The meeting was called to order at 9:02 a.m. Commissioner Little was absent by pre-arrangement.

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 Berry, seconded by Commissioner Calvert and unanimously carried (5-0; Little – Absent; Lipmanson - Abstain), IT IS ORDERED that the Minutes of November 4, 2000 are approved with the following corrections:

• Page 13 – Correct third paragraph from bottom to read: "A combination of methods to meet increased demand must be considered. The most efficient, inexpensive and environmentally sensitive method of meeting anticipated demand increases is to expand existing water storage capacities and to reduce demand. Mandatory and voluntary water conservation programs through reduced-flow water fixtures, irrigation equipment, and other passive and active systems can reduce water demand and free up capacity for new uses."
  
  
• Page 14 – Paragraph following "Section III-3 – Pages 4 & 5 – Goal CF-4, Policies CF-4.1 and CF-4.2 and Implementation Measures CF-4.1.1, CF-4.1.2 and CF-4.2.1" – Correct to read: Staff proposed deletion of Goal CF-4, Policies CF-4.1 and CF-4.2 and Implementation Measures CF-4.1.1, CF-4.1.2 and CF-4.2.1 in that they represent existing law or practice and are more applicable to the City and service providers than County government.

4. Director’s Report and Miscellaneous.

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

5A. U 25-2000 – YOUNCE – Southwest of Ukiah

Request: Use Permit to install communications panels to an existing 90 foot pole, a 116 square foot equipment shelter and an 8 foot chain link perimeter fence on a 200 square foot leased parcel.

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

Upon motion by Commissioner Calvert, seconded by Commissioner Lipmanson and carried by the following roll call vote, IT IS ORDERED that the Planning Commission approves #U 25-2000 making the following findings and subject to the following conditions of approval:

Environmental Findings: The Planning Commission finds that the project is categorically exempt under CEQA (Section 15301, California Code of Regulations, Class 1b, minor alteration of existing facilities).

General Plan Consistency Finding: The Planning Commission finds that the proposed project, constructed and operated in compliance with the proposed conditions of approval, will be consistent with applicable goals and policies of the General Plan.

Department of Fish and Game Findings: Projects that are categorically exempt under CEQA are not subject to Fish and Game fees required by Section 711.4 of the Fish and Game Code.

Project Decision: The Planning Commission approves Use Permit #U 25-2000 subject to the conditions of approval recommended by staff, further finding:

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:

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

6A. U 24-2000 – LUNA – South of Willits

Request: Use permit to install a 90 foot communications pole, a 116 square foot equipment shelter and an eight foot high chain link perimeter fence on a 1600 square foot leased parcel.

Mr. Falleri reviewed the staff report.

Chairman McCowen requested adding the discovery clause to #U 24-2000 and #U 29-2000 in the event that any archaeological resources are encountered during construction.

In response to Commissioner Lipmanson, Mr. Kerry Perkett, representing the application, noted that New Com Wireless would be using wooden poles and probably use a smaller pole on this project due to the difficult access.

Commissioner Calvert questioned if New Com could make the tower look more like a tree so it would be less visible from Highway 101. Mr. Perkett noted that it would be more costly to install and maintain to make the tower look like a tree. He also noted that only the top of the antenna would be visible due to the distance to the highway and tree cover.

In response to Commissioner Barth, Mr. Perkett noted that the closest residence is 700 feet away.

Chairman McCowen noted that from the highway you would see a large quarry with a small antenna tower in the distance.

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

In response to Commissioner Lipmanson, Mr. Perkett stated that there might be one more proposed site between Willits and Ukiah. He stated that the site may be on an existing tower on Laughlin Hill or on a rooftop on private property in the City of Willits. He noted that New Com tries to co-locate with competitors to cut down on cost and amount of towers in the area.

Upon motion by Commissioner Barth, seconded by Commissioner Berry and carried by the following roll call vote, IT IS ORDERED that the Planning Commission adopts a Negative Declaration and approves #U 24-2000 making the following findings and subject to the following conditions of approval:

Environmental Findings: The Planning Commission finds that no significant environmental impacts would result from the proposed project which can not be adequately mitigated through the conditions of approval, therefore, a Negative Declaration is adopted.

General Plan Consistency Finding: The Planning Commission finds that the proposed project, constructed and operated in compliance with the proposed conditions of approval, will be consistent with applicable goals and policies of the General Plan.

Department of Fish and Game Findings: The Planning Commission has evaluated the Initial Study and other information pertinent to the potential environmental impacts of this project and finds that, based upon the existing development on the subject parcel and surrounding parcels, the project will not have any adverse impact upon wildlife or the habitat upon which wildlife depends and, therefore, the Planning Commission has rebutted the presumption set forth in subdivision (d) of Section 753.5.

