HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-07-06 PacketCITY OF UKIAH
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Regular Meeting
CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS
300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
July 6, 2011
6:00 p.m.
1. ROLL CALL
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. PROCLAMATIONS/INTRODUCTIONS/PRESENTATIONS
4. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a. Special Council Meeting of 6/29/11
6. RIGHT TO APPEAL DECISION
Persons who are dissatisfied with a decision of the City Council may have the right to a review of that decision by a court.
The City has adopted Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, which generally limits to ninety days (90)
the time within which the decision of the City Boards and Agencies may be judicially challenged.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
The following items listed are considered routine and will be enacted by a single motion and roll call vote by the City
Council. Items may be removed from the Consent Calendar upon request of a Councilmember or a citizen in which event
the item will be considered at the completion of all other items on the agenda. The motion by the City Council on the
Consent Calendar will approve and make findings in accordance with Administrative Staff and/or Planning Commission
recommendations.
a. Award The Purchase Of Chlorine Products To Sierra Chemical Company.
b. Approval Of Amendment To Agreement For Professional Consulting Services Contract To
Ruff & Associates, Inc. In The Amount Of $9,472.00 For Anton Stadium Construction
Project.
C. Notification Of Renewal Of ManageEngine Network Management Suite For $7725.00
d. Award Purchase Of 6 Pole Mount And 3 Pad Mount Transformers In The Amount Of
$34,992.20.
e. Approve Increase To Purchase Order For The Purchase Of Flatbed & Utility Rack To Cooks
Truck Body Manufacturing, Inc. Of Roseville, CA, From $10,013.13 + 10% To A Total Of
$11,242.01. (EUD)
f. Report The Acquisition Of Services From Source California In The Amount Of $9,200, And
Authorization To Amend The Agreement In The Amount Of $4,300, For A Total Contract
Amount Of $13,500.00 (EUD)
g. Award Purchase Of Miscellaneous Electric Utility Parts In The Total Amount Of $20,664.12.
(EUD)
h. Authorize City Manager To Negotiate And Execute Lease Agreement With Ukiah Unified
School District For The Use Of Observatory Park House
i. Notification To City Council Of The Acquisition Of Professional Services From LACO
Associates For An Environmental Assessment Of 3495 Taylor Drive In The Amount Of
$7,400.
j. Notification To City Council Of The Acquisition Of Professional Services From Rau &
Associates For Services Related To An Alta Survey At 3495 Taylor Drive In The Amount Of
$8,300, And Authorization To Amend The Existing Agreement In The Amount Of $6,474,
For A Total Contract Amount Of $14,774.
Authorize City Manager To Execute Contract For Concerts In The Park And Corresponding
Purchase
Update on Northwestern Pacific Rail Trail Phase I Project
8. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS
The City Council welcomes input from the audience. If there is a matter of business on the agenda that you are
interested in, you may address the Council when this matter is considered. If you wish to speak on a matter that is not
on this agenda, you may do so at this time. In order for everyone to be heard, please limit your comments to three (3)
minutes per person and not more than ten (10) minutes per subject. The Brown Act regulations do not allow action to be
taken on audience comments in which the subject is not listed on the agenda.
9. COUNCIL REPORTS
10. CITY MANAGERXITY CLERK REPORTS
11. PUBLIC HEARINGS (6:15 PM)
a. Adoption Of Resolution Approving A Negative Declaration And Amending The Ukiah
General Plan By Approving The 2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update
b. Public Hearing To Consider Adoption Of Resolution Amending User Fee Schedule For
Community Services Department Fee Items Including Golf, Parks, Facilities, Grace
Hudson Museum, Municipal Pools, Sports Fields, Recreation Programs And Services.
12. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. Letter Appealing Decision to Close Downtown Post Office
b. Follow -Up Meeting On Strategy For Maximizing Benefit Of City Water Rights And Possible
Action On Recommendations From Consultant And Staff
C. Approval Of Renewable Energy Certificates Transfer Agreement (EUD)
13. NEW BUSINESS
a. Award Of Contract For Riverside Park Phase One Trail And Revegetation Project
Specification No. 11-09 And Any Necessary Budget Amendments.
b. Adoption Of Resolution Approving Memorandum Of Understanding For Employee
Bargaining Unit — Miscellaneous Unit
14. CLOSED SESSION — Closed Session may be held at any time during the meeting
a. Conference with Labor Negotiator (§ 54957.6)
Agency Representative: Jane Chambers, City Manager
Employee Organizations: Police, Fire, Electric, and Miscellaneous Units
15. ADJOURNMENT
Please be advised that the City needs to be notified 72 hours in advance of a meeting if any specific
accommodations or interpreter services are needed in order for you to attend. The City complies with ADA
requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities upon request.
Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the City Council after distribution of the agenda packet are
available for public inspection at the front counter at the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA
95482, during normal business hours, Monday through Friday, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing agenda was
posted on the bulletin board at the main entrance of the City of Ukiah City Hall, located at 300 Seminary Avenue,
Ukiah, California, not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting set forth on this agenda.
Dated this 1St day of July, 2011.
JoAnne Currie, City Clerk
Item 5a
CITY OF UKIAH
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Special Meeting
Ukiah Valley Conference Center
200 S. School Street, Chenin Blanc Room
Ukiah, CA 95482
June 29, 2011
5:00 p.m.
1. ROLL CALL
Ukiah City Council met at a Special Meeting on June 293 2011, the notice for which being legally
noticed on June 24, 2011. Mayor Rodin called the meeting'to order at 6:10 pm. Roll was taken with
the following Councilmembers present: Landis, Thomas, Crane, and Mayor Rodin.
Councilmembers absent: Councilmember BaIdwir�i: Staff, present: City Manager Chambers,
Assistant City Manager Sangiacomo, Planning &, Community Development Director Stump, Electric
Utility Director Grandi, Safety Director Dewey, Public Works Director Eriksen, Finance Director
Elton, Human Resources Director Harris, Airport Manager Owen,ssistant Finance Director Roth,
Controller Newell, and Acting City Clerk Br6Wb..
2. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. Approve LAFCo Contra4 tVith E. Mul
City Of Ukiah Municipal Service Revi(
Community Planning & Develops
Action: Approve contract with E
Ukiah Municipal Service Review.
M/S Landis/Thomas to dbProve the Recommend
in re,,Wpre no put
Motion cartidd by
Crane and Mayer;
None.
4
5
ates For The Preparation Of The
nted the item. Recommended
preparation of the City of
ion.
ng roll call votes: AYES: Councilmembers Landis, Thomas,
)ES: Norse. ABSENT: Councilmember Baldwin. ABSTAIN:
ing Process Discussion
City Manager Chambers and Public Safety Director Dewey for
strategic planning process.
b. Other Strategic Discussion as desired by Council
None offered.
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was none.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:02 pm.
Linda C. Brown, Acting City Clerk
ITEM NO..
MEETING DATE:
of Iz-1kjah
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
7a
July 6, 2011
SUBJECT: AWARD THE PURCHASE OF CHLORINE PRODUCTS TO SIERRA CHEMICAL
COMPANY.
On June 17th, 2011, a Request for Bid was sent out for the purchase of chlorine products for the Water
Treatment Plant. The chlorine products consist of chlorine gas provided in both 150 Ib cylinders and 1
ton cylinders. The chlorine is used at the City's Water Treatment Plant in the City's water distribution
system.
The Request for Bid was issued to 25 chemical companies, with one bid received. The bid was
received from Sierra Chemical Company. Below is a summary of the bid received:
Description
Estimated Qty.
Unit Price
Deposit Charge
150 Ib cylinder
40
$159.00
$150.00
1 Ton cylinder
6
$799.80
$1,000.00
15 gal- 12%
Sodium
Hypochlorite
40
$39.75
$15.00
Funds for this purchase are included in the budget for FY 2011/2012 in fund 820.3908.520.000.
Fiscal Impact:
X❑ Budgeted FY 11/12 F-1 New Appropriation ❑ Not Applicable 1-1 Budget Amendment Required
Amount Budgeted Source of Funds (title and #) Account Number
$45,000 Pumping labor & expense, chemicals 820.3908.520.000
Recommended Action(s): Award the bid to Sierra Chemical.
Alternative Council Option(s): Do not award the bid, and provide alternate direction.
Citizens advised: N/A
Requested by: Tim Eriksen, Public Works Director
Prepared by: Mary Horger, Purchasing Supervisor
Coordinated with: Paul Smith, Water Treatment Plant Supervisor, and Jane Chambers, City Manager
Attachments: N/A
Approved:&14—�
J Chambers, City Manager
ITEM NO.: 7b
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
July 6, 2011
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING
SERVICES CONTRACT TO RUFF & ASSOCIATES, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF
$9,472.00 FOR ANTON STADIUM CONSTRUCTION PROJECT.
Background: Since receiving a $500,000 competitive grant from the State of California Department of
Parks and Recreation for the renovation of Anton Stadium, plans have been developed by various
construction trades and coordinated through the architectural firm of Ruff & Associates, Inc.
Discussion: Ruff & Associates has been able to help this project move forward on mostly a donation
basis except for some prior services in preparing bid documents and review of plan check comments in the
amount of $4,900.
Additional architectural services have been required since the award of contract for Anton Stadium
Restoration Engineered Steel Building Spec No 11-02. This scope of work is outlined in Attachment #1
which includes incorporating the wood trend and rail drawings, elevations for the building and two entry
points, additional details needed by metal manufacturer, assistance with Title 24, interior room
modifications, fixture selection, and changes to the accessible parking layout.
Due to tougher economic times, Ruff & Associates is not in the position to donate all their staff time and
have already donated over 400 hours to help in this community project. In order to move the additional
architectural services and project forward, staff is recommending purchasing the remaining professional
services from Ruff & Associates, Inc. as identified above and detailed in the attached proposal. This is a
not to exceed professional services contract and it is expected that actual billing will come in at less than the
$9,472 estimated in the proposal. There is sufficient funding to pay for this amendment of services.
Fiscal Impact:
X❑ Budgeted FY 11/12 F-1F-1Appropriation Not Applicable Budget Amendment Required
Amount Budgeted
Source of Funds (title and #)
Account Number
Addit. Appropriation Requested
$ 870,259
Park Development Anton Stadium
140.6050.930.007
$0
Recommended Action(s): Approve amendment to agreement for professional consulting services
contract to Ruff & Associates, Inc in the amount of $9,472 for Anton Stadium Construction Project.
Alternative Council Option(s): 1) Reject approval of amendment to agreement for professional
consulting services 2) Remand to staff with direction
Citizens advised:
N/A
Requested by:
N/A
Prepared by:
Guy Mills, Project & Grant Administrator
Coordinated with:
Jane Chambers, City Manager, Sage Sangiacomo, Assistant City Manager, and
Mary Horger, Purchasing Supervisor
Attachments:
# 1 Scope of additional services to be performed
Approved:
e Chambers, City Manager
ATTACHMENT /
Architecture • Planning • Development
U FF + ASSOCIATES
Amendment to Agreement for Professional Consulting Services
Dated September 23, 2010
Between City of Ukiah and Ruff + Associates Inc.
Additional Services to be performed:
• Revise Bleachers Design from concrete construction to wood construction.
• Change Handrail Anchorage.
• Revise slope of Steel Stringers.
• Modify sloped Walls (elevations) to match slope of seating.
• Change Concrete Floor Drainage.
• Revise Ceiling Height in Restrooms to match new slope of seating.
• Eliminate two toilets in Womens Restroom and move two lavatories and entry door
and wall to increase the size of the future multi-purpose room. These changes will
have to be made on the plumbing, electrical, and foundation plans.
