The meeting was called to order at 9:01 a.m. Commissioner Nelson arrived at 9:03 a.m.

2. Determination of Legal Notice.

Mr. Falleri advised the Commission that all items have been properly noticed.

3. Approval of Minutes.

Upon motion by Commissioner Calvert, seconded by Commissioner Nelson and unanimously carried (6-0: Little - Abstain), IT IS ORDERED that the Minutes of August 3, 2000 are approved with the following corrections:

Page 2 - 6^th line under Director’s Report and Miscellaneous: "…other grading ordinances ordinance but felt…"

Page 2 - 5^th Paragraph: "She also noted that Anchor Bay is hard on restaurants have not always being successful and questioned…"

Page 3 – 2^nd Paragraph:

"Jim Lotter, Gualala Municipal Advisory Council Counicl (GMAC)…"

"He also expressed concerns about of the road configuration onto into Highway 1."

Page 3 – 3^rd Paragraph: "In response to Commissioner Barth Barth’s, Mr. Lynch…"

Page 3 – 9^th Paragraph: "He felt that it would not be easy to restore the coastal access trail it would not be easy because of the bluff."

Page 4 – 1^st Paragraph: "Mr. Falleri noted that staff supports addressing any items early but felt that if the parcel were where residential…"

Page 4 – 4^th Paragraph: "…if the property were to be developed commercially commercial."

Page 8 – Last Paragraph: "…the original recommendation would have provided an Offer to Dedicate Dedicated (OTD) for an access trail…"

Page 9 – 3^rd Paragraph: "Commissioner Calvert asked about questioned the alternative suggested by staff for an easement…"

Page 9 – 9^th Paragraph: "Commissioner Lipmanson questioned if a continuous hiking trail trails could run closer to Highway 1."

Page 9 – Last Paragraph:

"Commissioner Nelson questioned who maintains the trails and who is responsible when someone…"

"…noted that the parcels in the area south of the Jackson-Grube parcel are small residential…"

Page 10 – 2^nd Paragraph: "Ms. Vidaver also noted that within one mile of the Inn at Bruhle Point, there is a very delicate…"

Page 10 – 3^rd Paragraph: "…a letter he received from the Attorney General Attorney in May 1999.

Page 10 – 9^th Paragraph: "She noted that the subject property has is about a 60 to 80 foot bluff."

Page 10 – 10^th Paragraph:

"Commissioner Commission Nelson would…"

"He preferred prefer the access along…"

Page 10 – 11^th Paragraph: "He would have preferred the trail…"

Page 12 – 10^th Paragraph: "…and to add Conditions Number B-21 B-19 and B-20."

Page 15 – 7^th Paragraph: "The easement shall be 15 feet wide located along long the west side of Highway One as measured from the westerly edge on the Caltrans right-of-way. As the right-of-way edge may vary and may move west western over time…"

Page 16 – 2^nd Paragraph: "Commissioner Barth requested copies of the Oak Woodlands Report when available."

4. Director’s Report and Miscellaneous.

Mr. Hall reviewed the written Director’s Report submitted into the record.

Commissioner Nelson felt that the Russian River Flood Control District issue will be difficult and confusing. He also noted that the Russian River Flood Control District is getting pressure from Sonoma County.

5A. CDU 18-99/CDV 4-99 – FLEMING/MORRISION – East of Casper

Request: Coastal Development Use Permit for a Cottage Industry for a cabinet, furniture, and custom wood working shop within an existing 1,920 square foot building and a Coastal Development Variance to the minimum 50 foot setback from any property line to 30 feet, from the maximum 640 square foot area within any building to 1,920 square feet and a maximum of one employee to two employees.

Mr. Falleri reviewed the staff report and discussed the 40 letters in support of the project and 18 letters in opposition to the project. The letters in opposition stated that a cabinet shop was not compatible for the small parcel residential area. The concerns from neighbors were increased noise, more traffic, and maintenance of the road. Mr. Falleri stated that the applicant informed him that he was not seeking an exception to the 640 square foot maximum area.

In response to Commissioner Berry, Mr. Falleri noted that the staff report was written based on information on the application. Mr. Falleri noted that the misleading information in the staff report was minor and could be resolved in the public hearing.

Mr. Falleri noted that the total area occupied by all uses within the cottage industry regulations, including storage, could not exceed 640 square feet. He noted that Mr. Fleming had provided a preliminary analysis of sound levels from T.A. Barnebey, Ph.D. which suggested that sound levels could be around 58 dBA at 30 feet away. Mr. Falleri felt that a sound wall should be required on property in a rural setting.