Project Decision: The Planning Commission approves Use Permit #U 24-2000 subject to the conditions of approval recommended by staff, further finding:

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:

11. This entitlement does not become effective or operative and no work shall be commenced under this entitlement until the California Department of Fish and Game filing fees required or authorized by Section 711.4 of the Fish and Game Code are submitted to the Mendocino County Department of Planning and Building Services. Said fee of $25.00 shall be made payable to the Mendocino County Clerk and submitted to the Department of Planning and Building Services prior to December 22, 2000. If the project is appealed, the payment will be held by the Department of Planning and Building Services until the appeal is decided. Depending the outcome of the appeal, the payment will either be filed with the County Clerk (if project is approved) or returned to the payer (if project is denied). Failure to pay this fee by the specified deadline shall result in the entitlement becoming null and void.

9. In the event that archaeological resources are encountered during construction of the project, work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall be halted until all requirements of Chapter 22.12 of the Mendocino County Code relating to archaeological discoveries have been satisfied.

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

6B. U 29-2000 – FETZER – North of Ukiah

Use Permit to erect a 90 foot high communications pole and construct a 116 square foot prefabricated metal storage shelter, graveled parking area and an eight foot high perimeter chain link security fence.Mr. Falleri reviewed the staff report and pictures of the site.

Mr. Kerry Perkett, representing the application, noted that the distance from the highway is ½ to 1 mile and is probably not visible from Reeves Canyon Road due to the terrain.

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

Upon motion by Commissioner Barth, seconded by Commissioner Berry and carried by the following roll call vote, IT IS ORDERED that the Planning Commission adopts a Negative Declaration and approves #U 29-2000 making the following findings and subject to the following conditions of approval:

Environmental Findings: The Planning Commission finds that no significant environmental impacts would result from the proposed project which can not be adequately mitigated through the conditions of approval, therefore, a Negative Declaration is adopted.

General Plan Consistency Finding: As discussed under pertinent sections of the staff report, 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 has evaluated the Initial Study and other information pertinent to the potential environmental impacts of this project and finds that, based upon the existing development on the subject parcel and surrounding parcels, the project will not have any adverse impact upon wildlife or the habitat upon which wildlife depends and, therefore, the Planning Commission has rebutted the presumption set forth in subdivision (d) of Section 753.5.

Project Findings: The Planning Commission approves #U 29-2000 subject to the conditions of approval recommended by staff further finding:

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:

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

6D. CDU 18-99/ CDV 4-99 – FLEMING – 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.

Staff proposed continuoes of this project because he did not reality the Commission wanted a whole new staff report.

Upon motion by Commissioner Barth, seconded by Commissioner Lipmanson and carried unanimously (6-0; Little – Absent), IT IS ORDERED THAT the Planning Commission continues #CDU 18-99/#CDV 4-99 to the January 4, 2001 meeting.

6D. CDU 26-2000 – MENDOCINO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT – In Mendocino

Request: Coastal Development Use Permit for (1) addition of a performing arts facility to the Mendocino High School, consisting of a 125 seat theater, a music classroom, an outdoor courtyard, walkways, and retaining walls (2) Operation of an internet service provider and a business incubator on the school site. (3) Merger of three parcels into a single parcel.

Mr. Falleri reviewed the staff report.

In response to Commissioner Berry, staff noted that the school district can exempt themselves if they want but chose to go through the County process.

Commissioner Lipmanson questioned the location of the internet provider business. Mr. Falleri noted on Page PC-13 that the internet business is north of the proposed building and felt that parking would not be an issue. He felt that the only traffic would be at lunch time. Mr. Falleri noted that most of the events in the proposed performing arts building would probably be after school hours.

Mr. Bud Kamb, agent, noted that there has not been a problem with anyone in the town for this proposed project, which is rare.

Mr. Mark Iacuaniello, Superintendent, noted that most of the students ride the bus and the only theater use during day would be with students and felt that it would not increase parking. He felt that any use after hours would not have a problem with parking.

Chairman McCowen voiced concerns that school supported businesses were able to compete unfairly with privately owned businesses. He also stated that most of the school parking was not convenient to the theater and advocated limiting events open to the public to after school hours to reduce parking in front of residences. He also advocated reasonable hours of operation to reduce noise impacts.

Mr. Iacuaniello felt that it would be okay to limit non-school sponsored activities and limit the hours of operation for the theater.

Mr. Kamb noted that the sewer district had concerns with this project and required an annual checkup for the sewer hookup. He also felt that there is enough parking on site.

In response to Chairman McCowen, Mr. Iacuaniello noted that there would be a maximum of 15-20 adults for the incubator businesses but they would not all be there at the same time.

Commissioner Calvert noted that there has been a lot of publicity for this project on two local radio stations.

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

In response to Chairman McCowen, Mr. Iacuaniello noted that there is a 2-year maximum for businesses in the incubator program.

Chairman McCowen felt that there should be something to regulate the hours in case the parcel were to be sold in the future, since the use permit goes with the land.

Commissioner Lipmanson noted that, with the Public Facilities (PF) zoning, another agency would need to rezone the property, then the County could place restrictions for the use and hours of the theater.

Mr. Falleri clarified that if the nature or intensity of the use did not change significantly, new conditions could not be imposed.

Commissioner Berry noted that the Board of Education which is elected by the people of the Town of Mendocino, control the school. He also felt that the business incubator program was an appropriate function of local education.