• Design a new ramp concrete stem wall along the side of the metal building showing
flashing from metal siding to curb of ramp.
• Assist with finish details and fixture selection.
• Change and raise the building floor elevation.
Continued on Page 2
100 West Standley Street.• Ukiah, CA 95482.707-472-0525 • Fax: 707-472-0527
www.ruffarchitect.com • email:richard@ruffarchitect.com • CA Lic. C11736
• Change accessible parking lot and sidewalk according to civil engineer's plans.
• Add Title 24 details and calculations.
• Provide general co-ordination as requested between owner and owner's consultant
and site visits for clarification of contract documents.
This Agreement shall not exceed $9472.00.
Amendment Page 2
100 West Standley Street • Ukiah, CA 95482.707-472-0525 • Fax: 707-472-0527
www.ruffarchitect.com • email:richard@ruffarchitect.com • CA Lic. C11736
cit.J oJ'4lk cxF
ITEM NO.: 7c
MEETING DATE: July 6, 20 —
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
SUBJECT: NOTIFICATION OF RENEWAL OF MANAGEENGINE NETWORK MANAGEMENT
SUITE FOR $7725.00
Background: The City's Network utilizes Microsoft Active Directory to manage security access to network
resources. Native tools allow the IT Department to manage objects; however, the tools would prove difficult
for standard network users. Additionally, important reporting tools are not available within the native
toolsets.
Discussion: The ManageEngine suite consisting of AdManager Plus, AdSelfService and EventLog
Analyzer provide the City with user self-service capabilities (such as self-service password reset/unlock),
advanced Active Directory reporting and centralized event log monitoring. The suite reduces the number of
routine service requests, improved visibility of the directories health and advanced notice of system
problems. In compliance with Section 1522 of the Ukiah City Code, this report is being submitted to the City
Council for the purpose of reporting an acquisition costing $5,000 or more, but less than $10,000.
Fiscal Impact:
❑X Budgeted FY 10/11 F-1New Appropriation Not Applicable Budget Amendment Required
Amount Budgeted Source of Funds (title and #) Account Number Addit. Appropriation Requested
$ 7725.00 Machinery and Equipment 100.1965.250.001
Recommended Action(s): Receive notification of renewal of ManageEngine Network Management
Suite for $7725.00 from account 100.1965.250.001, Enterprise Software Agreement.
Alternative Council Option(s): N/A
Citizens advised:
Requested by: Steven Butler, IT Supervisor
Prepared by: Steven Butler, IT Supervisor
Coordinated with: Mary Horger, Purchasing Supervisor
Attachments:
Approved:
Jar} hambers, City Manager
ITEM NO.: 7d
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
July 6, 2011
SUBJECT: AWARD PURCHASE OF 6 POLE MOUNT AND 3 PAD MOUNT
TRANSFORMERS IN THE AMOUNT OF $34,992.20.
The City's Electric Department requests purchase of 6 Pole Mount and 3 Pad Mount Transformers to
replenish inventory of back-up transformers and for future project needs. A Request for Quotation was sent
out for the purchase of these transformers as outlined in Attachment #1, Transformer Bid Summary, Bid
Opening 6/1/2011.
The requests were sent to fourteen (14) companies. Six companies responded. To compare each bid, the
total bid price of each transformer is added to the unit's cost of losses (load loss and no load loss) over a 20
year life, which results in the total life -cycle cost. Each transformer bid is awarded based upon the lowest
life -cycle costs (bid amount + cost of losses) resulting in the lowest cost of the life of the unit. Attachment
#1 details the bid results for each transformer.
Staff's recommendation is that the purchase of the transformers be awarded as follows:
General Pacific, Inc. - $32,790.01
HD Supply, Benicia - $ 2,202.19
This represents the combined lowest bid of each transformer.
The transformers being purchased are to replenish stock and will be charged to the inventory account
800.131.002, and then expensed to 800.3728.690.000 for pole mount and 800.3729.690.000 for pad mount
when used. Inventory is maintained to ensure availability of critical equipment and reliability of the electrical
system.
Fiscal Impact:
Budgeted FY 10/11 1-1 New Appropriation Not Applicable Budget Amendment Required
Funds are available for the purchase to restock inventory and will be expensed from the Materials and
Inventory Accounts (800.3728.690.000 & 800.3729.690.000) at the time of use.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: AWARD PURCHASE OF 6 POLE MOUNT AND 2 PAD MOUNT
TRANSFORMERS TO GENERAL PACIFIC, INC., FAIRVIEW, OR IN THE AMOUNT OF
$32,790.01 AND 1 PAD MOUNT TRANSFORMER TO HD SUPPLY, BENICIA, CA IN THE
AMOUNT OF $2,202.19 FOR A TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF $34,992.20.
Alternative Council Option(s): Reject all bids and provide direction to Staff.
Citizens advised: N/A
Requested by: Colin Murphey, Electric Supervisor
Prepared by: Mary Williamson, Buyer
Coordinated with: Mary Horger, Purchasing Supervisor
Attachments: Bid Results
Approved:C
Jin, Chambers, City Manager
ITEM 1 3,ea. POLE MOUNT,25 KVA,12 KV,240/120 V,1 PHASE
SUPPLIER MFG HEIGHT WIDTH DEPTH NLL (WATTS) LL (WATTS) CP BID BID +TAX LIFE CYCLE COST (WEEKS)
HD SUPPLY - PORTLAND
Cooper
39
19
22
46
367
N
$3,066.00
$3,334.28
$5,228.03
8-10
Wks
GEXPRO
GE
25
19
23
60
312
N
$3,351.00
$3,644.21
$5,489.21
9-10
wks
GENERAL PACIFIC
Ermco
35
19
22
55
347
N
$2,396.91
$2,606.64
$4,526.64
a
Wks
PACIFIC UTILITIES
PPI
40
20
25
58
342
N
N
$9,074.00
59,867.98
9-11
wks
HD SUPPLY - BENICIA
GENERAL PACIFIC
Ermco
57
58
367
386
$2,985.00
$3,246.19
$5,136.19
$8,917.47
$13,051.22
WRATHALL & KRUSI, INC.
Industries
37
25
29
28
297
N
$3,516.00
$3,823.65
$5,252.40
8-10
wks
ITEM 2
3,ea. POLE MOUNT,37.5 KVA,12 KV,240/120 v,l PHASE
HD SUPPLY - BENICIA
355
SUPPLIER
MFG
HEIGHT
DIAMETER
WEIGHT NLL
(WATTS) LL
(WATTS)
CP
BID
BID +TAX LIFE
CYCLE COST
(WEEKS)
HD SUPPLY - PORTLAND
Cooper
39
17
453
76
454
no
$3,792.00
$4,123.80
$6,111.30
8-10
wks
GEXPRO
GE
26
20
432
81
444
N
$4,020.00
$4,371.75
$6,340.50
9-10
wks
GENERAL PACIFIC
Ermco
35
19
509
86
375
N
$3,230.76
$3,513.45
$5,242.20
8
wks
PACIFIC UTILITIES
PPI
40
25
511
(WATTS)
CP
N
BID +`1'AX
LIFE CYCLE COST
(WEEKS)
9-11
wks
HD SUPPLY - BENICIA
73
474
$3,465.00
$3,768.19
$5,819.44
WRATHALL & KRUSI, INC.
HI
39
25
600
33
503
No
$3,966.00
$4,313.03
$6,323.03
8-10
wks
ITEM 3 1, ea. PAD MOUNT, 50 KVA, 12 KV, 240/120 V, 1 PHASE
SUPPLIER MEG HEIGHT WIDTH DEPTH NLL (WATTS) LL (WATTS) CP BID BID +PAX LIFE CYCLE COST (WEEKS)
HD SUPPLY - PORTLAND
Cooper 34 36 32
97 625 y
$2,992.00
$3,253.80
$4,398.80 10-12 wks
GEXPRO
GE 33 36 39
103 561 Y
$3,168.00
$3,445.20
$4,532.70 9-10 wks
GENERAL PACIFIC
Ermco 36 36 20
114 N
$2,756.91
$2,998.14
$4,040.64 8 wks
PACIFIC UTILITIES
NLL (WATTS) LL
(WATTS)
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
HD SUPPLY - BENICIA
99 544
$2,025.00
$2,202.19
$3,253.44
WRATHALL & KRUSI, INC.
HI 40 42 38
48 474 N
$3,410.00
53,7U8.38,
6-8 wks
ITEM 4
1, ea. PAD MOUNT,
225 KVA,
12 KV,
208Y/120 V,
3 PHASE
SUPPLIER
MEG
HEIGHT
WIDTH
DEPTH
NLL (WATTS) LL
(WATTS)
CP
BID
BlD +'PAX LIFE CYCLE COST
(WEEKS)
HD SUPPLY - PORTLAND
Cooper
398
2274
N
$9,148.00
$9,948.45
$14,283.45
8-10
wks
GEXPRO
GE
64
65
51
399
2270
N
$9,074.00
59,867.98
$14,201.73
12-13
wks
GENERAL PACIFIC
Ermco
57
64
47
386
2149
N
$8,199.97
$8,917.47
$13,051.22
8
wks
PACIFIC UTILITIES
50.00
50.00
50.00
HD SUPPLY - BENICIA
355
2341
$9,250.00
$10,059.38
$14,316.88
WRATHALL & KRUSI, INC.
HI
65
58
49
166
2520
No
$9,326.00
$10,142.03
$13,914.53
6-8
wks
ITEM 5
1, ea. PAD MOUNT,
1000 KVA,
12 KV,
480Y/277 V,
3 PHASE
SUPPLIER
MEG
HEIGHT
WIDTH
DEPTH
NLL (WATTS) LL
(WATTS)
CP
BID
BID +`1'AX
LIFE CYCLE COST
(WEEKS)
^�^
lJ
HD SUPPLY - PORTLAND
Cooper
1344
7701
N
$17,343.00
$18,860.51
$33,526.76
8-10
wks
GEXPRO
GE
73
69
74
1306
6880
no
$17,403.00
$18,925.76
$32,423.26
12-13
wks
z
GENERAL PACIFIC
Ermco
63
67
66
1226
6726
N
$16,324.09
$17,752.45
$30,757.45
8
Wks
PACIFIC UTILITIES
HD SUPPLY - BENICIA
1246
6643
$17,300.00
$18,813.75
$31,790.00
WRATHALL & KRUSI, INC.
HI
73
77
63
515
7257
No
$21,500.00
$23,381.25
$34,383.75
6-8
wks
ITEM NO.: 7e
MEETING DATE: July 6, 2011
City cif-<(-1kiali
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
SUBJECT: APPROVE INCREASE TO PURCHASE ORDER FOR THE PURCHASE OF
FLATBED & UTILITY RACK TO COOKS TRUCK BODY MANUFACTURING,
INC. OF ROSEVILLE, CA. FROM 10,013.13 + 10% TO A TOTAL OF 11,242.01.
Submitted for the City Council's consideration and action is Staff's recommendation that an increase in the
Purchase Order to Cooks Truck Body Manufacturing, Inc. of Roseville, CA. for the purchase of a flatbed &
rack for the Foreman Truck be approved to include unforeseen add-ons as well as a difference in tax rate in
the amount of $1,228.88 for a total Purchase Order amount of $11,242.01.
Background: On March 2, 2011 Council approved the purchase of the Flatbed and Utility Rack in the
amount of $10,013.00 (the bid amount) plus 10% for add-ons that may come up during the construction
period. Several items including; sliding combo binders, 6" hooks, wire reels, flip down steps and a 2"
receiver for vise, were needed to make the truck more efficient for use and added as construction
proceeded. These items went over the 10% by approximately $227.58. Staff is requesting Council to
approve the additional $227.58 for the total amount of $11,242.01.