Commissioner Lipmanson voiced concerns again about receiving correspondence the day of the public hearing.

Mr. Dennis Fleming stated that he had spoken with Mr. Falleri about the permitted use of his property’s zoning. He noted that in 1989 or 1990, he was granted a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) for a shop/barn building which now is his business shop. He noted that there was no opposition to the structure. He stated that his commercial shop was located in Fort Bragg before he moved his operation into the building on his residential property on Harris Street. He also noted that within several years, he had 14 visits from the Code Enforcement Officer, Dale Hawley, regarding complaints of noise. Mr. Fleming stated that only 1/3 of the building would be used for his commercial business and the rest of the building would be used for private use and storage of wood. He stated that he has neighbors that have small commercial businesses in the area but were afraid to come forward because they did not want their businesses shut down. Mr. Fleming noted that he performs a lot of activities out of his residence including starting a charter school. He noted that he never receives home visits from clients. He usually goes to the client’s house or location where the work will be done. Mr. Fleming apologized to neighbors for the noise complaints. He stated that the letter from Mr. Barnebey indicated sound levels in similar facilities to Mr. Fleming’s cabinet shop. He noted that he would work with staff to comply with any proposed conditions to mitigate sound levels. He also stated that his business is an one-man operation and about 90 percent of the use in the building is for social and private uses, not commercial.

In response to Commissioner Barth, Mr. Fleming stated that the hours a day that equipment is running would be about 10 percent to 30 percent.

Commissioner Barth noted that Harris Lane is an easement and questioned if Mr. Fleming knew of any new proposed development on the road. Mr. Fleming stated that he was unsure about any new development on Harris Lane.

Commissioner Barth questioned the distance to the complainant’s residence. Mr. Fleming noted that the distance is about 80 to 100 feet. Mr. Fleming also noted that Mr. Hawley could never find Mr. Fleming in violation and he has been working with the Code Enforcement Officer.

Commissioner Lipmanson questioned Mr. Fleming’s statement that the business is used for family income and yet was not a commercial business. He felt that the statement was conflicting. Commissioner Lipmanson felt that the sound analysis was vague. He felt the sound levels can fluctuate on each parcel due to size, topography, and type of cottage industry. Commissioner Lipmanson expressed confusion about how to regulate between personnel and commercial use.

Commissioner Berry noted that the Code Enforcement Officer, Dale Hawley, is the most compassionate code enforcement officer possible. He also expressed confusion over whether the operation was commercial or personnel. Mr. Fleming noted that the operation is commercial but the business is small scale.

The public hearing was declared open.

Mr. Kenneth Erickson, property owner to the south of Mr. Fleming, noted that in August 1994 Mr. Fleming applied for a barn/shop/studio building but the building does not look like a barn and Mr. Fleming has no animals. Mr. Erickson felt that the building permit was misleading. He stated that Mr. Fleming rented a building on North Main from 1988 to 1994 and felt that Mr. Fleming intended from the start to move his business to the building on Harris Lane. Mr. Erickson felt that Mr. Fleming has made no effort to control the noise or to be considerate of his neighbors in the area. He works with his planer outside on a loading dock, which is opposite Mr. Erickson’s sunroom, about 70 feet away. Mr. Erickson felt that if this use permit were to be approved, some additional condition should be required. He felt that Mr. Fleming should soundproof the building, keep all doors and windows closed while working and no power tools should be used outside of the building. He noted that traffic has increased over the last four years causing the road to deteriorate.

Commissioner Barth questioned Mr. Fleming about how much disturbance comes from the cabinet shop. Mr. Fleming noted that the only disturbance is when the equipment is outside and somedays he does not work inside or outside the building.

In response to Commissioner Lipmanson, Mr. Erickson noted that on a quiet day, the noise from the planer outside on the loading dock can be very loud and ear piercing. Mr. Erickson noted that Mr. Fleming works when the windows and doors are closed and the sound is muffled.

The public hearing was declared closed.

Mr. Fleming stated that it is true that he has worked with the planer outside but it was not a commercial project. He stated that he will guarantee the outside usage of equipment will be stopped.

Commissioner Barth noted that she lives in a rural residential area and has a home occupancy. She felt that Mr. Erickson’s conditions should be considered with hours of operation from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. for all equipment use. She questioned if a fence and/or shrubbery could be used to buffer the sound. She supports cottage industries but there needs to be compatibility with the zoning.

