. , .:...... � A. �-LJ. . . . (25.599a 11,i49 � SF/AC)
� � ' ��� ' � ; NEW PIGK UP � � � �, . � � . ; �, HD SITE COVERAGE
i.� . � � i � '- 1 �� . .; �► � � �,M
. ;� � , c � , 4 � CAN O PY : � � � � , � , � � :: : ; j � ,� � eu�cvinr� aREa
; � � ; �, � n� � � �:
�� c� U i � i � � � .�+ :,0 a \ ' .
4 4 � ' � , ` ,� ,t a � HOME DEPOT; .
� . � • _ � ' '� $ 9i,728 SF
- ; � , � :, . �� _ , � ;,. :. , . , , , ... �' , N I; OUTDOOR GARDEN ,CENTER.
�1 � � 22,322 SF
, ul�N . . I . . . . . - . . _ . . . . . � - � . . .. . ..
� : . . _ . . . . .\ � '\.
�
1 �
; i ; ' 1�\
_
, �6 .: . ' TOTAL HOME DEPOT : � `
a ' 14,050 SF
V �! C C �' �. \� C ,19,3 �._' !
PARCEL 4 �I� � � � � ; ` � F , 9T,�. .. : `. t � ��I ..
�
i � �
UKIAH ADVEMIST HOSPfTAL N� � t z ' , ' .\ ` . . j .
C2 D37 P67 $. C� U. � '" � i --_ 4{ '. � ,.' ' `
. .-
` �
.�� .� ' . ��. ��-. i O
� � � � , , ••r ' PARK/NG COUNT SUMMA. RY
:.: , - ; � :� .
� ..
:: � _ : ,� .
: i . : . : . , . . . , _ zl� �
� .
, � � ,. - : : , : :,,... . , � � N � . � � �
i . � : �,:.
I : _ . . . , ., ... , :: � . _ � .
�
. � . . . .. . . . . , . : _ � �:, , ► ; ,,,, y. ` REQUIRED BY CITY. . .
. . � .�ME D .. . , .
. , . :. C� . _ _ - .. . . _ - � : .c�, :
� . : : : :
: �e �9.� a� ; � THE .
38 . � _ . . , �.l: HD � ` 1/250 RATIO 45
;,. , -. : , . _ , t 6 SPACES
: _ _ ►: .
. i O � , ; _ ., . 1 .
. S F . :_ .- , ; ; ; ; ,. : ' '€ (� .,: � Includin GAR :
i I ,, . _� � ,. g 1 7 2 8 .: ,: . . . : _ . � . : � : . . , , � .:_ .., : � . g DEN CENTER)� �
�' � ;� ; '�� ,. � � d _ c � � � � , >, � ,O i HD PARKING P •
.
: .
: � � � � E. ��_ � HR . , �; �E�.
� � � Rovi
; ; i TYP ,r � �, .,� � -30 J;7_
.., .
. , .... � � . .. ♦•.:- ._� . . .' f.f :. .: ��.j�.
' ' ' . � 'U � �. . . - . . � . ' . . . ' . . .
q ;. , PARCEL A o
_
C T
. � , ,: (EXISTING..) �
41 `_ � . : � : 433 SPACES
US OMER
: � � . G � ,y qnN 2-370-26. � ,,,�: � y , �,. : OVERFLOW� 4
,� :_ ;
. _:.. o S� E � : ; � KMART : BUILDIN , :
: 1998-H ; , EXISTING. . �.:d:
� �
, � � � ��n�N � 6 SPACES
. -�:" + MONU I�NT SIC .;..
�
. , , , �.� F � . . ' � : , :� � � . :: r; TOTAL HD PARKING PROVIDED:
_
�
. 3s j. , ,: � 101 ,9Q5 S a � � _ 479 SPACES
: , a , t . , : , � � -
� _ �
,
; � � , � r ,. �
� i I
�1S , .46FF i :
. ,, . 608 ) � _ .
,. - � ; ,. ,:, , l �` ,:;, R�o COMPACT PROVIDED• g� p
� �� , ,� � . �, � j � � �: S_ ACES (16 9�)
.� ---- _.,.., .
---- � .�,
- --- .....�.. �,- �n . _ _ ao,: ¢,
, __ . • - �
,
I
; �'�...����� . . L---: -1 . M
�........................... : � M a
�ps^E 136;10 ro ; v: C "
; �•....... ,...........N8549 � t. �; � . � C
, , ,
,;
- : C 3, .:.. -,-� _'�-=--------- �- � � � ; �. NOTE: EXISTING PARKING AT 90 DEGREE
- _30AI��
.._.._ �. .. / 1 ,.' l �
.__---_.__ �,., � '''N .�.. � :. 9' X 20' STALLS W 24' AISLES ' �
. � ,t.. �
� .-----�---��.Z--.. _ , ,
. �•_- � _ :_ _._.. � . � ?9 SIARE �, � 2%-SLOFE 2%.SLOBE R� I i • . _ AY �.
:. . _ ,
------ ,...
���
� ==�!�-------- � � " _ HD FR
-
:
.