Fiscal Impact:
Budgeted FY 11/12 New Appropriation Not Applicable Budget Amendment Required
Amount Budgeted Source of Funds (title and #) Account Number Addit. Appropriation Requested
$15,000 Overhead Maintenance 800.3642.800.000
Recommended Action(s): Award the increase in Purchase Order to Cooks Truck Body for a total
amount of $11,242.01.
Alternative Council Option(s):
Citizens advised: N/A
Requested by: Mel Grandi, Electric Utility Director
Colin Murphey, Electric Supervisor
Prepared by: Mary Williamson, Purchasing Assistant
Coordinated with: Mary Horger, Purchasing Supervisor
Attachments:
Approved:
Jan hambers, City Manager
City cJ, Iz-1kZah
ITEM NO.: 7f
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
July 6, 2011
SUBJECT: REPORT THE ACQUISITION OF SERVICES FROM SOURCE CALIFORNIA IN THE
AMOUNT OF $9,200, AND AUTHORIZATION TO AMEND THE AGREEMENT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $4,300, FOR A TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $13,500.00 (EUD)
Background: On March 3, 2011, an agreement was entered with Source California Energy Services in the
amount of $9,200 to perform engineering services involving the PLC logic at the Lake Mendocino Hydro
Facility. Source California was selected because they had past experience working with the system.
Discussion: Originally this work was planned on the understanding that the Army Corps of Engineers
(ACOE) was to deliver and install the new instrumentation and then the necessary programming and testing
could be accomplished. When the ACOE arrived, staff realized that they had not yet purchased the final
instrumentation for this project, but brought a prototype that was used to prove the viability of the system. It
was discovered, during an indepth meeting with all parties, that there was an incompatibility problem
between these instruments and the hydro's PLC analog input cards, so it became necessary to obtain a
new input card to accept the new 4-20ma signals. It was also discovered that the full range of river flow
signal would be problematic at lower flow rates, so separate low and high flow devices would be needed
along with the required logic in the PLC to seamlessly switch to the correct device.
Because of these issues it has become necessary for Source California to make a second site visit to the
Hydro Plant to complete this work. It is estimated that this will require three days plus expenses, which
includes travel to and from the project. Therefore, staff is requesting Council's approval to amend the
existing agreement in the amount of $4,300 to cover for this additional work. Also, staff would like the
flexibility to further amend the contract for any unforeseen issues if necessary in the amount of 10% of the
agreement, or $5,000, whichever is greater. Funds are available in 800.5536.250.000.
Fiscal Impact:
Budgeted FY 11/12 F-1New Appropriation Not Applicable Budget Amendment Required
Amount Budgeted Source of Funds (title and #) Account Number Addit. Appropriation Requested
$ 50,000.00 800.5536.250.000 $4,300.00
Recommended Action(s): Receive the report regarding the acquisition of services from Source
California in the amount of $9,200, authorize amending the agreement in the amount of $4,300, for a
total contract amount of $13,500, and authorize staff to additionally amend the agreement if necessary
in the amount of 10% or $5,000, whichever is greater.
Alternative Council Option(s): Receive the report regarding the acquisition of services from Source
California in the amount of $9,200, do not authorize amending the agreement in the amount of $4,300,
for a total contract amount of $13,500, do not authorize staff to additionally amend the agreement if
necessary in the amount of 10% or $5,000, whichever is greater, and provide further direction to staff.
Citizens advised: N/A
Requested by: Mel Grandi, Electric Utility Director
Prepared by: Mary Horger, Purchasing Supervisor, and Bob Greco, Power House/Hydro Plant
Coordinated with: Jane Chamber, City Manager
Attachments: N/A
Approved:44�-
J
e Chambers, City Manager
City cyJ`ZJkia.fi
ITEM NO.: 7g
MEETING DATE: July 6, 20 —
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
SUBJECT: AWARD PURCHASE OF MISCELLANEOUS ELECTRIC UTILITY PARTS IN
THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $20,664.12. (EUD)
The City's Electric Department requests to purchase miscellaneous Electric Utility Parts as described in attached Bid
Tab for the connection of the new sub -station to our electrical grid.
Some of these purchased materials are carried as stock items in our inventory but additional quantities are needed for
this project. The parts being purchased to replenish stock will be charged to the inventory account 800.131.002, and
then expensed to 800.3642.930.000 when used for building of the new sub -station. The items that are solely for this
project will be charged directly to the project account 800.3642.930.000.
Requests were sent to thirteen (13) companies. Five companies responded. A Bid Tab is attached detailing the
results of those bids.
Staff's recommendation is that the purchase of these electric utility items be awarded to the following vendors in the
listed amounts which represent the low bid for each item listed.
One Source Distributors
Total amount inc tax:
$ 9,459.46
HD Supply, Portland
Total amount inc tax:
$ 2,656.98
WESCO Distributors
Total amount inc tax:
$ 629.01
HD Supply, Benicia
Total amount inc tax:
$ 7,918.67
TOTAL purchase amount:
$ 20,664.12
Fiscal Impact:
❑X Budgeted FY 10/11 1-1F-1Appropriation Not Applicable Budget Amendment Required
Funds are available for the purchase to restock inventory and will be expensed from the appropriate
Materials and Inventory Accounts (800.3642.930.000, sub -station, 800.3729.690.000, underground
maintenance or 800.3728.690.000, overhead maintenance) at the time of use.
Recommended Action(s): Award the purchase of miscellaneous electrical utility items in the amount of
$20,664.12. (EUD)
Alternative Council Option(s): Reject all bids and provide direction to Staff.
Citizens advised: N/A
Requested by: Colin Murphey, Electric Supervisor, Jim Bauer, Electrical Distribution Engineer
Prepared by: Mary Williamson, Buyer
Coordinated with: Mary Horger, Purchasing Supervisor
Attachments: Recommended Qualified Bidders, Electrical Transformers
Approved: Y414�
J e Chambers, City Manager
Electric Parts Bid Tab - 61102
Description
QTY
One Source
Total
tax /o
HD Portland
General Pacific
WESCO
HD Benicia
1100 kcmil EPR Potheads (Cold Shrink) 3M QT 1117656 S-4 with QI Seal
9
$90.35
$813.15
$133.28
$1,199.52
$108.67
$978.03
$105.56
$950.04
$99.25
$893.25
Arrestors 1
24
$30.99
- $743.76
$49.64
$1,191.36
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$48.51
$1,164.24
6"x10' Sch 40 U molding
8
$0.00
$0.001
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.001
$72.30
, $578:40
$0.00
$0.00
15 Kv Riser Switch inertia-0651-FR1123= 67"/with 3 lightening arrestor brackets eac
2
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2,984.60 $5,969.20
$2,945.61
$5,891.22
Crossarm 9' Heavy Steel pin
48
$69.37
$3,329.76
$50.90
$2,443.20
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Insulator
60
$8.91
$534.60
$10.10
$606.00
$9.81
$588.60
$14.27
$856.20
$11.80
$708.00
Splices 1100 KCMIL
36
$117.72
$4,237.92
$347.87
$12,523.32
$0.00
$0.00
$268.92 $9,681.12
$265.00
$9,540.00
1/0 Loadbreak Elbow 166 LR -B 5240
60
$21.22
$1,273.20
$25.25
$1,515.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.001
$22.68
$1,360.80
Bushing well insert 200 Amp 15 kv
72
$20.56
$1,480.32
$20.98
$1,510.56
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$19.31
$1,390.32
1100 Kcmil Deadbreak Seperable Connector -stick op with Insul;
9
': $91.31
'` $821.79
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
1000 Kcmil Deadbreak Seperable Connector -stick op with Insul;
3
1 $91.31
$273.93
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Vendor Total:
$8,698.35
1
$2,443.201
$0.00
1
$578.40
$7,281.54
Sub- Total Selected Purcl
$19,001.49
Tax
$1,662.63
Total
$20,664.12
V01
n
iz
m
z
City caj` T.I kj Safi
ITEM NO.: 7h
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
July 6, 2011
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE LEASE AGREEMENT
WITH UKIAH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR THE USE OF OBSERVATORY PARK
HOUSE
Summary: The School District has expressed an interest in the use of the house at Observatory Park
for the Community Transition Program. The Community Transition Program is for students ages 18-22
years old with developmental disabilities. The program provides students with training in vocational and
living skills within a community setting.
Staff brought this item to the City Council in late 2010. Upon receiving direction from Council, staff
continued discussions and meetings on this topic. The Ukiah Unified School Board took action on this
item on June 14, 2011 and approved the terms of the proposed lease agreement.
Background: The Community Transition Program is looking for a community based facility where they
can host teachers and students during their program hours which are Monday through Friday 8am-3pm.
They are interested in utilizing 2 rooms in the house for office space and the remaining rooms for
meetings and gathering. They are also interested in having shared use at the facility for other
community programs. For example, the large gathering spaces in the house could be used during the
evenings or weekends for other community based activities.
Staff feels that this would be an appropriate use at the site and would have a number of benefits. For
example the placement of a year-round program such as the Community Transition Program would
assist in the supervision of the park and historic structures. The small size of the program as well as the
program hours would be conducive with the residential setting.
Moreover, staff feels that this is an advantageous partnership. There would be a tremendous benefit for
the City to combine resources with the School District to meet the needs of the community. The house
has been vacant for a number of years and remains an unutilized resource. Additionally, the City has
received grant funding to install the landscaping and open the park for public use. Having a stable
program/service at the house when the park location becomes active would be a great asset.
Continued on page 2
Recommended Action(s): Authorize City Manager to negotiate and execute lease agreement with Ukiah
Unified School District for the use of the Observatory Park House.
Alternative Council Option(s): Remand to staff with further direction.
Citizens advised: n/a
Requested by: Ukiah Unified School District
Prepared by: Katie Marsolan, Community Services Administrator
Coordinated with: Jane Chambers, City Manager, Sage Sangiacomo, Assistant City Manager
Attachments:
Approved: 4tir2 —_—
Ja ChambersI City Manager
Discussion: City staff and School District staff met and discussed the price and terms which are
included in the proposed lease agreement. The rent amount is $1,150 per month which will provide 2
dedicated rooms as private offices and leave the remaining house as a shared space. Therefore, the
City could potentially have classes, programs or meetings in the shared spaces during the evenings and
weekends. The Community Transition Program (CTP) has a number of appliances that they are willing
to move into the house which include a stove, dishwasher, refrigerator as well as a washer and dryer.
The program uses the appliances for their daily activities which are focused on independent living. They
are also interested in providing the day-to-day janitorial duties which are part of their program routine.
The rent amount would help to off -set the current utility costs at the location and could also assist in
building a capital fund for future repairs and maintenance at the facility.
With Council approval, staff work would move forward to finalize and execute the lease agreement. The
Community Transition Program would move into the location in July and begin their activities at the site
with the new school year in August.
Fiscal Impact:
Budgeted FY 11/12 F-1New Appropriation � Not Applicable Budget Amendment Required
Amount Budgeted Source of Funds (title and #) Account Number Addtl. Appropriation Requested
ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE:
C.'it- cJ' Ik cr.fi
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
July 6, 2011
SUBJECT: NOTIFICATION TO CITY COUNCIL OF THE ACQUISITION OF PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES FROM LACO ASSOCIATES FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
OF 3495 TAYLOR DRIVE IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,400.