In response to Commissioner Barth, Mr. Falleri noted that the Planning Commission would not address the boundary line adjustment. He stated that the boundary line adjustment would only be recognized with the use permit. He noted that the boundary line adjustment would allow the merger of three parcels into one.

Upon motion by Commissioner Lipmanson, seconded by Commissioner Calvert and carried by the following roll call vote, IT IS ORDERED that the Planning Commission adopts a Negative Declaration and approves #CDU 26-2000 making the following findings and subject to the following conditions of approval:

General Plan Consistency Finding: As discussed under pertinent sections of the staff report, the proposed project is consistent with applicable goals and policies of the General Plan, including the Coastal Element, subject to the conditions being recommended below.

Environmental Findings: The Planning Commission finds that no significant environmental impacts would result from the proposed project which cannot be adequately mitigated through the conditions of approval, therefore, a Negative Declaration is adopted.

Department of Fish and Game Findings: The Planning Commission has evaluated the Initial Study and other information pertinent to the potential environmental impacts of this project and finds that, based upon previous development on the subject parcel and surrounding parcels, the project will not have any adverse impact upon wildlife or the habitat upon which wildlife depends and, therefore, the Commission has rebutted the presumption set forth in subdivision (d) of Section 753.5.

Coastal Development Permit Findings: The Planning Commission finds that the application and supporting documents and exhibits contain information and conditions sufficient to establish, as required by Section 20.532.095 of the Coastal Zoning Code, that:

Project Findings: The Planning Commission, making the above findings, approves #CDU 26-2000 subject to the conditions of approval recommended by staff.

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:

AYES:   Nelson, Barth, Berry, Calvert, Lipmanson
NOES:   McCowen
ABSENT:   Little

Chairman McCowen noted that he voted against the project because he felt that the school should not be exempt from parking requirements for increase use and also stated that setting reasonable hours of operation would reduce potential parking problems.

RECESS: 10:36 – 10:54 a.m.

Section 1.04 – The Russian River And Its Tributaries

Ms. Townsend reviewed the proposed text modifications – as contained in the staff report dated December 7, 2000 (blue document). Discussion following regarding the definition of bona-fide agricultural operation.

Ms. Carre Brown, Mendocino County Farm Bureau, requested that the definition of "bona-fide operation" be added to the glossary.

In response to Chairman McCowen, Ms. Brown noted that the Farm Bureau supported staff’s proposed changes for Section II-1, Page 11-12, Open Space and Conservation Element, Section 1.04, The Russian River And Its Tributaries.

In response to Commissioner Berry’s question regarding uses or subdivision of a 40 acre parcel where 20 acres is in the floodplain, Ms. Townsend noted that only land in the flood plain would be affected by the proposed policies and a property owner would have full use of the land out of the flood plain.

After discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission that there is really no definition of bona-fide but staff has a working knowledge of the term and it should be left in the Plan.

It was consensus of the Commission to amend Goal OC-10, Policy OC-10.1 and Implementation Measures OC-10.1.1 and OC-10.1.2 in Section II-1, Pages 11-12 to read as follows:

Goal OC-10: Emphasize land use classifications and land uses that are compatible with and protective of the Russian River environment. Public or commercial recreational use shall be preferred over residential, general commercial, or industrial development on Russian River-front property.

Policy OC-10.1: Emphasize land use classifications and land uses that are compatible with and protective of the Russian River environment, including the river channel and floodplain, riparian habitat, water supply, and fisheries. Prohibit the conversion of Russian River-front agricultural land to residential, general commercial, or industrial use.

Implementation Measure OC-10.1.1: Ensure land use classifications that are compatible with and protective of the Russian River environment. Reclassification from the AG and RL land use classifications shall be prohibited within both the 100 year floodplain of the Russian River and its tributaries. No Russian River-front lands shall be converted from agricultural use to residential, general commercial or industrial use. [Timeframe: Ongoing. Responsibility: Planning and Building Services]

Implementation Measure OC-10.1.2: Ensure that discretionary land uses are compatible with and protective of the Russian River environment. Examples of compatible uses include agricultural and open space use types, as well as onsite extractive use types. New discretionary commercial or industrial use types shall be prohibited on lands classified AG or RL within the 100 year floodplain of the Russian River and its tributaries, unless directly related to on-site agricultural uses or conducted secondary to a bona-fide agricultural operation.

SECTION 2.04 – HIKING, MOUNTAIN BIKING AND EQUESTRIAN TRAILS

Ms. Townsend reviewed a letter from the Northern California Trails Council supporting the revisions to Section 2.04 – Hiking, Mountain Biking and Equestrian Trails.

Ms. Carre Brown noted that mountain biking may to some people mean motorized and should be defined.

It was the consensus of the Commission to Delete Section 2.04 in its entirety (Section III-2, Pages 9-13, text and all Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures) and replace with the following:

2.04 Hiking, Mountain Bicycling and Equestrian Trails

A network of accessible public hiking, mountain bicycling (non-motorized) and equestrian trails can enhance community recreational opportunities and tourism in the Ukiah Valley. The expansion and development of trails in the Valley should be coordinated with the County’s Equestrian and Hiking Trail Plan which establishes trail segments along public roadways.