Commissioner Calvert questioned the different setbacks. Mr. Falleri noted that zoning regulation setbacks and cottage industry setbacks are different because the use of the building could limit the use. He also stated that cottage industry businesses can cause a nuisances so the setback are usually greater.

Commissioner Berry also supports cottage industries but would like to see a certified noise study. He noted that the different uses can be an unenforceable issue.

Commissioner Little agreed with Commissioner Berry that it would to hard to apply conditions to personnel use. He also felt that it would be hard to enforce the use of no power tools after hours.

Commissioner Lipmanson expressed concerns about the size of parcels in the area. He stated that he would not have a problem if this use was on a larger parcel. Commissioner Lipmanson questioned staff about imposing conditions on cottage industries about parcel size. Mr. Falleri stated that planning staff reviews projects on a case by case basis. Planning staff examines each project for parcel size, location, topography, and proposed use.

Commissioner Calvert noted that the impact could be great on small parcels. She also noted that businesses in proper zoning could reduce commuting and traffic. Commissioner Calvert felt that the noise study analysis was vague and stated that it would be hard to determine if the business conducted were personal or commercial. She noted that the house eventually should be finished being remodeled.

Chairman McCowen questioned considering the revised information from the staff report, would staff still recommend denial. Mr. Falleri noted that staff would still recommend denial due to the noise issue. Mr. Falleri noted that the County could not restrict personnel use. Mr. Zotter agreed with Mr. Falleri that we could not restrict personnel use unless the applicant agreed. Mr. Fleming stated that he would agree to reduce personnel use after business hours to comply with conditions. Mr. Falleri stated that the Planning Commission could require a noise study.

Commissioner Lipmanson felt that this project should be continued so the noise study could be performed. Commissioner Calvert felt that it would be hard to regulate the commercial operation due to the size of building.

Commissioner Barth agreed a noise study should be prepared. Chairman McCowen felt that Mr. Fleming in the past has not been considerate to surrounding neighbors.

Commissioner Barth motion to continued the project to a future meeting on November 16 to be able to provide noise study. She felt that additional conditions should be imposed such as all doors and windows to be kept closed while working and no equipment shall be used outside the building. Commissioner Little seconded the motion.

Commissioner Lipmanson felt that this situation was a no win situation with no resolution in sight. Commissioner Calvert felt that the Commission should not postpone the project but recommend denial since a noise study would be expensive for the applicant and might not change the result.

Commissioner Barth questioned if the Commission denies the project could neighbors object to personal use. Mr. Hawley noted that the County needs evidence of commercial use. He also noted that if the use was personal, it would be a civil issue. Mr. Hawley noted that he has received reports of cabinets leaving Mr. Fleming’s property.

Commissioner Little felt that there was little hope of resolving the situation. He proposed that Mr. Fleming have no sign and not sell any merchandise from the building. He felt that a condition should be imposed that all power equipment can only run during the hours of 7 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Mr. Falleri noted that if the Commission found that only noise was an issue, Alternative Number 1 could be imposed as a condition. He felt that the Commission had more issue than noise.

The motion failed 3-4.

RECESS: 11:00 a.m. - 11:11 a.m.

Upon motion by Commissioner Calvert, seconded by Commissioner Berry and carried by the following roll call vote, IT IS ORDERED that the Planning Commission denies #CDU 18-99/#CDV 4-99 without prejudice noting that the Commission further finds that approval of such an intensive (intrusive) use in a predominantly rural residential neighborhood of small non-conforming parcels would create the potential for long range land use conflicts and would establish a poor precedent for further land use planning.

Commissioner Calvert noted if the project was on a larger parcel, noise probably would not be an issue.

AYES: Nelson, Barth, Lipmanson, Little, Berry, Calvert, McCowen
NOES: None
ABSENT: None

5B. U 11-2000 – CHALFANT – In Redwood Valley

Request: Use Permit to establish a winery within an existing 1,512 square foot building (up to 1,500 cases per year) with no on-site tasting, no employees and no public tours.

Mr. Falleri reviewed the staff report and correspondence.

Commissioner Lipmanson requested council with Mr. Zotter due to a possible conflict of interest.

In response to Chairman McCowen, Mr. George Chalfant noted that five parcels are served by Lone Pine Drive. Mr. Chalfant noted that the pothole issue was addressed last week when the road was chip sealed. He agrees with the staff report. Mr. Chalfant stated that the grapes are crushed by foot. He noted that in 1995 they won a 1^st place in a fair for the wine. In response to Chairman McCowen, Mr. Chalfant noted that Lone Pine Drive is a one lane 14 foot wide road which may be wider in the turns. The road is a 5-10 mph road but trucks can be passed. Commissioner Berry noted that if the applicant wanted a tasting room, the business would have to relocate.