Background: Pursuant to the requirements of Section 1522 of the Municipal Code, staff is reporting to City
Council the acquisition of professional services from LACO Associates in the amount of $7400 for the
environmental assessment of the property in escrow at 3495 Taylor Drive, adjacent to the Waste Water
Treatment Plant.
Discussion: On May 24th, 2011, a Request for Proposals was released for a Phase 1 Environmental
Assessment, which is generally considered the first step in the process of environmental due diligence. The
proposals were sent to SHN Consulting, Winzler & Kelly, LACO Associates and EBA Engineering.
Responses were received from LACO Associates and EBA Engineering.
After evaluation of the proposals, the response to the requirements, the qualifications and overall cost,
LACO Associates was awarded the contract at an amount not to exceed $2400.00.
During the course of this work and based on initial findings, LACO Associates recommended the addition of
a limited scope Phase 2, consisted of soil samplings from the subject property. The City agreed to this
recommendation, and the contract was amended for an additional fee of $5,000.00, bringing the total
contract amount to $7,400.00.
Funds were available for this work in 614.3510.810.001 and 614.3510.811.001 as detailed below.
Fiscal Impact:
Budgeted FY 10/11 1-1 New Appropriation Not Applicable Budget Amendment Required
Amount Budgeted Source of Funds (title and #) Account Number Addit. Appropriation Requested
$3700 Sewer Capital Projects -City 614.3510.810.001 none
$3700 Sewer Capital Projects-UVSD 614.3510.811.001 none
Recommended Action(s): Receive notification of the acquisition of professional services from LACO
Associates in the amount of $7400 for an Environmental Assessment of 3495 Taylor Drive.
Alternative Council Option(s): N/A
Citizens advised: N/A
Requested by Tim Eriksen, Director of Public Works
Prepared by: Jarod Thiele, Public Works Administration and Mary Horger, Purchasing Supervisor
Coordinated with: Sage Sangiacomo, Assistant City Manager
Attachments: N/A
Approved:4
pp _
J ne Chambers, City Manager
ITEM NO.: 7i
MEETING DATE: July 6, 2011
city q1 7-1kj0.fi
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
SUBJECT: NOTIFICATION TO CITY COUNCIL OF THE ACQUISITION OF PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES FROM RAU & ASSOCIATES FOR SERVICES RELATED TO AN ALTA
SURVEY AT 3495 TAYLOR DRIVE IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,300, AND
AUTHORIZATION TO AMEND THE EXISTING AGREEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$6,474, FOR A TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $14,774.
Background: Pursuant to the requirements of Section 1522 of the Municipal Code, staff is reporting to City
Council the acquisition of professional services from Rau & Associates in the amount of $8300 for services
related to an American Land Title Association (ALTA) Survey of the property in escrow at 3495 Taylor Drive,
adjacent to the Waste Water Treatment Plant. Staff is also requesting authorization to amend the existing
agreement for an additional amount of $14,774.
Discussion: On June 10, 2011, a Request for Proposals (RFP) was released for professional services
involving an ALTA survey. An ALTA survey is a boundary survey that shows improvements, easements,
rights-of-way, and other elements impacting the ownership of land. The requested scope was to perform
the work per the "Minimum Standard Detail Requirements for ALTA/ACSM Land Title Surveys" effective
February 23, 2011. Additionally, consultants were requested to provide separate cost information for select
Table A items. Table A items are optional survey responsibilities and specifications that go beyond the
basic ALTA survey requirements.
Proposals were received from Rau and Associates, EBA Engineering, and SHN Consulting Engineers.
After evaluation of the proposals, the response to the requirements, the qualifications and overall cost, Rau
and Associates was awarded the contract in the amount not to exceed $8,300 for only the base ALTA
survey, as the additional Table A requirements would require further Council approval.
Staff is now seeking Council's approval to amend the existing contract in the amount of $6,747, to include
the following Table A items (please refer to Attachment #1 for a description of these additional items): 3, 4,
11 a & b, 19, 20 and 21. Also, staff would like flexibility to further amend the contract for any unforeseen
issues in the amount of 10% of the agreement, or $5,000, whichever is greater.
Continued on oaae 2
Recommended Action(s): Receive notification of the acquisition of professional services from Rau &
Associates in the amount of $8300 for an ALTA Survey of the property in escrow located at 3495 Taylor
Drive, authorize amending the existing agreement in the amount of $6,474 to cover additional Table A
items, and authorize staff to additionally amend the agreement if necessary in the amount of 10% of the
agreement, or $5,000, whichever is greater.
Alternative Council Option(s): Accept notification of the acquisition of professional services from Rau
& Associates in the amount of $8300 for an ALTA Survey, and do not authorize amending the existing
agreement to allow for additional Table A items.
Citizens advised: N/A
Requested by Tim Eriksen, Director of Public Works
Prepared by: Mary Horger, Purchasing Supervisor and Jarod Thiele, Public Works Administration
Coordinated with: Sage Sangiacomo, Assistant City Manager
Attachments: Attachment 1- Optional Survey Responsibilities
Approved:
J Chambers, City Manager
Funds are available for this work in 614.3510.810.001 and 614.3510.811.001 as detailed below.
Fiscal Impact:
X❑ Budgeted FY 10/11 F-1F1Appropriation Not Applicable Budget Amendment Required
Amount Budgeted Source of Funds (title and #) Account Number Addit. Appropriation Requested
$7387 Sewer Capital Projects -City 614.3510.810.001 none
$7387 Sewer Capital Projects-UVSD 614.3510.811.001 none
Attachment #
American Land Title Association Minimum Standard Detail Requirements
American Congress on Surveying and Mapping For ALTA/ACSM Land Title Surveys
Effective 2/23/2011
TABLE A
OPTIONAL SURVEY RESPONSIBILITIES AND SPECIFICATIONS
NO TE. • The items of Table A must be negotiated between the surveyor and client. It may be necessary
for the surveyor to quallfy or expand upon the description of these items (e.g., In reference to Item 6(b),
there may be a need for an interpretation of a restriction). The surveyor cannot make a certification on the
basis of an Interpretation or opinion of another party. Notwithstanding Table A Items 5 and 11(b), if an
engineering design survey is desired as part of an ALTA/ACSM Land Title Survey, such services should
be negotiated under Table A, item 22.
If checked, the following optional items are to be Included in the ALTA/ACSM LAND TITLE
SURVEY, except as otherwise qualified (see note above):
1. Monuments placed (or a reference monument or witness to the corner) at all major
corners of the boundary of the property, unless already marked or referenced by existing
monuments or witnesses.
2. Address(es) if disclosed In Record Documents, or observed while conducting the survey.
3. Flood zone classification (with proper annotation based on federal Flood insurance Rate
Maps or the state or local equivalent) depicted by scaled map location and graphic
plotting only.
4. Gross land area (and other areas if speclfled'by the client).
5. Vertical relief with the source of Information (e.g. ground survey or aerial map), contour
interval, datum, and originating benchmark identified.
6. (a) Current zoning classification, as provided by the insurer.
(b) Current zoning classification and building setback requirements, height and floor
space area restrictions as set forth in that classification, as provided by the insurer. If
none, so state.
7. (a) Exterior dimensions of all buildings at ground level.
(b) Square footage of.•
(1) exterior footprint of all buildings at ground level.
(2) other areas as specified by the client.
(c) Measured height of all buildings above grade at a location specified by the client. If no
location Is specified, the point of measurement shall be identified.
Page 8 of 10
Copyright 2011. All rights reserved. "Aft
r:
American Land Title Association and tifdtatxfittlN
American Congress on Surveying and Mapping.
American Land Title Association Minimum Standard Detail Requirements
American Congress on Surveying and Mapping For ALTA/ACSM Land Title Surveys
Effective 2/23/2011
8. Substantial features observed in the process of conducting the survey (In addition to the
improvements and features required under Section 5 above) such as parking lots,
billboards, signs, swimming pools, landscaped areas, etc:
9. Striping, number and type (e.g. handicapped,motorcycle, regular, etc.) of parking spaces
in parking areas, lots and structures.
10. (a) Determination of the relationship and location of certain &vlsion or party walls
designated by the client with respect to adjoining properties (client to obtain necessary
permissions).
(b) Determination of whether certain walls designated by the client are plumb (client to
obtain necessary permissions).
11. Location of utilities (representative examples of which are listed below) existing on or
serving the surveyed property as determined by,
(a) Observed evidence.
(b) Observed evidence together with evidence from plans obtained from utility companies
or provided by client, and markings by utility companies and other appropriate sources
(with reference as to the source of information).
• Railroad tracks, spurs and sidings;
• Manholes, catch basins, valve vaults and other surface indications of
subterranean uses;
• Wires and cables (including their function, if readily identifiable) crossing the
surveyed property, and all poles on or within ten feet of the surveyed property.
Without expressing a legal opinion as to the ownership or nature of the potential
encroachment, the dimensions of all encroaching utility pole crossmembers or
overhangs, and
• utility company installations on the surveyed property.
Note - With regard to Table A, item 11(b), source information from plans and markings will
be combined with observed evidence of utilities to develop a view of those underground
utilities. However, lacking excavation, the exact location of underground features cannot
be accurately, completely and reliably depicted. Where additional or more detailed
information Is required, the client is advised that excavation may be necessary.
12. Governmental Agency survey-related requirements as specified by the client, such as for
HUD surveys, and surveys for leases on Bureau of Land Management managed lands.
13. Names of adjoining owners of platted lands according to current public records.
14. Distance to the nearest Intersecting street as specified by the client,
15. Rectified orthophotography, photogrammetric mapping, airborne/mobile laser scanning
and other similar products, tools or technologies as the basis for the showing the location
of certain features (excluding boundaries) where ground measurements are not otherwise
Page g of 10
Copyright 2011. All sights reserved.
�l N! tfu -
American Land Title Association and i;sviSTtat� 4"`
American Congress on Surveying and Mapping. i";
¢v
American Land Title Association
American Congress on Surveying and Mapping
Minimum Standard Detail Requirements
For ALTAiACSM Land Title Surveys
Effective 2/23/2011
necessary to locate those features to an appropriate and acceptable accuracy relative to
a nearby boundary. The surveyor shall (a) discuss the ramifications of such
methodologies (e.g. the potential precision and completeness of the data gathered
thereby) with the insurer, lender and client prior to the performance of the survey and, (b)
place a note on the face of the survey explaining the source, date, precision and other
relevant qualifications of any such data.
16. Observed evidence of current earth moving work, building construction or building
additions.
17. Proposed changes in street right of way lines, If information is available from the
controlling Jurisdiction. Observed evidence of recent street or sidewalk construction or
repairs.
18. Observed evidence of site use as a solid waste dump, sump or sanitary landfill.
19.Location of wetland areas as delineated by appropriate authorities.
20. (a) Locate improvements within any offsite easements or servitudes benefitting the
surveyed property that are disclosed in the Record Documents provided to the surveyor
and that are observed in the process of conducting the survey (client to obtain necessary
permissions).
(b) Monuments placed (or a reference monument or witness to the corner) at all major
corners of any offsite easements or servitudes benefitting the surveyed property and
disclosed in Record Documents provided to the surveyor (client to obtain necessary
permissions).
21. Professional Liability insurance policy obtained by the surveyor in the minimum amount
of $ to be In effect throughout the contract term. Certificate of Insurance to,
be furnished upon request.
22.
Adopted by the Board of Governors, American Land Title Association, on October 13, 2010,
American Land Title Association, 1828 L St., N. W, Suite 705, Washington, D.C. 20036.