63 B .
�- �:�.-------�-� ' � � : ONT FIELO PARKING: 414 SPACES
1TA� � _ - -�, ... .�
,
RIUE
�
..
.1''.. HOME DEPOT RATI.O PROVIDED: 4.20 1000
H 0 S P � � N �� � � .- , 30� ( ;
___
�. , � � � � � � � _ . i
. � W : � o �
R0
o � � �
, 6 � � '
: ..... ..... ..:
,
� , ► '; '.
. ....... ................... � � ' - R, ZONINC .0
�
C . .. . . � . _ : � �! I : SSIF../CAT/
. �:.
.
. .
, .
, . . .� _
. _ . -
, N85 49' F: . r � -:-. .. a .: . ... j
O6 E, ;,, ,_ . ,.,.:
, . . .. _ . ._ . _.
� , TRY . ,
, : , N _
. . � E
. . -
5. EW - : ,,
0o N ; -,:, . , . .::;; ;;: ExisT�
, .:.
�: ,
.: ..
. . , .:. TOW
•
; � . ,.
! . :
, ,
; i ,. ,. ;
.
; i� � . �. _ ; :.; , , � ! ; ; . PROPO ED: T_ : N
E CENTER
� I : OWNE CENTER
! ;:; � i�.. ;� : � � i ,
I '` � , , ' SlTE. R :
: : i , ' 'C C 2 �• �` g ,. ._ , :
� E i -
_ 4 . : i : _: .
. EV
'�,�`"'` _ . REVISIONS LOG�SGE�'N S.VMMARYEIVED _
j ;� i . ; i. : � : . � � �
I : � . , ,, 9:x20 STALLS W�H 24 AISLE '1YP- `. ' �' '
t ,. , ,:,_:
F �► :. _ ;... __ . _ , � € , CQNSULTANT, REVISED GARDEN�CENTER SIZE AND REVISED
' _ �. . .. . � _ ;; m ►- ,' „ T0` MEET NEW SITE'DATA
_. �I , : : � � � � , _ . .. � 3 , .I'� ; .� . PACKAGE, URDAl'ED SUMMARY
; i a , v , , , - INFORMATION ACCQ.RDINGLY.
� � '
. _ : 238.67' .-: ` 5.76 . i �
• : ' ` . ., ..... .. _., . :,..; �, : � � :
r
3 i P . :.... _ ,
., ��
' 4 � °
,,.. . .,... .
:.... , .
s _ . . _
� �
• EXISTING 1NOOOR GARDEN. CENTER _ . - v : C. C C . C C � �
,. . a� , � ... E DE4AOUSHED ; , • .. , � �
. . R � ,WALL TO B _ .
}. p � . 0 CENTE
4 ,_ , ;
BTYP TYP..' . I �
I , .
� € : IXIS'i1NG AUT. � � �
r ; EMOLISHED � -;ROOF TO`RENWN .: . . .
` �- , � -: - � ''. , PROJECT NOTES
; e ' � , AI1:To.eE o ... . .
� ROOF 10 R�N ( ` ; 2� SLOPE 2K SIAPE 2X SIAPE �. ,
, � ,�� , - - ' � _„_:_:. ;.. . ., ;.♦ � I 1. THIS CONCEPTUAL SITE PIAN IS_ FOR RLANNING .
� � �u � ._ .. .-��-.-----• . , , ,m,. r�
,
'
i . o,. � .ti. t--��CR{��( 8 . `. �.:, i .::� �� PUR{?OSES QNLY: SITE`SP,ECIFIC INFQRMATION
" PARCEL 2 _ tt-. OOR i,. �. - � � � � � � , ) � SUCH
� 's „ PARCEL C DU. . ; `:' � ' .
� , � � � AS EXIST,ING CONDITIQNS, ZONING, PARKI
� , M HILLSIDE COMMUNITY f ,o PARCEL MAP OF MINOR i '
S HOSPRAL OF UKIAH ; � �r ____�._..----- CENTER
I : , NG
N susnnnsioN sa-�s . ..�.____� , , . , ,�- : : � � I:'� MENTS MUST' BE V_;
, N _-._�,� � t � . :. I. , , . . _ ; _ : _ -: � , o REQUIRE __ ERIFIED,
�;
C2 D32 P77 , C2,D64, PGS 99-102 . • � , . : . SF � �.. '�" .-, ,..; . ;• ,..; .: ! .I �, �o.
, -�. : �22,322 : � . _. ,. . : . : � , . � : Z
, , � -.
- LAND
,SGAPE
, o � i � GARDEN.CENTER . : :'' � '`` a `¢ . i � ; . . i
,
... .
'.
� i =I � ,eROposEa . I ; ;.,,,; ; � , � G : G C � - ; : � , ; ND TRAFFIC SIGNALS SHQWN ARE
� � i . __ p(PANSION � , rs ----=------ ----- �.�
2. ALL GURB CUTS A
� = i ! r � . i s .�. , � :., � N-.--------------------- ------------ - ,3 � , PROROS.ED: AND MUST BE VERIFIED.