Mr. Chalfant noted that there are not daily deliveries and they can only ship to some states. He noted that no big company will delivery grapes to them due to the small quantity of grapes they use. Mr. Chalfant noted that they pick up bins of grapes with their personal truck.

Due to Commissioner Lipmanson’s association with Marilyn Mooshie, he asked Mr. Chalfant if he wanted Commissioner Lipmanson to abstain. Mr. Chalfant noted he has no problem with Commissioner Lipmanson voting on his project as long as it did not interfere with his decision.

The public hearing was declared open and subsequently closed when no one came forward to address the Commission.

Mr. Falleri advised the Commission that Condition Number B-4 restricted the use of the size of vehicle for grape delivery.

Upon motion by Commissioner Berry, seconded by Commissioner Barth and carried by the following roll call vote, IT IS ORDERED that the Planning Commission, making the following findings, approves #U 11-2000 subject to the conditions of approval recommend by staff.

Environmental Findings: The proposed project is Categorically Exempt, Class 3c, from environmental review.

General Plan Consistency Finding: The proposed project is consistent with applicable goals and policies of the General Plan as subject to the conditions being recommended by staff.

Department of Fish and Game Findings: The Planning Commission finds that, because the project is exempt under CEQA, it is not subject to Section 711.4 of the Fish and Game Code and no Fish and Game fee is required.

Project Findings: The Planning Commission approves #U 11-2000 subject to the conditions of approval recommended by staff further finding:

1. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities have been or are being provided.
   
   
2. That the proposed use will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working in or passing through the neighborhood of such proposed use, or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the county.
   
   
3. That such use preserves the integrity of the zoning district.

A. Conditions which must be met prior to use and/or occupancy and for the duration of this permit:

B. Conditions which must be complied with for the duration of this permit:

AYES: Calvert, Nelson, Lipmanson, Little, Barth, Berry, McCowen
NOES: None
ABSENT: None

5C. GP 2-2000/R 3-2000 – MIDDLERIDGE RANCH – Southeast of Old Hopland

Request: Change the General Plan land use classification from Public Lands (PL) to Range Lands (RL) and rezone from Public Facilities (P-F) to Rangeland (R-L).

Mr. Falleri reviewed the staff report.

Mr. Ronco, agent for the owner, noted that he agrees with the staff report.

Commissioner Lipmanson has concerns with animals over grazing the land. Commissioner Little noted that animals do not know the difference between the land being zoned differently.

Commissioner Calvert questioned why not put the land into agriculture preserve. Ms. Pamela Townsend noted that if the land was zoned rangeland, the owners would not have to get a use permit for a residence.

The public hearing was declared open and subsequently closed when no one came forward to address the Commission.

Upon motion by Commissioner Lipmanson, seconded by Commissioner Calvert and carried by the following roll call vote, IT IS ORDERED that the Planning Commission recommend that the Board of Supervisors approve #GP 2-00/#R 3-00 for inclusion in the 2000 Russian River and Inland Coastal Group General Plan Amendment Group making the following findings:

Environmental Findings: That an initial study has been prepared and a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts is recommended for adoption finding that no significant environmental impacts are anticipated.

General Plan Findings: The project is consistent with the Mendocino County General Plan.

Department of Fish and Game Findings: There is no evidence in the record that the project will have potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends, therefore, the Commission has rebutted the presumption set forth in subdivision (d), Section 753.5 of the Fish and Game Code. Furthermore, the Commission resolves that the applicant is responsible for payment of Fish and Game filing fees (or portion thereof) authorized by Section 711.4 of the Fish and Game Code as explained in the findings associated with the group staff report (#GP 5-00).

AYES: Nelson, Barth, Berry, Little, Calvert, Lipmanson, McCowen
NOES: None
ABSENT: None

5D. GP 3-2000/R 4-2000 – FETZER – Northwest of Hopland

Request: Change the General Plan land use classification and rezone from Range Lands (RL) to Agricultural (AG).

Ms. Pamela Townsend reviewed the staff report.

Commissioner Lipmanson questioned if the steep slopes could have a condition imposed to mitigate planting vineyards to control erosion. He felt if the rows could be planted up and down to help erosion. Commissioner Nelson discussed how planting rows up and down produces more environmental damage.

Mr. Jim Ronco noted that the owners are not proposing commercial farming but maybe a residence. He felt that the land would be better used as residential land.