The City, County and various other public entities control a substantial amount of land which could be developed for hiking, mountain biking and equestrian trails and staging areas. The emphasis should continue to be on the use of public lands and rights of way, as well as lands voluntarily granted for trail use.

The County and City recognize that the development and expansion of trails on or adjoining agricultural and other private lands, whether by easement or fee title, can create conflicts. Recreationalists who desire the peace and quiet of a rural trail may oppose agricultural operations which are by their nature associated with noise, dust, spraying, and other impacts. Trails can also pose conflicts with private property rights due to trespassing, theft, vandalism, loss of privacy and increased liability. A comprehensive plan to address these conflicts must be in place prior to trail route acquisition, development, or use. Dedication or acceptance of land for trail routes does not mean that the land is immediately available for use by the public.

Goals, Polices and Implementation Measures:

Goal PR-6: Coordinate the development and expansion of recreational trails in the Ukiah Valley, emphasizing trails on public lands linked to existing trails.

Policy PR–6.1: A trails committee shall assist the County and City in planning for trail routes, route acquisition, and trail use.

Implementation Measure PR–6.1.1: The trails committee should include interested residents of the Ukiah Valley including hikers, mountain bicycling (non-motorized) and equestrians, and owners of agricultural, residential, public, or other lands affected by the proposed trail routes. [Timeframe: Short–term. Responsibility: Board of Supervisors]

Policy PR-6.2: A comprehensive plan to protect property rights must be developed and funding secured prior to trail route acquisition, development, or use.

Implementation Measure PR-6.2.1: A comprehensive plan to protect property rights must be developed and funded prior to trail route acquisition, development, or use. The plan must include mechanisms to ensure a high level of trail maintenance, public safety, and private property protection from trespass, vandalism, other forms of intrusion, and liability in general. The plan must also include programs for educating the public that the dedication or acceptance of land for trail routes does not mean that the land is immediately available for use by the public. [Timeframe: Short–term. Responsibility: Board of Supervisors, General Services, Sheriff]

Policy PR-6.3: The trails committee shall coordinate trail route planning with the County’s Hiking and Equestrian Trail Plan.

Implementation Measure PR-6.3.1: Route selection shall emphasize the location of trails, trailheads and staging areas on publicly-owned lands or lands voluntarily offered for trail routes. [Timeframe: Short–term. Responsibility: Board of Supervisors, Planning and Building Services]

Implementation Measure PR–6.3.2: Route selection should connect where feasible to existing trails, but allow for unconnected segments due to impediments such as private land ownership, environmentally sensitive areas, existing development, or public safety. [Timeframe: Short–term. Responsibility: Board of Supervisors, Planning and Building Services, Sheriff]

SECTION 3.01 – COMMUNITY WATER SERVICES

Staff proposed adding a sentence to the end of text previously adopted by the Planning Commission on November 4, 2000 to address the Commission’s request that the Plan be amended to address future actions to improve water services and potential consolidation of districts (Staff Report dated December 7, 2000, Page PC-5).

It was the consensus of the Commission to amend the following paragraph (adopted by the Commission on November 4, 2000) which was added to Section III-3, Page 2, Community Facilities and Services Element, Section 3.01, Community Water Services:

The specter of decreased water diversion (with even greater reductions during periods of low natural flows), and the difficulties and lengthy time frames inherent in developing new supplies in the face of increasing demand require immediate and serious attention to both short and long term strategies. The potential for water conservation, expanded storage of winter flood waters, increased water appropriations, and reclaimed storm and wastewater reuse are strategies which should be investigated by a consortium of water providers and as discussed in the Open Space and Conservation Element. In addition, water service efficiencies and possible district or service consolidation or coordination should be evaluated and pursued where feasible.

SECTION 3.02 – COMMUNITY SEWER SERVICES

Staff proposed modifications to clarify that sewer should not be extended into rural areas due to growth inducement and conflicts with agricultural uses (Staff Report dated December 7, 2000, Page PC-5 and PC-6.

It was the consensus of the Commission to amend Section III-3, Page 5, Community Facilities and Services Element, Section 3.02, Community Sewer Services as follows:

Policy CF-4.3: Protect water quality by providing adequate sewage disposal in urban and rural areas. Expand sewers into urban areas with a documented sewage disposal problem.

Implementation Measure CF–4.3.1: New sewers and sewer extensions should be strictly confined to land within the Calpella and The Forks Rural Communities and the Ukiah urban boundary. Expand sewers into urban areas of the valley with a documented need for sewer service to protect groundwater quality. [Timeframe: Intermediate-term. Ongoing. Responsibility: Sewer Service Providers, Planning and Building Services]

Implementation Measure CF-4.3.2: Alternative sewage treatment systems, rather than sewers, should be used to solve existing water quality problems or serve higher intensity uses on lands outside the Calpella and Forks Rural Communities and the Ukiah urban boundary. Sewer extensions which are required to solve existing water quality problems documented by the County shall not constitute a justification for land use density or intensity increases. [Timeframe: Ongoing. Responsibility: Sewer Service Providers, Environmental Health, Planning and Building Services.