Adopted by the Board of Directors, National Society of Professional Surveyors, on November 15, 2010,
National Society of Professional Surveyors, Inc., a member organization of the American Congress on
Surveying and Mapping, 6 Montgomery Village Avenue, Suite 403, Gaithersburg, MD 20879
Page 10 of 10
Copyright 2011. All rights reserved.
ilM (a�
American Land iltle Association and titsp l toN
American Congress on Surveying and Mapping. �h{�
ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
7k
July 6, 2011
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CONTRACT FOR CONCERTS IN
THE PARK AND CORRESPONDING PURCHASE.
SUMMARY: To celebrate the 20th Anniversary of the Sundays in the Park Concert Series, the City has
negotiated for a performance by the Robert Cray Band for the final concert of the season on August 14,
2011. For this anniversary finale, additional cash sponsorships were secured, some of which were
designated by donor(s) specifically for this higher caliber performer.
The event is funded entirely by private sponsorship, and the funds are held in a trust account
(900.205.226) that the City manages. In accordance with the City's purchasing policies, Staff is
recommending that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute a performance contract in an
amount not to exceed $16,000.
Fiscal Impact:
Budgeted FY 11/12 � New Appropriation Not Applicable Budget Amendment Required
Amount Source of Funds (title and #) Account Number Addtl. Appropriation Requested
Not to exceed $16,000 Sundays in the Park 900.205.226 N/A
*funded entirely by private sponsorships
Recommended Action(s): Authorize City Manager to execute contract for Sundays in the Park and
corresponding purchase not to exceed $16,000.
Alternative Council Option(s): N/A
Citizens advised: Spencer Brewer, Sundays in the Park Consultant and Manager
Requested by: N/A
Prepared by: Katie Marsolan, Community Services Administrator
Coordinated with: Jane Chambers, City Manager and Sage Sangiacomo, Assistant City Manager
Attachments: N/A
Approved: �e /
ne Chambers, City Manager
ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE:
City aJ' T-1 fi rxfi
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
July 6, 2011
SUBJECT: UPDATE ON THE NORTHWESTERN PACIFIC RAIL TRAIL PHASE 1 PROJECT
Background & Discussion: On October 27, 2010, Caltrans notified City staff of the award of Bicycle
Transportation Account (BTA) funding in the amount of $595,935 to the City of Ukiah for design and
construction of the Northwestern Pacific (NWP) Rail Trail Phase 1. This project will consist of a multi -use
trail (8 foot wide paved path, with 2 foot wide graded shoulders) for bicyclists and pedestrians within the
NWP rail corridor, from Clara Avenue to Gobbi Street. Additionally, on December 6, 2010, the Mendocino
Council of Governments (MCOG) awarded a Local Transportation Fund (LTF) grant to cover the City's
required 10% matching funds, in the amount of $66,215. The BTA funds expire on June 30, 2016.
To date, staff has prepared a draft request for proposals (RFP) for consulting services for the planning and
design of the project. Advertisement of the RFP has been temporarily delayed due to recent developments
on the MCOG Rails with Trails Corridor Plan. This MCOG project will provide a rail trail master plan for
Mendocino County, with emphasis in the areas of Ukiah, Willits, and other densely populated areas along
the Northwestern Pacific rail corridor. Alta Planning and Design, consultant for the MCOG project, is
beginning the preliminary design work. Some of the MCOG project scope of work can be utilized for
developing the City's Rail Trail Project. For example, a planning level survey is scheduled to be performed
in early July by Alta to assess existing rail corridor conditions, and identify any environmentally sensitive
areas. After obtaining this survey of existing conditions, Alta will begin developing a conceptual plan for the
rail trail. City staff will utilize this work to finalize the scope of the work and project schedule for the City's
Phase 1 project, and then issue the RFP in early September. The MCOG project will conduct public
workshops in Ukiah and Willits in mid-September. Rather than hold duplicative public workshops for the
City's Phase 1 project, staff is proposing to integrate discussion of the City's phase 1 project with the MCOG
workshop in Ukiah. The City's Phase 1 project consultant can then consider the public comments from this
initial MCOG workshop and immediately proceed to preparing the rail trail design. Coordinating the scope
of work and schedule of the MCOG planning project with the City NWP Rail Trail Phase 1 project will reduce
redundancies between the two projects and provide cost savings to the design phase of the City's project.
Fiscal Impact:
❑ Budgeted FY 10/11 1-1New Appropriation ❑X Not Applicable Budget Amendment Required
Amount Budgeted Source of Funds (title and #) Account Number Additional Appropriation Requested
N/A
Recommended Action(s): No action required.
Alternative Council Option(s): N/A
Citizens advised: None.
Requested by: Tim Eriksen, Director of Public Works / City Engineer
Prepared by: Ben Kageyama, Senior Civil Engineer
Coordinated with: Jane Chambers, City Manager
Attachments: None.
Approved: L14::2n�_
J 6 Chambers, City Manager
City cy_J" 'Z1ki'a-6
ITEM NO.: 11a
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
July 6, 2011
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
AMENDING THE UKIAH GENERAL PLAN BY APPROVING THE 2009-2014 GENERAL
PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
SUMMARY: On March 16, 2011, the City Council conducted a public hearing and tentatively approved
the updated General Plan Housing Element. Staff was directed to complete the final tasks associated
with the document and return to the Council for final approval. Those final tasks included review by the
Mendocino County Airport Land Use Commission, required tribal consultation, and environmental review
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. The tasks have been completed and the updated
General Plan Housing Element is ready for final approval.
Mendocino Airport Land Use Commission: On May 19, 2011, the Mendocino County Airport Land
Use Commission reviewed the tentatively approved Housing Element update and determined on a 6-0
vote that it was consistent with the Mendocino County Airports Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
Tribal Consultation: The California Government Code requires local jurisdictions to consult with local
Native American Tribes prior to adopting or amending its General Plan. Once alerted to a proposed
General Plan adoption or amendment, local tribes have 90 -days in which to request a consultation or
meeting to discuss and consider any issues the tribes may identify with the draft Housing Element.
A letter seeking review and comment was sent to local Native American Tribes on March 17, 2011. The
90 -day period review ended on June 16, 2011, and no request for consultation or comments on the
document were received.
California Environmental Quality Act Review: Staff prepared an Initial Environmental Study to
determine if implementation of the draft Housing Element would result in significant adverse impacts on
the environment. The study concluded that no significant adverse impacts would result from
implementation and a Negative Declaration was prepared. The required public review and comment
Recommended Action(s): 1) Conduct a public hearing; and 2) Adopt the Resolution approving the
Negative Declaration, amending the General Plan and approving the 2009-2014 General Plan Housing
Element Update
Alternative Council Option(s): Provide alternative direction to Staff
Citizens advised: Publicly noticed
Requested by: Charley Stump, Director of Planning and Community Development
Prepared by: Charley Stump, Director of Planning and Community Development
Coordinated with: Jane Chambers, City Manager
Attachments: 1)Resolution
2)lnitial Environmental Study and Negative Declaration
3)General Plan Housing Element Update (previously distributed)
Approved:
Jane hambers, City Manager
period ended on March 21, 2011, and no comments were received. The attached Resolution amending
the General Plan and approving the updated Housing Element also adopts the Negative Declaration.
CONCLUSION: On March 16, 2011, the City Council tentatively approved the 2009-2014 General Plan
Housing Element update, directed Staff to complete the final tasks associated with the document, and to
return it for final adoption. All the tasks have been completed and no changes have been made to the
tentatively approved document. The attached Resolution approves the CEQA Negative Declaration and
amends the General Plan by approving the 2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element.
Fiscal Impact:
Budgeted FY 09/10 1-1NewAppropriation Not Applicable Budget Amendment Required
WN
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH APPROVING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, AMENDING THE UKIAH GENERAL PLAN AND APPROVING AN UPDATE TO THE
HOUSING ELEMENT
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65302 (c) requires that localities adopt a General Plan
Housing Element that complies with the State's standards as set forth in Government Code Section 65580
et seq; and
WHEREAS, the State General Plan guidelines require that the state -mandated Housing Element be
revised every five years to incorporate new information and reflect changes in community needs and values;
and
WHEREAS, the existing Housing Element was adopted in 2004; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City of Ukiah to amend its General Plan and replace said element
with the Housing Element Update; and
WHEREAS, the City has provided the State Department of Housing and Community Development
with the Draft Housing Element for review in accordance with Government Code Section 65585 (b); and
WHEREAS, the State Department of Housing and Community Development provided written
findings indicating the changes needed to bring the Draft Housing Element into substantial compliance with
Government Code Section 65580 et seq; and
WHEREAS, after four reviews, the State Department of Housing and Community Development has
provided tentative approval of the Draft Housing Element Update; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a series of duly noticed public hearings/workshops to
consider the Draft Updated General Plan Housing Element and after receiving testimony, considering the
staff report, and due deliberation, the Planning Commission formulated a recommendation to the City
Council to adopt the Draft Housing Element update; and
WHEREAS, the Draft Housing Element identifies the City's housing needs, setting appropriate
goals, objectives, and policies and includes a five-year program schedule of needed actions to respond to
the goals and implement the policies; and
WHEREAS, on March 16, 2011, The City Council reviewed the Draft Housing Element Update,
conducted a public hearing, and tentatively approved the document; and
WHEREAS, The City Council directed staff t o return the Final Draft to the Council once the
Mendocino County Airport Land Use Commission has reviewed and commented on the document; tribal
consultation is completed, and compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act is achieved.
WHEREAS, on May 19, 2011, the Mendocino County Airport Land Use Commission reviewed the
draft General Plan Housing Element update, and found it to be consistent with the Mendocino County
Airports Comprehensive Land Use Plan; and
3
WHEREAS, on the 90 -day tribal consultation period began on March 17, 2011 and ended on June
16, 2011, and no request for consultation or comments were received; and
WHEREAS, City Staff prepared an Initial Environmental Study to determine if implementation of the
draft Housing Element would result in significant adverse impacts on the environment. The study concluded
that no significant adverse impacts would result from implementation and a Negative Declaration was
prepared. The required public review and comment period ended on March 21, 2011, and no comments
were received; and
WHEREAS, on July 6, 2011, the City Council conducted a public hearing and reviewed the
recommended Negative Declaration and final Draft General Plan Housing Element Update and found both
to be complete and appropriate.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that:
1. The City Council hereby approves the Negative Declaration and amends the Ukiah General Plan by
approving the 2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update.
PASSED AND ADOPTED on 2011 by the following Roll Call Vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Abstain:
Absent:
Mari Rodin, Mayor
ATTEST:
JoAnne Currie, City Clerk
F,
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
General Plan Housing Element Update
2009-2014
Initial Environmental Study
and
Negative Declaration
February 2011
Public Review and Comment Period
March 1, 2011 through March 21, 2011
Department of Planning and Community Development
Ukiah Civic Center
300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction and Background..........................................................3
2.0 Project Location and Description.....................................................4
3.0 Surrounding Land Uses and Setting................................................12
4.0 Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required
or Potentially Required..................................................................12
5.0 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected......................................13
6.0 Determination..............................................................................14
7.0 Initial Study Checklist...................................................................15
8.0 Determination of Significant Effect..................................................58
9.0 Resources....................................................................................59
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 Ukiah Housing Element Update Page 2
City of Ukiah
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code 21000 et seq. and the State CEQA
Guidelines, California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.
A. Project Title
Ukiah General Plan Housing Element Update 2009-2014
B. Lead Agency
City of Ukiah
300 Seminary Drive
Ukiah, CA 95482
C. Contact
Charley Stump, Director
Planning and Community Development
707-463-6219
D. Project Sponsor
City of Ukiah
300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
E. General Plan Designations
Various (citywide)
F. Zoning
Various (citywide)
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 3
City of Ukiah
2.0 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The project is an update of the City of Ukiah Housing Element, an element of the City's
General Plan. The City of Ukiah is located on State Route 101 in central Mendocino
County, California.