Commissioner Nelson noted that he is the neighbor to the south on the subject property but he has no problem with the road and has no conflict with this project.

The public hearing was declared open and subsequently closed when no one came forward to address the Commission.

Upon motion by Commissioner Lipmanson, seconded by Commissioner Berry and carried by the following roll call vote, IT IS ORDERED that the Planning Commission recommend that the Board of Supervisors tentatively approve #GP 3-00/#R 4-00 for inclusion in the 2000 Russian River/Inland Watersheds Coastal General Plan Amendment Group making the following and findings:

ENVIRONMENTAL RECOMMENDATION: No potentially significant environmental impacts have been found. The project qualifies for the "de minimis" Fish and Game finding on the basis of the similarity of land use intensity and no net increase in subdivision potential; this will be further addressed in the Group staff report.

GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds #GP 3-00/#R 4-00 consistent with the General Plan as discussed in the staff report.

PROJECT RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the Board of Supervisors tentatively approve #GP 3-00/#R 4-00 for inclusion in the 2000 Russian River/Inland Watersheds Coastal General Plan Amendment Group based on the following findings:

AYES: Calvert, Barth, Little, Berry, Lipmanson, McCowen
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Nelson

RECESS: 11:55 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.

5E. GP 4-2000/R 5-2000 – ARTEAGA, DAUGHERTY, AND WOOD – Northwest of Ukiah

Request: Change the General Plan land use classification of AP# 150-150-16 and 149-320-09 from Range Lands-160 acre minimum (RL-160) to Remote Residential-40 acre minimum (UR-40) and Rezone from Rangeland 160 acre minimum (RL-160) to Upland Residential 40 acre minimum (UR-40).

Ms. Townsend reviewed the staff report.

Mr. Jim Ronco displayed maps showing the property east and west of the subject property. He noted that the surrounding property is rangeland and the property to the north is Greenfield Ranch. Mr. Ronco noted that there are no parcels in the area that match the general plan designation. He noted that the property was in agriculture preserve. Running Springs Road now goes through the west of the property.

Commission Barth questioned how many residences use Running Springs Road. Mr. Ronco noted that the road is maintained by road association.

Commissioner Lipmanson stated that no agriculture uses or wildlife should be impacted by rural residential uses. Gardens by human activities can impact sedimentation.

Commissioner Little noted that this project would only impact Running Springs Road by only adding a few more vehicles. Mr. Ronco noted that if the project is not approved, the subdivision will continued to use the road. He noted that Running Springs creates a lot of water that feeds into local streams in the area.

Commissioner Berry noted that the future growth, if this project was approved, would only increase two additional houses on three parcels instead of two houses on one parcel. He noted that the Agricultural Preserve could have been cancelled by the Board of Supervisors because farming the land was no longer feasible. Mr. Ronco noted that the property would be a good place for houses because of good water.

In response to Commissioner Little, Mr. Ronco noted that the assessors map may have not been updated to show the boundary line adjustment.

The public hearing was declared open and subsequently closed when no one came forward to address the Commission.

Ms. Pamela Townsend noted that the County made a decision for this area to be zoned rangeland. The Greenfield Ranch property use was established before the General Plan was adopted. She also noted that the owners could have chosen not to reinstate the agricultural preserve.

Chairman McCowen noted that the owners may not have complied with the requirements of the Williamson Act so the Board of Supervisors cancelled the Agricultural Preserve. Mr. Ronco noted that the parcels on the map were not created by Certificates of Compliance, but were created by a minor subdivision.

Commissioner Barth asked if additional conditions could be required to have building envelopes near Running Springs Road. Ms. Townsend noted that if this project was a contract rezone, the County could restrict road access and second dwellings.

Commissioner Lipmanson noted that housing on this rural area is a long distance to stores which could create a lot of travel. Mr. Ronco noted that it was 35 minutes to Ukiah. Commissioner Lipmanson noted also that no public transportation is available in this rural area. He stated that traffic levels will be high and create more demands on energy and circulation. Commissioner Lipmanson felt that this project would not be good planning.

Commissioner Calvert noted that Greenfield Ranch was a compromise by the County to bring the property up to code. Mr. Ronco discussed that one problem with the Greenfield Ranch is access. He noted that Greenfield was legalized by clean slate and Class K structures and Running Springs was created legally.

Commissioner Berry noted that the land is worthless but beautiful and felt that housing would be the best use for the land.