(Note: Existing Implementation Measure CF 4.3.2 to be renumbered).

RECESS: 11:59 am – 1:34 p.m.

Ms. Townsend reviewed the tentative schedule for the Ukiah Valley Area Plan.

Ms. Kristine Rogers stated that she is having a hard time putting the whole document together with all the deletions and additions. Ms. Townsend noted that staff hoped to have the Commission’s tentative changes incorporated into a document by January 18.

Ms. Judy Pruden discussed how she would like to see an aquatic trail on the map for the Russian River. She felt that with proper access points, river impact would be minimal. Staff noted that the access points are shown in Figure III.2-B.

Commissioner Barth noted that the Forks is the only designated access point not in the city limits.

Ms. Carre Brown noted that anyone can float down the river and public access is on the map.

AGRICULTURAL LANDS (AG)

Ms. Townsend reviewed the modifications for land use classifications.

Brief discussion followed regarding the possibility of sprawl inducement.

The Commission discussed the possibility of deletion of "Location" in the Special Provisions section.

It was the consensus of the Commission to substitute the Intent, General Uses, Minimum Parcel Size, and Maximum Dwelling Density sections with the County General Plan’s Sections to read as follows (no changes are made to the Special Provisions):

Agricultural Lands (AG)

Intent: The Agricultural Lands AG classification is intended to be applied to lands which are suited for and are appropriately retained for production of crops. The classification should include lands presently under Type I agricultural preserve contracts, land having present or future potential for significant agricultural production, and contiguous or intermixed smaller parcels on which non-compatible uses could jeopardize the agricultural use of agricultural lands. Permitted non-agricultural uses, to the greatest extent possible, should not occur on lands that might otherwise be devoted to crop production. Lands within the AG classification are protected from encroachment by incompatible uses by the "right-to-farm" and policy provisions of the Open Space and Conservation Element. AG lands may also include uses related to the production of processing of agricultural products as permitted or conditional uses.

General Uses: Residential uses, agricultural uses, processing and sale of agricultural products, cottage industries, residential clustering, uses determined to be related to and compatible with agriculture, conservation, processing and development of natural resources, utility installations.

Minimum Parcel Size: Forty acres.

Maximum Dwelling Density: One dwelling per forty 40 acres, County review and approval required for more than one dwelling per legally created parcel.

RANGE LANDS (RL)

It was the consensus of the Commission to substitute the Intent, General Uses, Minimum Parcel Size, and Maximum Dwelling Density sections with the County General Plan’s Sections to read as follows (no changes are made to the Special Provisions):

Range Lands (RL)

Intent: The Range Lands classification is intended to be applied to lands which are suited for and are appropriately retained for the grazing of livestock. The classification should include land eligible for incorporation into Type II agricultural preserves, other lands generally in range use, intermixed smaller parcels and other contiguous lands, the inclusion of which is necessary for the protection and efficient management of range lands.

Intent: The RL classification applies to lands which are best suited or used for livestock grazing, timber production, and mineral extraction and processing. The RL classification includes other lands used for agriculture, intermixed smaller parcels, and contiguous lands which are necessary for the protection and efficient management of range lands.

General Uses: Residential uses, agricultural uses, forestry, cottage industries, residential clustering, uses determined to be related to and compatible with ranching, conservation, processing and development of natural resources, recreation, utility installations.

Minimum Parcel Size: One hundred sixty acres.

Maximum Dwelling Density: One dwelling per 160 acres. County review and approval may be required for more than one dwelling per legally created parcel.

REMOTE RESIDENTIAL (RMR)

Commissioner Berry questioned staff regarding the proposed 80-acre minimum lot size. Staff noted that they do not oppose retaining the original County General Plan classifications, RMR-20 and RMR-40.

Commissioner Barth noted that some parcels cannot be subdivided due to slope, terrain, and access requirements, even with the RMR-20 or RMR-40 classifications.

It was the consensus of the Commission to substitute the Intent, General Uses, Minimum Parcel Size, and Maximum Dwelling Density sections with the County General Plan’s Sections to read as follows (no changes are made to the Special Provisions):

Remote Residential (RMR-20 Acres/RMR-40 Acres)

Intent: The RMR classification is intended to be applied to lands having constraints for commercial agriculture, timber production or grazing, which are well suited for small scale farming and low density agricultural/residential uses by the absence of such limitations as inadequate access, unacceptable hazard exposure or incompatibility with adjoining resource land uses. The classification is also applied to some areas which might not otherwise qualify except for the fact that the land has been divided and substantial development has occurred.

At the zoning stage, lands with infrastructure, access or environmental constraints may be designated with an eighty acre minimum parcel size.

General Uses: Residential uses, agricultural uses, cottage industries, residential clustering, public facilities, conservation and development of natural resources, and recreation, utility installations.

Minimum Parcel Size: Twenty acres, or forty acres, as designated on the Land Use Map. Forty acres. Minimum parcel size may be increased to eighty acres based on environmental and infrastructure constraints.