, o � _ � i , 3.�..4... . � � . A .. i� : � � .
i � � �,,.
� i � � t . . ___ ..: __.., , _- � EXI G UTiIlTY EASEMENT . � � '
�
----------
, '. �
I s t i _� � , „ , _ . __ _
,_.., _ :: ,: ., .
�
' a j I � . - __---------.-- „ ,� _ , ; 30' TE PLAN IS BASED ON IJaRS ANDERSEN AND
� � ..:- a `: __------ ; �---_ -
••► �6 I � 3 THIS SI
; E ; : I .«_, __ -- STING UTILITY ' ___ - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - ----
�_ � L.Ew �.9 :: ,� _ _ ! , . ASSOCIA'fES
- ,., _ .
a
. - .:-.
� � ' �.� . . - � . . .
, . ;... ,,. '• . FROVED
_
;
;. ., . . . ;
o I : ..,». _ F" ous�ir � .. �w+Errr .,, � z = ------ ... ; ` � ; � .. � .. IN G RLAN DATED Q9 02 03
i _ FREVI,. fl�S.:, , _____�. �� : : . . , ; � ...�
, � i _
� . { i � � `,,;t;tr' _..; ; . :GARDEN::CEMER D(PANSION . .. ; � ' _
-'=---
----- -----=----
; _ • F _. 8 .�► .;.:,. � .: _ ------------ __
. . � � .
i � ! :. .. . . . ._5;, _
. '.f.1`��_,--,-------" _
�.
_ _,_
� O 1 __----- . . � J ,,,. � __ ._ .� . _ --- --- ----- - -- - I i
_ / __ -____-_-- - � RECEIVED VIA E MAIL 12/12/�3.
n ' __- ---_ �- � y � _ _
: :•.
: _�. __ � _. ; ..;, , . ,:::. .�:.�;.
� ,� . -;.�.._.
BA313... ,:,: .
_, _ OF :: • r ,, . ... - - 1 E
! o : • - - G . : .:. .�',:;.:• -. _ . _ BfkRIN03 N .,.
.........
o i � -. .. EX). ,. ... ,. .89 U6:55"4V 341.04. . . ,. ......:
( --" -.:�,.�..:.:.,.......
: . ■ _ .�c ... , , , . . . , _•• , DRAW
N , : ,�. . -...,:. , .:,;,.. . ,.:.. .� � E/REV/S/ON REC
� �; ': !_ • 8�,, , � , . ..� •,� , : ......: .� . .
. .x
� � . � � -.- . . . ,;:.� DATE:
...... � ,
,in+a issu �
. . :
_
_ .
. -
. .
m , . ,�., I : 12/21/03
,...,_ORD
o : ��.,` ����2. �
�° � , � ••• � � S/TE PLAN .NER DB
i 8. . �°�
� ('':� , t��S �! °;,.��Iy9� : I : . . . SITE DEV COORD
�� � � ` R. E MAi�I(ET ��TOR MIGHAEL OKUMA
I ;, .�..__ �� --- --- _ --__195.05�---------------- � �
.
• . �
' 162.15• ,, _ -
_ _ __ _ .
.
-J i
� ��/
� � .................................................... .................................................� . . �. - . ' . .
•.. ..
� ... ....... ... . . --russ'35 SS E 357 20 ..,.'. ,;;.; :....: :.....:.. .....,... .:;... ..... AGENDA NAME -
_.,
� REDDING MARKET
R. E
' ' I : IAH, CA/K MART TAKEOVER
UK
, PARCEL 1 .. , '
i � , � . .
, ,.,
� � PEAR OC2 D29 P23 ClATE$ ' j
� I : y THE HOME DEPO i"
� � . . .
� .
� � : . . KIAIY, CA
� ; 35Ci N. OR�HARD AVE
4 , . . . . . , � . . - ' . .
t
� � . . . . � . . . . � . �� . � . � . . . . , .. � � '. . . . . .
� : WC0304
HOME DEP.O.T SIT,E 1D.NUMBER
� . ,,,
� • �
GFA PROJECT/VUMBER 20030087:2
t � ,; SCALE. 1°=40'-0" �
.
.
� ' ,
o .
,. ..
� _
� , � . " IIIII ) ( I I I
/ 0 20 40 80 120 160
m , , .
,. , ,
COP-YRI.GHT NOTICE
E
< ,
THIS DRAWING IS THE PRQPERIY qF THE ABOVE REFERENCED
Z
�
,
.
.
� ,
o _ � ;. , . ARCHITECT AND IS NOT TO' .BE USED FQR ANY�.�PURFOSE QTNER ,-;;
_ l'HAN THE SRECIFIC PROJEGT AND.SITE .NAMED. HEREIN, QND
. _ >
CANNOT_BE RERROQUCED '`IN . .. . ,
. . .
;:W.Rli'TEN..FER ;;.. ;. ANY
MANNER WIT�iOUT 1'HE EXpRESS �
_ . . ., ..: ;..:. MISSfON .FROM �THE ARCHIl'EGT. ; _��, _