Commissioner Nelson stated that as a young child he chased sheep on rangeland and now due to endangered species there are no big sheep ranches in Mendocino County. He noted that maybe with the General Plan update, the County could have many parcels change zoning.

Commissioner Calvert felt that the whole area needs to be looked at for fire protection.

Commissioner Barth noted that the area and roads are steep. She would like to see road standards and building envelopes. She would like to make the area consistent with existing use.

Ms. Townsend suggested waiting for more information on the road conditions and why the property was originally zoned rangeland.

Mr. Ronco felt that the road standards and building envelopes should be considered during the subdivision process not the General Plan Amendment stage. Ms. Townsend noted that road standards should be considered with any increase in density.

Commissioner Lipmanson felt that the agricultural land was not the issue. He noted that the south side of Orr Springs is steep and would be hard to development. He noted again the lack of services in the area and how traffic would be increased.

Commissioner Nelson noted that people who move into an area without fire protection, need to accept the risk.

Commissioner Berry felt that we have a big county and we are restricting development within the county. He noted that he would not like to see a big subdivision on this area but felt adding two to four additional houses would not make a big impact to the community. He felt that the road standards should be required at the subdivision process.

Ms. Townsend noted that people buy the property with current zoning. She felt that road standards should be required with the General Plan Amendment process due to the possible increase in density.

Commissioner Lipmanson would like to continue this case until Mr. Pedroni could be present who has site viewed the property.

Commissioner Barth voiced support for continuing the item and would like to see a map showing the area.

Commissioner Calvert would like the Commissioners to site view the property but they can not because it is on a private road.

Upon motion by Commissioner Lipmanson, seconded by Commissioner Barth and carried by the following roll call vote, IT IS ORDERED that the Planning Commission continue #GP 4-00/#R 5-00 to the September 21, 2000 hearing to conduct a site view and to receive a detailed map of the area.

AYES: Calvert, Nelson, Barth, Lipmanson, McCowen
NOES: Berry, Little
ABSENT: None

It was the consensus of the Commission to take public testimony for the timed item #5H – Ukiah Valley Area Plan and then continue with the regular calendar items.

5H. GP 20-98 – UKIAH VALLEY AREA PLAN

Ms. Townsend summarized the Transportation and Circulation Element. She felt that the Transportation and Circulation Element was the most important element.

Ms. Carre Brown, Mendocino County Farm Bureau, stated that on September 18, 2000 there will be a workshop on the Draft Road Standards which are not even a public document yet. She noted that the Draft Road Standards review is in the middle of harvest and most people will not be available for comment on the document. She would like to see a neat document without strikeouts.

Mr. Chris Brown, Air Quality Management District, handed out a memorandum with comments. The memo stated that Air Quality Management District does not support removal of Implementation Measures CT 2-4.3. The District is recommending adding language to Implementation Measure CT-7.1.3. The District does not support Implementation Measure CT-7.2.1. He stated that all new development should be required to provide safe bicycle lanes and paths as appropriate. He noted that the District does not support deletion of Implementation Measure CT 9.2.4. The District felt that Planning and Building should require consultation with MTA before project approval.

Mr. Al Beltrami, Mendocino County Employers Council, likes staff efforts to simplify the Circulation Element. He questioned the status of the study referred to in III-4, Page 12 about the Redemeyer Road extension. He would like to see deletion of CT-3.4 on III-4, Page 11 and 12. He felt that it would be a burden on employers to establish a peak time for traffic. He felt that buses can sometime not be air friendly.

Commissioner Lipmanson noted that the County needs good public transportation to get employees to work on time. Mr. Beltrami noted that the Bay Area still has major problems with transportation.

Mr. Jack Cox, expressed concerns about the future roads in Mendocino County especially Orchard Avenue. He felt that the Orchard Avenue problem needs to be addressed. He stated that there is a lack of communication between the City and County. He felt that the problem is revenue sharing. We need a requirement to resolve the sales tax revenue problem between the City and County. He felt that Orchard Avenue is one of the most important streets in Ukiah and we need proper circulation in Ukiah.

Commissioner Little noted that the sharing of tax revenue between the City and County is very important. He felt that we need to assure that the issue of the balance of tax revenue between the County and City be addressed before the end of the UVAP process. Mr. Cox stated that the revenue issue needs public input.

Commissioner Berry noted that two corporation contributed funds to build the bridge. He noted that Hunt Construction built the apartments on Orchard Avenue and had to pay the City $50,000 for the bridge. Commissioner Berry noted with time limits if something is not done soon, Kmart will receive their money back.