Maximum Dwelling Density. One dwelling per 20 40 acres or 40 80 acres as designated on the Land Use Zoning Map. County review and approval may be required for more than one dwelling per legally created parcel.

RURAL RESIDENTIAL

Commissioner Calvert questioned the benefit of the 80-acre minimum. Staff noted that the 80-acre minimum classifications could be used in a hilly area. Staff also noted that with the current zoning, there is nothing with an 80 acre minimum so this could fill the gap.

It was the consensus of the Commission to substitute the Intent, General Uses, Minimum Parcel Size, and Maximum Dwelling Density sections with the County General Plan’s Sections to read as follows (no changes are made to the Special Provisions):

Rural Residential (RR-1 Acre/RR-2 Acres/RR-5 Acres/RR-10 Acres)

Intent: The RR classification is intended to encourage local small scale food production (farming) in areas which are not well suited for large scale commercial agriculture, defined by present or potential use, location, mini-climate, slope, exposure, etc. The Rural Residential classification is not intended to be a growth area and residences should be located as to create minimal impact on agricultural viability. One of the objectives for retaining a larger rural residential parcel size in the Valley, even though a specific parcel may not be suitable for agricultural use, is to ensure that nearby or adjoining lands are not impacted by residential uses. Parcel size may be increased based on slope, environmental or other constraints.

General Uses: Residential uses, agricultural uses, cottage industries, residential clustering, public facilities, public services, conservation and development of natural resources, utility installations.

Minimum Parcel Size:

RR-1: 40,000 square feet.
RR-2: 80,000 square feet.
RR-5: Five acres.
RR-10: Ten acres.

Forty thousand square feet to eighty acres as specified on the Zoning Map.

Maximum Dwelling Density: One dwelling per 40,000 square feet, 80,000 square feet, five acres or ten acres, as designated on the land use map. County review and approval required for more than one dwelling per legally created parcel. One single family dwelling per 40,000 square feet to 80 acres as specified on the Zoning Map.

LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR)

It was the consensus of the Commission to retain the Low Density Residential (LDR) land use classification with no change to the Intent, General Uses, Minimum Parcel Size, Maximum Dwelling Density, and Special Provisions sections.

MEDIUM AND HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR/HDR)

Staff noted that Medium and High Density Residential (MDR/HDR) is similar to the Suburban Residential (SR) classification in the existing County General Plan.

Ms. Judy Pruden requested that the Medium and High Density classification be retained so it would be consistent with the City of Ukiah’s General Plan.

Ms. Carre Brown felt that we should save the valley floor for agriculture and start allowing multiple family dwellings on large parcels.

Commissioner Berry stated that areas like Beacon Lane and Empire Gardens would probably have little change in the next twenty years.

It was the consensus of the Commission to delete the Medium and High Density Residential (MDR/HDR) land use classification and add the Suburban Residential (SR) classifications from the County General Plan with the following modifications, including modifying Maximum Dwelling Density to read, "…approval may be required for more than…"; and adding the "Special Provisions" set forth under the High Density Residential; and adding a bullet under "Special Development Issues" as specified in the December 7, 2000 staff report to read as follows:

Suburban Residential (SR)

Intent: The Suburban Residential classification is intended to be applied to transitional lands adjacent to cities or towns, which lands are appropriate to accommodate future residential growth. Land within the Suburban Residential classification should have moderate to light constraints for residential development, should be located within public service districts or the logical extensions thereof. Portions of lands within the Suburban Residential classification will be appropriate for development of residential subdivision. Such area should be developed as major subdivisions, not minor subdivisions; or retained in parcels of sufficient size to be economically developed as subdivisions at some future time.

General Uses: Residential developments, mobile home parks, community commercial, cottage industries, public facilities, public services, public assemblies, utility installations.

Minimum Parcel Size:

• Within water and sewer districts: 4,000 square feet for mobile home subdivisions and manufactured home subdivision; 6,000 square feet.
• Within water or sewer districts: 12,000 square feet.
• Not in a water or sewer district: 40,000 square feet.

Maximum Dwelling Density: One single family dwelling per legally created parcel. County review and approval may be required for more than one dwelling per legally created parcel.

• Within water and sewer districts: 1 single family dwelling per 4,000 square feet of lot area in mobile home parks, mobile home subdivisions and manufactured home subdivision. 1 single family dwelling per 6,000 square feet of lot area. 1 multiple family dwelling unit per 1,500 square feet of lot area.
• Within water or sewer districts: 1 single family dwelling per 12,000 square feet of lot area, or 1 multiple family dwelling unit per 12,000 square feet of lot area.
• Not in a water or sewer district; 1 single family dwelling per 40,000 square feet, multiple family dwelling units not permitted.

Special Provisions:

Location: May be applied within the City of Ukiah Sphere of Influence, large subdivisions or planned developments.

Development Alternative: Density transfer and cluster development.

Access: Paved surface required for densities exceeding 1 dwelling per acre.

Design Review: Required. Individual single family dwellings on individual lots not part of planned developments are exempt.