The Housing Element update has been prepared in accordance with Article 10.6 of the
State of California Planning and Zoning Law. The proposed Housing Element identifies
and analyzes existing and projected housing needs, and states the City's goals, policies,
quantified objectives, and programs for the preservation, improvement, and
development of housing within the City and sphere of influence. The proposed Housing
Element would therefore be applicable citywide.
A. Format of the Proposed General Plan Housing Element
The proposed General Plan Housing Element contains the following sections:
Background
What is required?
Who are we?
What have we accomplished in the past?
What are we currently working on?
What are our guiding principles for housing?
A note on greenhouse gas emissions and global warming
Opportunities for energy and water conservation
Who needs housing in Ukiah?
What services are provided to the homeless?
Where can homeless facilities be located?
What can the City do to assist the homeless?
Is farm worker housing needed?
Is transitional and supportive housing needed?
Is there a high number of female heads of households?
Are there a high number of extremely low income households?
Are there other types of special needs housing?
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 4
City of Ukiah
What types of housing are needed?
How much housing is needed?
Where can new housing be located?
Is there enough suitable land to meet the regional housing need?
Are there constraints to new housing development?
Can certain constraints be overcome?
Land use controls
Are there any at -risk units in the City?
Do we have a new housing strategy?
Community participation in developing the new strategy
Housing Goals and Policies: What do we want to happen?
Implementation Programs: How do we get there?
Tracking Progress: How will success be measured?
Five-year quantified objectives
Annual Reporting
Consistency with other General Plan Elements
In addition, the proposed General Plan Housing Element contains the following
appendices:
Appendix 1: Implementation Program Table: What, Who, How Much, and When?
Appendix 2: Additional Background Tables: Demographics
Appendix 3: Vacant and Underutilized Land
Appendix 4: Review of the 2004 Housing Element
Appendix 5: Zoning Matrix
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 5
City of Ukiah
B. Goals of the Proposed General Plan Housing Element
The goals of the proposed General Plan Housing Element are similar to those of the
2004 Housing Element:
2004 Housing Goals
2009 - 2014 Housing Goals
Goal H-1: Conserve and improve the existing housing
Goal H-1: Conserve, rehabilitate, and improve the existing
stock to provide adequate, safe, and decent housing
housing stock to provide adequate, safe, energy efficient, and
for all Ukiah residents.
decent housing for all Ukiah residents.
Goal H-2: Provide housing for all economic segments
Goal H-2: Provide housing for all economic segments of the
of the community.
community.
Goal H-3: Expand affordable housing opportunities for
Goal H-3: Expand affordable housing opportunities for
persons with special housing needs such as the elderly,
persons with special housing needs such as the homeless,
homeless, mentally ill, physically disabled, households
mentally ill, physically disabled, households with very low to
with very low to moderate incomes, and first time
moderate incomes, senior citizens, farm workers, female heads
homebuyers.
of households with children under 18 years old, and first time
homebuyers.
Goal H-4: Promote housing opportunities for all
Goal H-4: Promote well planned and designed housing
persons regardless of race, gender, age, sexual
opportunities for all persons regardless of race, gender, age,
orientation, marital status or national origin.
sexual orientation, marital status or national origin.
Goal H-5: Use land effectively to meet housing needs
Goal H-5: Use land effectively to meet housing needs and to
and to implement smart growth and sustainable
implement smart growth, green building, and sustainable
development policies.
development policies with a focus on infill development.
Goal H-6: Ensure public participation in the
Goal H-6: Maintain a collaborative working relationship with
development of the City's housing policies.
all groups and organizations dedicated to providing affordable
housing in the community, and ensure broad public
participation in the development of housing goals and policies.
The proposed Housing Element lists a total of 26 policies and 41 implementation
programs aimed at achieving these goals over the planning period.
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 6
City of Ukiah
C. Housing Program Changes and Relationship to the 2004 General Plan
Housing Element
The goals and policies of the proposed Housing Element are generally similar to those
of the City's 1995 and 2004 Housing Elements and associated EIR and Mitigated
Negative Declaration.
The following implementation programs of the 2004 Housing Element were not included
in the 1995 General Plan. They had the potential to alter the estimated housing unit
buildout provided for by the General Plan and analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
IP -2.6.1 Zoning Ordinance Amendments: Adopt the following amendments:
i. Reduce the setback requirements in the C-1 and C-2 zoning
districts for multiple -story buildings to three feet from edge of the
sidewalk.
ii. Eliminate the maximum lot coverage requirement of 40 percent in
the C-1 and C-2 districts.)
iii. Revise the density requirements of Article 12: Condominium
Developments to add reference to mixed uses in Zoning Ordinance
§9150 C. Density as follows: "The maximum allowable density in
any residential or mixed use condominium to be constructed shall
be that of the district within which the development is located as
follows:" and "3. R-3, General Multiple Residential District, C -N,
Neighborhood Commercial, C-1 Community Commercial and C-2
Heavy Commercial districts....."
iv. Amend Article 17. Off -Street Parking and Loading to establish
flexible parking standard for mixed uses in commercial zoning
districts. Consider a reduction of up to 35 percent where day/night
uses occur in mixed-use developments.
V. Amend Article 17. Off -Street Parking and Loading to specifically
reduce parking requirements for senior housing developments by
30 percent or more.
vi. Amend Article 17. Off -Street Parking and Loading to permit
uncovered parking spaces for Live/Work Units.
vii. Amend Article 17. Off -Street Parking and Loading to permit a basic
20 percent reduction in parking requirements for deed -restricted
affordable housing units and for mixed use housing.
viii. Consider adopting a Small Lot Subdivision Ordinance that would
allow Z -lots, zero lot lines, tandem driveways and other features to
facilitate the construction of affordable housing on smaller lots.
IP -3.2.1 Additional Housing for Senior Population: Permit senior housing
developments for persons aged 55 and over, with reduced parking and
other requirements.
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 7
City of Ukiah
IP -3.4.1 Density Bonus Regulations: Revise the Zoning Ordinance to comply with
the Density Bonus provisions of Government Code § 65915 requiring the
granting of a density bonus of 25 percent and an additional financial
incentive, or financially equivalent incentive(s), to a developer of housing
agreeing to construct at least a) 20 percent of the units for lower income
households; or b) 10 percent of the units for very -low income households;
or c) 50 percent of the units for senior citizens or for disabled persons.
Adopt an ordinance setting forth the requirements of the Density Bonus
Program and defining affordable sales prices and rents, the affordability
criteria, and additional incentives.
IP -3.7.2 Single Room Occupancy (SRO): Adopt a Single Room Occupancy
Ordinance that establishes performance standards with regard to fencing,
lighting and reduced parking requirements. Allow SROs with a conditional
use permit in the C-1 and C-2 zoning districts.
IP -5.3.1 Mixed Use in the Commercial Districts: Revise the Zoning Ordinance to
establish a maximum density of 29 units per acre above the ground floor
and to the rear of a commercial uses in the CA C-1 and the C-2 zoning
districts and allow mixed uses without a conditional use permit approval.
IP -5.4.1 Allow Live/Work Units: Revise the Zoning Ordinance to permit live/work
units in conjunction with a permitted industrial use in the M Manufacturing
zoning district at a density of up to 20 units per acre subject to a
Conditional Use Permit.
Housing Program Changes in the Current Document (2009-2014)
Some of the housing programs in 2004 remain in the 2011 Element. For example, the
pursuit of an inclusionary housing ordinance remains as an implementation measure.
New implementation measures include the following:
111-2.1: Identify and meet with nonprofit builders who specialize in building housing for extremely low-income
households. This effort is designed to build a long-term partnership in development, gain access to
specialized funding sources, identify the range of local resources and assistance needed to facilitate the
development of housing for extremely low-income households, and promote a variety of housing types,
including higher density, multifamily supportive, single room occupancy and shared housing.
H -2.m: Work in conjunction with other agencies to jointly develop and implement a program that is
designed to address the needs of the extremely low income households in the City. At least annually and on
an on-going basis contact agencies and developers to facilitate implementing the program. Actions to be
considered for inclusion in the program include prioritizing City/RDA funding, supporting grant and other
applications for funding, and exploring housing types and construction methods to promote housing for ELI
citizens.
H -2.n: Add a definition to the zoning ordinance for transitional and supportive housing that does not
involve medical treatment and other formal services making it clear that this type of land use is identical to
other typical residential land uses.
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 8
City of Ukiah
H -2.o: Post the sites inventory map and information on the City's website and prepare hard -copy
informational handout material for property owners and developers.
H -2.p: Monitor the availability of residential capacity of identified sites on a project -by -project basis to
ensure that adequate capacity suitable to accommodate the City's remaining regional need is maintained.
H -2.q: Identify a prime affordable housing infill site currently burdened by flood zone issues and pursue an
engineering study and possible FEMA map correction to eliminate this constraint.
H -3.d: Continue to support and assist farmworker housing advocates by providing technical
assistance with development applications; lower planning application fees for affordable housing
projects, and identifying potential sites for farm worker housing.
H -3.e: Amend the zoning code to define and allow Single Room Occupancy (SRO) developments
in the Medium Density (R-2) and High Density (R-3) zoning districts.
H -5.c: Prepare and present a green building/sustainable development incentive tool(s) for
consideration that could include expedited permit processing, density bonuses and relief from
parking and other zoning requirements.
H -5.d: Green Building Codes: Consider Amending the building and zoning codes to identify and
remove constraints to green -building, resource conservation, and alternative energy generation
and establish green building and sustainable practice requirements for new developments,
remodels and retrofits. Topics to be included are: Green building materials and practices, Passive
solar design and siting, Energy efficient heating and cooling technology, Alternative water
storage, wastewater treatment and reclamation, and storm -water management systems
H -5.e: Continue to administer the solar and energy efficiency rebate programs.
WSJ: Assist developers and housing development agencies in incorporating green building,
energy conservation, and alternative energy generation into their projects by providing
information about resources and links to local organizations such as local renewable energy
system designers and installers, rebates, energy -rating systems, and funding, on the Housing
Resources website.
H -5.g: Promote energy and water conservation education programs that address steps to
energy and water efficiency, benefits of weatherization and weatherization assistance programs,
and information of onsite renewable energy generation technologies and financing options.
H -5.h: Promote stormwater management systems for mutli-family housing developments that
have multiple benefits such as bio-swales to reduce downstream flooding, contamination of
streams and rivers, fire hazard, and irrigation needs and to distribute stormwater and recharge
groundwater.
WSJ: Reduce electricity and natural gas demands by promoting the use of renewable energy
technologies in residential and mixed-use projects. Strongly promote solar energy generation, use
of solar water heaters, and passive solar design in new housing and, especially, multi -family
housing both prior to and during project review.
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 9
City of Ukiah
H -5.j: Work with developers to create residential neighborhoods with mixed housing densities,
types, and housing affordability levels that promote human interaction, neighborhood -scale
services and facilities, safety, and connectivity to schools, neighborhoods, and commerce.
H -5.1k: Adopt a form based zoning code for the downtown that would promote and provide
opportunity for compact, pedestrian friendly, infill mixed use development including a variety of
housing types.
H -6.a: Redesign and reinvigorate the RDA low and moderate income housing program.
H -6.b: Develop a Housing Resources webpage that may be used to facilitate the development
and improvement of affordable housing. Included on the webpage could be items such as funding
resources, affordable housing development agencies and developers, energy conservation and
green -building resources and services.