Jim Ronco discussed the route concept on III-4, Page 16. He noted that the EIR stated that the Vichy Springs/Perkins route was a bad idea. He felt that a better route would be Redemeyer Road to Hensley Creek Road.

Ms. Townsend reviewed correspondence from Mr. Phil Dow, MCOG, noted that MCOG will help with anything included in the UVAP and supports the concepts in the UVAP.

Ms. Carre Brown, Farm Bureau, stated that she used to ride MTA from Potter Valley. She felt that MTA needs to provide more services. She noted that the service to Potter Valley no longer exists except one trip at 6:30 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. She felt that MTA needs to work with employers to provide services. She noted that during the Growth Management Steering Committee, the city wanted to extend Orchard Street. She felt that the County and City need to work together on good circulation in the Ukiah valley.

Mr. Dave Sagehorn stated that he lives on Eastside Road. He noted that he worked as a volunteer on the Circulation Element. He drove the streets of the City of Ukiah everyday. He felt that the County needs an alternative access from Mendocino Community College to Orr Springs Road due to the amount of student and lack of a second access.

RECESS: 2:52 - 3:08 p.m.

5F. GP 6-2000/R 6-2000/MS 11-2000 – EDWARD MILLER TRUST – Southeast of Point Arena

Request: Change the General Plan land use classification on 22.26+- acres (AP# 027-371-11) from Forest Land (FL) to Remote Residential - 20 acre minimum. Rezone 22.26+- acres from Forest Land (F-L) to Upland Residential - 20 acre minimum (U-R:L:20). Minor Subdivision of 90.46+- acres into one 22.26+- acre parcel and 68.2 acre remainder.

Ms. Townsend reviewed the staff report.

In response to Commissioner Berry, Ms. Townsend noted that the difference between this project and the previous project is the land is flat and less sprawl inducing.

Mr. Richard Seale, Agent, noted he agrees with the staff report. He noted that on Page PC-12, Parcel 11 is the parcel they are trying to change. Parcels11, 16 and 18 are one parcel under one ownership. He noted that the County used the soils map to put the land into TPZ. He noted Parcel 16 is where the timber is located. He noted that there are pine trees and meadows on the rest of the property with an occasional redwood. He stated that the parcels across the road are RMR-20. There are houses on most of the surrounding parcels.

In response to Commissioner Lipmanson, Mr. Seale noted that the Commission could impose a condition for visual screening. He also noted that the Commission should impose the 200 feet setback from TPZ that would keep any building close to the county road.

The public hearing was declared open and subsequently closed when no one came forward to address the Commission.

Ms. Townsend reviewed the correspondence. One letter was from Air Quality Management District which stated that development in a rural area could result in greater automobile use and greater emissions. Correspondence from the Coast Action Group and Michael Cohen requested a denial or continuance until proof of non-productive timberland could be provided.

In response to Commissioner Berry, Ms. Townsend noted that the previous project had several General Plan inconsistencies but both projects have energy and fire protection issues.

Commissioner Lipmanson felt that the survey from Lee Susan may not be accurate. Mr. Falleri noted that staff does not have the ability to evaluate soils types. Staff could only evaluate which type of trees are located on the subject property.

Commissioner Little noted that in his experience, the 1987 soil survey was very complete and accurate. He felt that the survey prepared by Lee Susan would be more accurate than staff’s opinion. Commissioner Calvert agreed with Commissioner Little.

Chairman McCowen noted that the 200 foot buffer from TPZ would most likely protect timber producing soils on the subject property.

Commissioner Calvert noted that development close to TPZ can create problems with timber harvest plans. She felt that this development would destroy the integrity of resource lands.

In response to Commissioner Lipmanson, Ms. Townsend noted that the surrounding parcels to the west are in the coastal zone and zoned RMR-20. Parcel 6 is zoned Forestland but has a residence on the property. Property to the north is zoned RMR and the property to the west is zoned Forestlands.

In response to Commissioner Little, Ms. Townsend noted with the present zoning you can build two residential houses within the whole ownership. Commissioner Little felt that since there are existing residences close to adjacent TPZ, he felt that one more house would not have a great impact on the land.

Commissioner Lipmanson motioned to continue in order to site view the property, but the motion failed for lack of a second.

RECESS: 3:51 - 3:56 p.m.

Upon motion by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Calvert by the following roll call vote, IT IS ORDERED that the Planning Commission recommend that the Board of Supervisors denial #GP 6-00/#R 6-00 for inclusion in the 200 Russian River/Inland Coastal Group based on the following findings:

AYES: Calvert, Nelson, McCowen
NOES: Barth, Berry, Lipmanson, Little
ABSENT: None

The motion failed.