Special Development Issues:

• Landscaping and open space or recreation areas required for projects subject to design review.
• HDR parcels may be located on arterials, collectors, connectors, or local roads that comply with the level of service threshold and are able to accommodate high density residential uses.
• Residential development on parcels with access by roads with level of service E or F is limited to one dwelling per existing parcel. (Footnote)
• The SR classification is intended to provide lands for a range of residential densities including apartments, townhouses, and mobilehome parks to meet the need for a variety of housing types and affordability, together with opportunities for limited neighborhood commercial development designed to meet the needs of the residential area.

RECESS: 3:12 – 3:29 p.m.

RURAL COMMUNITY (RC)

It was the consensus of the Commission to substitute the Intent, General Uses, Minimum Parcel Size, and Maximum Dwelling Density sections with the County General Plan Section with modification to Maximum Dwelling Density to read "…approval may be required for more than…"; retaining the Special Provisions Section deleting "Maximum Building Intensity"; and amending the last bullet under "Special Development Issues" to read "Land use compatibility…when zoning to lands classified RC in order to reduce conflicts…" as follows:

Rural Community (RC)

COMMERCIAL (C)

It was the consensus of the Commission to retain the Commercial (C) land use classification with no change to the Intent, General Uses, Minimum Parcel Size, and Maximum Dwelling Density, and to delete "Maximum Building Intensity" under the Special Provisions section (no other changes to Special Provisions are made).

INDUSTRIAL (I) AND PINOLEVILLE (P)

Staff noted that the Pinoleville Reservation requested a classification that did not emphasize "Industrial" because it conflicts with their community planning to improve the residential setting.

Ms. Carre Brown discussed the process how non-tribal land was sold 15 years ago along Orr Springs Road and how it has been an ongoing process for the Indians to buy back the land.

Commissioner Lipmanson requested a map showing the land in Indian jurisdiction.

It was the consensus of the Commission to table discussion of the Industrial (I) and Pinoleville (P) land use classification so staff can contact the local tribal council to establish ownership and boundaries of the reservation.

NORTH STATE COMPLEX (NS)

It was the consensus of the Commission to retain the North State Complex (NS) land use classification with no change to the Intent, General Uses, Minimum Parcel Size, and Maximum Dwelling Density and to delete "Maximum Building Intensity" under the Special Provisions section (no other changes to Special Provisions are made).

PUBLIC SERVICES (PS)

It was the consensus of the Commission to retain the Public Services (PS) land use classification with no change to the Intent, General Uses, Minimum Parcel Size, Maximum Dwelling Density and the Special Provisions sections.

PUBLIC LANDS (PL)

It was the consensus of the Commission to retain the Public Lands (PL) land use classification with no change to the Intent, General Uses, Minimum Parcel Size and the Special Provisions sections.

OPEN SPACE (OS)

It was the consensus of the Commission to retain the Open Space (OS) land use classification with no change to the Intent, General Uses, Minimum Parcel Size, Maximum Dwelling Density and the Special Provisions sections.

EXISTING LOT SIZE (X) COMBINING CLASSIFICATIONS

Commissioner Nelson noted that the existing lot size (X) combining classification could be a useful disclosure tool for property owners because of constraints.

It was the consensus of the Commission to retain the Existing Lot Size (X) Combining Classification with no change to the Intent and the Special Provisions sections.

SECTION 3.05 – PUBLIC EDUCATION

Commissioner Nelson noted that schools can increase growth inducement.

Ms. Carre Brown noted that there is a law that a school must receive approval from the local planning agency if the land is in an agricultural preserve.

It was the consensus of the Commission to amend Section III-3, Page 7-8, Community Facilities and Services Element, Section 3.05, Public Education as follows:

3.05 – Public Education

Educational facilities are provided by the Ukiah Unified School District (UUSD), County Office of Education, Mendocino Community College District, and private and nonprofit entities which provide services ranging from pre-school, primary and secondary education, to focused studies such as those provided by the City of Ten Thousand Buddha’s in Talmage.

Mendocino College Community College District operates Mendocino College north of Ukiah. The majority of students attend part time. The College benefits the area by providing a local opportunity for higher education, sponsoring social and cultural events, and helping to train people for work within the local job market.

The UUSD serves the Ukiah Valley, providing classes from kindergarten through 12th grade. District facilities include elementary and schools, middle schools, a high school and continuation high school. The District continues to monitor enrollment and upgrade facilities, including renovations, construction of new facilities, and siting new schools in or near Ukiah.

City and County government can assist the provision of a quality learning environment through policies that promote land use compatibility in school facility siting and operation. School siting should minimize distractions as well as threats to health and safety, and facilitate multiple use of public school facilities. Discretionary land uses with the potential to impact school facilities should be discouraged or mitigated. Conversely, the impacts of school facilities on local neighborhoods, agriculture, and other surrounding uses should also be mitigated. City and County government can help the UUSD to accommodate enrollment growth over the life of the Area Plan by supporting the District’s efforts to obtain funding for new facilities. In addition to State funding, the UUSD levies school impact fees on new residential and commercial development. Development impact fees are an option only when specific requirements imposed by State law have been met.