H -6.c: Conduct periodic meetings with developers and non-profit housing development agencies
to identify constraints to development of affordable housing and use the information gained to
consider zoning code amendments.
Relationship of Proposed General Plan Housing Element to the Mitigated Negative
Declaration approved for the 2004 General Plan Housing Element
The goals, policies, and programs of the proposed Housing Element generally reflect
those contained in the 2004 General Plan Housing Element and its Mitigated Negative
Declaration. It is estimated that these policies and implementation measures would
allow the same number of residential units than could have occurred under the 2004
General Plan Housing Element. These units would occur almost entirely within
commercial districts. Thus, opportunity for new residential units is similar to 2004 with
the exception that not as many sites exist today. However, the MCOG regional fair
share numbers are less than in 2004, which reflects the reduction of available land.
Growth Over the Next Five Years
The Draft Housing Element is a policy document that incorporates the City's plans for
promoting new housing to meet the demands of its population. The Draft Housing
Element does not state that new development will occur on specific properties. New
development is possible under the Housing Element and the General Plan.
The 1995 General Plan predicted that the City's population would grow from 14,600
people in 1990 to 17,291 in 2000. This increased population would need 1,089 new
dwelling units (calculated at an average household size of 2.47 people per household).
The General Plan predicted a 20 -year buildout from the time the Plan was adopted in
1995 to 2015 of 6,956 new people or 2,816 new units (a slightly different number than
the 2,804 units used above since from the time the Plan was prepared the average
household size has very slightly declined). The actual population growth and
development of new units has been much slower than predicted in the General Plan.
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 10
City of Ukiah
The actual 2000 population was only 898 people larger than the 1990 population, rather
than 2,691 people higher as predicted in the General Plan. Moreover, the 2009
population was 15,711, 1,580 people less than predicted for the year 2000.
Year
Population
Population Growth
2004
15,873
2005
15,842
Decrease - 31 less people
2006
15,758
Decrease - 84 less people
2007
15,719
Decrease -39 less people
2008
15,686
Decrease -33 less people
2009
15,711
Increase - 25 more people
162 less people in 2009 than in 2004
when the last Housing Element was
prepared and certified
Source: State Department of Finance (www.dof.ca.gov)
Based on the pace of housing development in Ukiah between 2004 and 2009
(approximately 5.6 housing units per year), it is reasonable to assume that (1)
development during the five-year planning period of the proposed Housing Element will
be well within the remaining residential buildout potential of the 1995 General Plan
(2,804 units by 2015), and therefore (2) the potential for approximately 250 more
housing units would not cause total residential buildout during the Housing Element
planning period to exceed that anticipated under the 1995 General Plan and analyzed in
the General Plan EIR or in the 2004 Housing Element and associated Mitigated
Negative Declaration.. Even assuming residential development at the highest growth
rate recently experienced in Ukiah (approximately 125 units built in 2002), development
during the Housing Element's five-year planning period would remain well within the
remaining residential buildout potential of the 1995 General Plan (2,804 units). It is also
important to note that mixed use and live/work development allowed by proposed
Housing Element policies and programs could displace some commercial and industrial
buildout potential, and thus could offset certain impacts from non-residential
development, such as traffic increases, that were anticipated in the 1995General Plan
EIR. This fact was also noted in the 2004 General Plan Housing Element mitigated
Negative Declaration.
The General Plan EIR (Ukiah Valley General Plan Environmental Impact Report, City of
Ukiah, October 10, 1994) is incorporated into this Initial Study by reference, as is the
2004 General Plan Housing Element Update Mitigated Negative Declaration. The
General Plan EIR evaluated the effects of new development that could result from the
land use designations, goals, policies, and implementation programs of the General
Plan. The proposed Housing Element would not significantly alter any of the impact
findings of the General Plan EIR or 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration. The proposed
Housing Element is a policy document that would not significantly change (or aggravate)
the environmental conditions identified in the General Plan EIR or 2004 Mitigated
Negative Declaration... As noted above, based on the pace of housing development
since the 2004 Housing Element was updated, it is reasonable to assume that adoption
of the proposed 2009-2014 Housing Element would not cause residential development
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 11
City of Ukiah
during the Housing Element planning period to exceed that anticipated in the General
Plan and analyzed in the General Plan EIR or 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration.
3.0 SETTING
The City of Ukiah is located along State Route 101 in the Ukiah Valley. The surrounding
portions of the Ukiah Valley are unincorporated and under the jurisdiction of the County
of Mendocino. The County of Mendocino is in the process of considering adoption of
the Ukiah Valley Area Plan as the County's plan for the planning area.
4.0 OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED OR
POTENTIALLY REQUIRED
State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 12
City of Ukiah
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
Boxes marked with an "X" below indicate environmental factors that would be potentially
affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant
Impact" or "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
Agriculture Resources
Biological Resources
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Mineral Resources
Public Services
Utilities & Service Systems
Aesthetics
Cultural Resources
F1
Hydro logy/Water Quality
Population & Housing
Recreation
Air Quality
Geology &Soils
Land Use & Planning
VN
Noise
Transportation & Traffic
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 13
City of Ukiah
6.0 DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the
environment and a Negative Declaration will be prepared.
X
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect
on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case
because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the
applicant. A Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the
environment, and an Environmental Impact Report is required.
I find that the proposed project may have a "potentially significant
impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated impact" on the
environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in
an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis
as described on attached sheets. An Environmental Impact Report is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be
addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect
on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have
been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration
pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed
project, nothing further is required.
Planning and Community Development
Date
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 14
City of Ukiah
7.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
This section documents the anticipated environmental effects of the proposed project
using an Initial Study Checklist and providing a brief explanation supporting the findings
of each checklist item.
The Draft General Plan Housing Element is a program. It does not specify or include an
application for specific development on specific sites. At the time specific development
applications are filed, each proposed project will need to undergo site-specific and
project -specific CEQA analysis as well as a consistency analysis to determine
consistency with the Housing Element and General Plan. The Draft Housing Element
would have no direct impacts on the physical environment. New development may be
allowed or "induced" by the Draft Housing Element in that it allows new development on
vacant and underutilized parcels of land in Ukiah.
No more new development is predicted over the life of the Draft Housing Element than
was predicted for the same period of time in the General Plan. The City certified a Final
EIR for the General Plan on June 10, 1995, and the General Plan was adopted on
December 6, 1995. In adopting the General Plan, the City found that the General Plan
policies and implementation measures reduced all environmental impacts to a less than
significant level.
In 2004, the City adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the update of the General
Plan Housing Element.
While development might occur in greater density in certain areas than predicted for the
1995 General Plan, due to a significant slowdown of residential development since 2004
the current National/State economic crisis, and the slow population growth, the overall
level of development over the next five years is expected to be less than predicted in the
1995 General Plan, as well as in the 2204 Housing Element update. Additionally,
impacts from potentially increased residential density may be offset by reduced impacts
from commercial or industrial development of those same areas.
The Draft Housing Element would, over the next five years, allow additional
development in the same areas allowed in 2004. No new areas have been identified, yet
this Initial Environmental Study identifies changes in the environmental setting that may
not have been anticipated in 2004, and which may contribute to potential environmental
impacts. It discusses whether this development and changes in the setting could cause
any significant cumulative impacts not foreseen when the City adopted the 2004
Updated Housing Element and whether existing 1995 General Plan policies and
implementation measures would continue to reduce the cumulative impacts to a less
than significant level.
For purposes of this analysis, it will be assumed that the projected growth that would
occur in Ukiah from 2009 to 2014 would be 459 new units. The Mendocino Council of
Governments (MCOG) in their most recent Regional Housing Needs Determinations
predicted the need for construction of 459 new units between 2009 and 2014 to meet
the needs of the predicted City population. While this projected housing development
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 15
City of Ukiah
and growth assumption may seem entirely overstated given the trends since 2004 and
the current economic crisis, it is used as a "worst case" scenario for the purposes of the
California Environmental Quality Act.
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 16
City of Ukiah
I. Aesthetics
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
x
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
x
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
x
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
x
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than significant
impact
The Draft Housing Element promotes additional residential development in
commercial zones and overall infill development. The addition of residential
units above commercial development and/or mixed with such development would
not be expected to create a significant impact on views in commercial
neighborhoods. In fact, including residential development in non-residential
zones could add new, creative design elements and actually improve the views
in these areas.
The City's General Plan includes a Community Design Element that contains
numerous policies and implementation measures aimed at preserving important
aesthetic resources in Ukiah. The City also has adopted Landscaping and
Streetscape Design Guidelines (1995) which guide future development to
preserve and enhance views. Additionally, the City is poised to adopt a new
Downtown Zoning Code (Smart Code) that promotes careful infill mixed use
development and contains design standards. It is expected that new
development, including the additional development allowed under the Draft
Housing Element, would be conditioned by the City's various design review
policies and regulations to a level that the cumulative impact on aesthetic
resources would continue to be reduced to a less than significant level.
Subsequent housing development projects would be required to undergo design
review via the Site Development Permit review process and would have to
comply with policies of the General Plan, the Landscaping and Streetscape
Design Guidelines, and the new Downtown Code once adopted.
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 17
City of Ukiah
The visual impacts from development of 459 units over the next five years
allowed under the Draft Housing Element would continue to be reduced to a less
than significant level by implementation of City design review procedures and
requiring consistency with General Plan policies.
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No impact.
There is no State scenic highway near the City of Ukiah. As such, there would
be no impact.
C. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings? Less than significant impact.
See the discussion under Impact I(a) above
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the area? Less than significant impact.
Light and glare impacts from growth allowed (or "induced') by the Draft Housing
Element would be essentially the same as those considered in the EIR prepared
for the Ukiah General Plan and 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Updated Housing Element. The additional development possible under the Draft
Housing Element would be in areas already developed commercial or
manufacturing uses. The increased density of new mixed use or live/work units
would not be expected to substantially increase lighting or glare. Subsequent
housing development projects would be required to undergo design review and
to comply with policies of the General Plan, the Landscaping and Streetscape
Design Guidelines, and the Downtown Code once adopted.
The light and glare impacts from development of 459 units over the next five
years allowed under the Draft Housing Element would continue to be reduced to
a less than significant level by implementation of City design review procedures
and requiring consistency with General Plan policies.
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 18
City of Ukiah
II. Agricultural Resources
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
ifiil
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
g g yf
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as
an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and
farmland. Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
x
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
x
Williamson Act contract?
c. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due
x
to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use? No impact.
The Draft Housing Element does not require or promote annexation of
unincorporated lands into the City. Lands within the City Limits have already
been designated for urban uses. There are no lands designated for agricultural
use in the City. The Draft Housing Element would not result in the conversion of
any farmlands not already slated for future urban development in the City
General Plan.
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No impact.
The proposed Housing Element would not create any conflicts with existing
agricultural zoning or Williamson Act contracts. No land within the Ukiah City
limits is zoned for agricultural use or under Williamson Act contract.
C. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? No
impact.
See Checklist Items II(a) and (b) above.
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 19
City of Ukiah
III. Air Quality
Where available, the significance criteria by the applicable air
quality management or air pollution control district may be relied
a y g p Y
upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality Ian?
x
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to
an existing or projected air quality violation?
x
c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitativethresholds for ozoneprecursors) ?
x
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
x
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people?
x
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less
than significant impact.