Upon motion by Commissioner Barth, seconded by Commissioner Berry and carried by the following roll call vote, IT IS ORDERED that the Planning Commission recommend that the Board of Supervisors tentatively approve #GP 6-00/#R 6-00/#MS 11-00 for inclusion in the 2000 Russian River/Inland Coastal General Plan Amendment Group based on the following findings:

Environmental Recommendation: Staff finds #GP 6-00/#R 6-00 to be consistent with the General Plan policies as stated in the staff report and below. The project is not recommended for the Fish and Game "de minimus" finding due to the potential for increased density as discussed in the Group staff report.

General Plan Consistency Recommendation: Staff finds #GP 6-00/#R 6-00 to be consistent with the General Plan policies as stated in the staff report and below.

Project Recommendations: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the Board of Supervisors tentatively approve #GP 6-00/#R 6-00 for inclusion in the 2000 Russian River/Inland Coastal General Plan Amendment Group based on the following findings:

1. No significant potential environmental impacts are identified in the staff report and a finding of no significant impact is recommended in support of a Negative Declaration.
   
   
2. The project is consistent with the General Plan as described in the project staff report.

II. MINOR DIVISION #MS 11-00:

Environmental Findings: The Planning Commission finds that the environmental impacts identified for the project can be adequately mitigated through the conditions of approval or features of the project design so that no significant adverse environmental impacts will result from this project. Said analysis of impacts is incorporated into the Negative Declaration for GP #5-00, the 2000 Russian River /Inland Coastal General Plan Group, which encompasses #GP 6-00/#R 6-00/#MS 11-00.

Department of Fish and Game Finding: The Planning Commission finds that because this division would create the potential for an additional parcel with a residence and second unit, the "de minimis" finding cannot be made. The project is, therefore, subject to all or a portion of the Fish and Game fee of $1,275.00 as may be determined by the Board in its action on #GP 5-00, the 2000 Russian River /Inland Coastal General Plan Group which encompasses #GP 6-00/#R 6-00/#MS 11-00.

General Plan Findings: Pursuant to Section 66473.5 of the California Government Code, the Planning Commission recommends that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement is consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the General Plan.

Project Findings: The Planning Commission recommends to the Board of Supervisors the environmental and General Plan findings above, in support of approval of #MS 11-00, subject to the final approval of #GP 6-00/#R 6-00 and the following conditions of approval as recommended within the staff report, further finding, pursuant to California Government Code Section 66445(e), that the division and development of the property in the manner set forth on the approved or conditionally approved tentative map will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of the public entity or public utility right-of-way or easement.

STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:

For a Subdivision which has been approved according to the Mendocino County Code, the following "Conditions of Approval" shall be completed prior to filing the Unilateral Agreement.

AYES: Little, Berry, Barth, McCowen
NOES: Calvert, Nelson, Lipmanson
ABSENT: None

5G. GP 5-2000 – 20000 RUSSIAN RIVER INLAND AND COASTAL GROUP

Request: Adopt General Plan amendments and associated rezoning and minor subdivision applications as listed below constituting the 2000 Russian River/Inland-Coastal Watershed General Plan Amendment Group.

It was the consensus of the Commission to continued #GP 5-00 to September 21, 2000.

6. Matters from Staff

Mr. Falleri discussed the possibility of extending or holding a special meeting UVAP to get caught up with the elements. It was the consensus of the Commission not to set a special meeting at this time, but to continue the discussion of the Ukiah Valley Area Plan (UVAP) to the September 21 meeting. The Commission would consider Open Space and Conservation, Energy, Parks and Recreation, Community Facilities and then Circulation and Transportation.

7. Matters from Commission.

Chairman McCowen discussed the problem of Commissioners receiving correspondence late. He questioned if staff could prepare summary of comments. Mr. Falleri agreed but noted that several correspondence are received the day before the hearing. Commissioner Lipmanson noted that if he could know about any potential problems, he could site view the property before the hearing. He noted that it is hard to read a file during the presentation.

Commissioner Little noted that Fish Rock Road has reopened since the surface subsided. The Department of Transportation had shut down the road.

Commissioner Calvert noted that Pacific Bell has completed negotiations with the Operators of the Skunk Train for the use of the right of way for Pacific Bell projects.

8. Matters from Public.

No one was present from the public who indicated a desire to address the Commission.

9. Adjournment.