Goal CF–8: New school facilities shall be compatible with surrounding uses and existing schools shall be protected from the introduction or expansion of incompatible uses. Support the provision of public school facilities necessary for a quality learning environment as the population of the Ukiah Valley increases.

Policy CF–8.1: Support the efforts of the Ukiah Unified School District and Mendocino-Lake Community College District in their efforts to provide adequate facilities and sustain a safe, healthy and peaceful learning environment for their students to serve the Ukiah Valley.

Implementation Measure CF–8.1.1: Support the efforts of the Ukiah Unified School to obtain funding for facilities necessary to accommodate projected enrollment. [Timeframe: Ongoing. Responsibility: Board of Supervisors]

Policy CF–8.2 8.1: Consider the potential impacts of discretionary projects on school facilities and the impacts of school facilities on nearby land uses. the Ukiah Unified School District and Mendocino College facilities.

Implementation Measure CF–8.2.1 8.1.1: Strongly discourage land use uses adjacent to or near school facilities which pose the risk of adverse impacts on the health and safety of school populations or have the potential for disturbing the educational environment. [Timeframe: Ongoing. Responsibility: Planning and Building Services]

Implementation Measure CF–8.2.1:8.1.2: At the earliest time possible, consult with the public school districts concerning (a) impacts to schools resulting from nearby discretionary projects, and (b) impacts to the surrounding area resulting from the siting of school facilities. Refer environmental documents for discretionary projects to the UUSD for comment on impacts and possible measures to mitigate the District’s capacity to accommodate the resulting enrollment growth. [Timeframe: Ongoing. Responsibility: Planning and Building Services]

Policy CF–8.3 8.2: Coordinate public school siting with community facilities and compatible land uses.

Implementation Measure CF–8.3.1 8.2.1: Assist educational institutions the UUSD in identifying potential future school sites which (a) are compatible with transportation and land use plans, (b) avoid high ly vehicular traffic areas, (c) are compatible with neighborhood character, (c) avoid conflicts with agricultural or industrial uses and (d) facilitate multiple uses of community parks and public facilities by public schools. [Timeframe: Ongoing. Responsibility: Planning and Building Services, Board of Supervisors]

Implementation Measure CF–8.2.2: Amend the zoning code to delete day care, small schools, and educational facilities as a permitted or conditional use in the AG zoning district, with an exception for field facilities teaching agrarian methods. [Timeframe: Short-term. Responsibility: Planning and Building Services]

Goal CF–9: Maintain the presence of Mendocino College within the Ukiah Valley.

Policy CF-9.1: Support the presence of Mendocino College within the Ukiah Valley.

Implementation Measure CF—9.1.1: Work with Mendocino College to keep the State aware of the importance of maintaining Mendocino College within the Valley. [Timeframe: Ongoing. Responsibility: Board of Supervisors]

SECTION 4.05 – ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION

Staff reviewed modifications from Staff Report dated December 7, 2000, Page PC-8.

Commissioner Lipmanson stated that the local public transportation system needs work.

Commissioner Berry felt that the reason why MTA provides limited coverage is because a low number of people use MTA.

Ms. Judy Pruden felt that the Commission should add language for a group to work with the County and MTA to help with the time schedule problem.

Commissioner Calvert noted that Mendocino County does not have enough population to have a good public transportation program.

Commissioner Berry noted that Mendocino County does not have a traffic or parking problem yet.

It was the consensus of the Commission to amend Section III-4, Page 20, Circulation Element, Section 4.05, Goals CT-6, Policy CT-6.2 and Measure CT-6.2.1 to read as follows:

Goal CT-6: Maximize efficient transportation and land use patterns through development of a balanced and integrated transportation system which may include a variety of interconnected modes in the Ukiah Valley.

Policy CT-6.2: Development projects shall provide for an integrated and balanced transportation system, which may include interconnected automobile, transit, bicycle and pedestrian modes as required by regulations adopted by the County or as required to mitigate project impacts. Land use entitlements shall consider integrated transportation modes.

Implementation Measure CT-6.2.1: Development projects shall provide for alternative transportation as required by the land development code, General Plan, and other applicable plans adopted by the County, or as required to mitigate project impacts. Land use entitlements shall be conditioned on an integrated circulation system which fully takes into account the efficient use of automobiles, transit, bicycles and walking. [Timeframe: Short-term. Responsibility: Planning and Building Services]

It was the consensus of the Commission to direct staff to simplify the numbering system in the document.

It was the consensus of the Commission to continue the Ukiah Valley Area Plan (UVAP) to the January 4, 2001 meeting.

7. Matters from Staff.

None.

8. Matters from Commission.

Chairman McCowen reviewed a letter from Stephen Hall requesting to be put on the grading ordinance task force and a letter from Ellen Drell commenting on the draft road standards.

Commissioner Lipmanson requested that the Planning Commission be able to review the revised draft road standards before they go to the Board of Supervisors.

9. Matters from Public.

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

10. Adjournment.