New development allowed under the Draft Housing Element would increase the
number of vehicle trips in and around Ukiah. However, the increase would not
be any greater than allowed and predicted for the same time period under the
City's General Plan and 2004 Updated Housing Element. The expanded
development potential allowed by the element would be essentially the same as
in 2004 and primarily come from increasing residential development in
commercial areas. Increasing density typically decreases the number and/or
length of vehicular trips. Higher density in commercial areas promotes walking
or bicycling and makes mass transit a more appealing travel alternative.
Work/live spaces reduce commuting and the number of new trips. Allowing
increased density in existing neighborhoods reduces the need to annex
unincorporated lands and build new residential units in a more typical low density
fashion. The programs in the Draft Housing Element that increase allowable
residential development would reduce emissions as compared to development
patterns allowed under the existing General Plan.
The air quality in the Mendocino County Air Quality Management District
(MCAQMD) is generally good. The District is designated "attainment" (meaning it
meets the air quality standard) for all State and Federal ambient air quality
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 20
City of Ukiah
standards except for respirable particulate matter (PM 10). The City of Ukiah
monitoring station has reported exceedances that were coincident with severe
smoke inundation of all of Northern California due to wildfires. The major sources
of PM 10 are combustion (automobile, diesel, wood smoke, and industrial) and
dust (road dust caused by vehicle travel, and naturally occurring dust from winds,
etc.). The City's General Plan contains 10 policies and numerous implementation
measures to reduce air pollution in the City and surrounding area.
Air quality impacts would be considered, as necessary, through environmental
review required for any subsequent housing development projects. These
projects would be required to comply with General Plan air quality policies and
implementation measures (pages 36-40 of the Open Space and Conservation
Element) and the requirements for CEQA review established by the MCAQMD
It is expected that continued compliance with City General Plan policies and
MCAQMD regulations would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. In
fact, the policies of the Draft Housing Element that promote increased residential
development in the commercial parts of town would benefit air quality as
compared to the type of development allowed under the existing General Plana
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation? Less than significant impact.
See the discussion of Item III(a) above. It is not expected that development
occurring to 2014 would result in an air quality standard violation or contribute a
significant amount of PM10.
C. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less than significant impact.
New development within the City and within the unincorporated portions of the
Ukiah Valley would potentially add new sources of PM10. The principal sources
would be from new development occurring in the unincorporated areas. By
promoting denser development patterns in the commercial parts of town, the
Draft Housing Element may reduce the demand to develop more distant sites in
the unincorporated area. This would reduce the number of new trips and the
average length of trips, thereby improving air quality during the lifetime of the
Draft Housing Element. The proposed Housing Element would not significantly
change (or aggravate) the air quality conditions identified in the General Plan
EIR or 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration. In fact, the Draft Housing Element
could improve conditions that would otherwise occur. The General Plan contains
specific implementation measures to reduce PM10 by restricting the use of wood
heating devices, controlling dust from construction activities, and reducing dust
emissions from City streets. It is not expected that PM10 emissions from new
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 21
City of Ukiah
development in the City over the next five years would be "considerable" and
lead to additional PM10 exceedances. The cumulative impact from additional
development in the unincorporated parts of the Ukiah Valley will be addressed in
the EIR that is currently being prepared for the Ukiah Valley Area Plan.
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than
significant impact.
Indirect impacts on air quality from growth allowed by the proposed Housing
Element would be similar to those addressed in the EIR prepared for the Ukiah
General Plan and 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration. The one difference is
that the Draft Housing Element allows more residential development in
commercial districts. These areas typically have more traffic congestion which
can result in localized pollution levels that are higher than those typically found in
residential neighborhoods. However, modeling for carbon monoxide "hot spots"
done for past EIRs in the City showed that even at very congested intersections
in commercial areas, the CO levels were well below the allowable standards
(e.g., Orrs Creek Bridge and Orchard Avenue Extension Project Draft EIR,
Leonard Charles and Associates, 2002, p. 121). The proposed Housing Element
would not significantly change (or aggravate) the air quality conditions identified
in the General Plan EIR or 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration. Impacts to
specific projects and project -specific mitigation (if warranted) would need to be
assessed during the subsequent City and MCAQMD review of those projects
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less than
significant impact.
Housing development is not typically a source of odors. Mixed use or live/work
development enabled by the Draft Housing Element may create situations in
which odors from commercial or industrial development affect residents. This
possibility can only be evaluated through environmental review of subsequent,
site-specific development proposals.
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 22
City of Ukiah
IV. Biological Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
x
habitat modification, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
x
other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
x
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
x
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
x
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
x
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservationplan?
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification,
on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than significant
impact.
Indirect impacts on sensitive plant and wildlife species from growth allowed by
the Draft Housing Element are expected to be essentially the same as those
addressed in the EIR prepared for the Ukiah General Plan and 2004 Mitigated
Negative Declaration. The implementation programs of the proposed Housing
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 23
City of Ukiah
Element that were not included in the 1995 General Plan would involve changes
in residential development potential in areas that are already designated for
development by the General Plan. These areas are the same as adopted in the
2004 Housing Element Update. These programs therefore would not result in
any new effects on plant or wildlife species that were not evaluated in the
General Plan EIR or 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration.
The remaining sites where new development could occur, as shown on the
vacant and Underutilized Land Map, are primarily infill lots in the developed
portion of Ukiah and the same as in 2004 (with minor exceptions). It is not
expected that these lots contain sensitive or valuable biological habitat nor
support any special status species of plants or animals. There is sensitive
habitat and the potential for special status species in the western hill area (i.e.,
the Single -Family Residential Hillside District). The proposed Hillside
Development regulations require vegetation surveys and avoidance of sensitive
biological resources. In addition, substantial amounts of open space would be
retained in this hill area.
Project -specific impacts on sensitive species would be considered, as
necessary, through environmental review required for any subsequent housing
development projects. These projects would be required to comply with
applicable policies of the Open Space and Conservation Element of the Ukiah
General Plan. It is expected that project compliance with policies of the General
Plan and the new Hillside Development Regulations would continue to reduce
impacts to special status species to a less than significant level.
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or
by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than significant impact.
Indirect impacts on riparian habitat from growth allowed by the Draft Housing
Element would be essentially the same as those addressed in the EIR prepared
for the Ukiah General Plan and in the 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Since the implementation programs of the proposed Housing Element that were
not included in the 1995 General Plan would involve changes in residential
development potential in areas that are already designated for development, the
programs would not result in any new effects on riparian or other sensitive
habitat that were not evaluated in the General Plan EIR or 2004 Mitigated
Negative Declaration.
It is possible that some vacant lots are adjacent to Orrs, Gibson, or Doolin
Creeks. The City's General Plan contains policies and measures (policies and
measures on pages 7-10 of the Open Space and Conservation Element) to
protect these riparian resources. In addition, the City has adopted stream
enhancement plans for Orrs and Gibson Creeks. Existing General Plan policies
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 24
City of Ukiah
and the stream enhancement plans would continue to reduce impacts of future
development to a less than significant level.
C. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means? Less than significant impact.
Indirect impacts on wetlands from growth allowed by the proposed Housing
Element would be essentially the same as those addressed in the EIR prepared
for the Ukiah General Plan and the 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted
for the 2004 Updated Housing Element. Vacant lots available for development
are primarily infill urban lots that do not contain wetlands. The western hills area
is mainly steep hillsides that do not contain wetlands. The potential for impact to
wetlands is small, plus wetlands have regulatory protection from both the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Fish and Game. It is
not expected that new development would significantly affect wetlands, but this
would need to be confirmed in site-specific studies for future development
proposals.
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish
or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Less than
significant impact.
See Checklist Items IV(a) through IV(c) above. With the exception of the
western hills area, the vacant infill lots available for development do not provide
wildlife corridors or substantive nursery sites. Riparian corridors through the City
would be enhanced per the stream enhancement plans, and this would benefit
wildlife travel. It is not expected that new development would significantly affect
wildlife travel or nurseries, but this would need to be confirmed in site-specific
studies for future development proposals.
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No impact.
The proposed Housing Element would not conflict with local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources. Subsequent housing development
would be required to comply with applicable policies of the Open Space and
Conservation Element of the Ukiah General Plan. The City of Ukiah does not
have a tree preservation ordinance or other local ordinance protecting biological
resources. The General Plan does contain substantive policies to protect and
replenish oak woodlands and to maintain and enhance the "urban forests" of the
City.
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 25
City of Ukiah
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan? No impact.
There are no applicable Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community
Conservation Plans, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat
conservation plans in the Ukiah planning area. The City has adopted or will
adopt stream enhancement plans for the three major streams passing through
the City. It is expected that new development would be consistent with the
recommendations included in those plans.
V. Cultural Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?
x
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
x
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
x
Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside
of formal cemeteries?
x
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource
as defined in Section 15064.5? Less than significant impact.
Indirect impacts on historic resources from growth allowed by the proposed
Housing Element would be essentially the same as those considered in the EIR
prepared for the Ukiah General Plan and 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration.
The City General Plan contains a map (Figure V.3 -DD) showing areas of "high
cultural sensitivity." None of the vacant lots shown on Figure 2 or the western
hills area is designated "high sensitivity" on this map. Cultural resource impacts
would be addressed through site-specific environmental analysis for future
projects, which would be subject to implementation programs set forth in the
Historic and Archaeological Resources Element of the General Plan. It is
expected that future development would have a less than significant impact on
these resources.
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 26
City of Ukiah
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? Less than significant impact.
As described above for historical resources, none of the vacant lots shown on
the Vacant and Underutilized Land Map nor the western hills area is designated
"high cultural sensitivity." It is expected that future development would have a
less than significant impact on these resources.
C. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? No impact
There are no known unique paleontological resources or sites, or unique
geological features, in the Ukiah planning area.
d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? Less than significant impact.
It is unlikely that human remains would be uncovered during construction of new
residential development in Ukiah. If such remains are uncovered, the developer
of the site is legally required to contact the County Coroner, and the remains are
cared for per State law. It is not expected that new development would have an
impact on human remains.
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 27
City of Ukiah
VI. Geology and Soils
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
x
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
x
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
x
would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of
x
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks
to life or ip ert ?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
x
septic tanks or alternative water disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
Rupture of known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Pholo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist
for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?
Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv. Landslides? Less than significant impact.
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 28
City of Ukiah
Indirect impacts related to geologic hazards from growth allowed by the Draft
Housing Element would be essentially the same as those considered in the EIR
prepared for the Ukiah General Plan and the 2004 Mitigated Negative
Declaration. The implementation programs of the proposed Housing Element
that were not included in the 2004 Housing Element would involve changes in
residential development potential in areas that are already designated for
development by the General Plan. These programs therefore would not result in
any new seismic or landslide hazards that were not evaluated in the General
Plan EIR or 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration. It is expected that compliance
with General Plan policies, Zoning Ordinance requirements, Hillside
Development Regulations, and the requirements set forth in the Uniform Building
Code would continue to reduce seismic -related impacts to a less than significant
level.
Seismic -related as well as other geologic and soil -related constraints must be
addressed in each new project's applications, grading plans, and/or building
permits per the policies and implementation measures of the General Plan
(seismic safety policies and measures are listed on page 5 and landslides on
page 6 of the Safety Element) and Hillside Development Regulations (for sites in
the western hills area.).
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than significant
impact.
Indirect impacts related to erosion and topsoil loss from growth allowed by the
proposed Housing Element would be essentially the same as those considered
in the EIR prepared for the Ukiah General Plan and 2004 Mitigated Negative
Declaration. New development allowed by the Draft Housing Element would be
on infill lots mainly on relatively flat areas. The potential for erosion on such infill
lots is relatively low. The Hillside Development Regulations require grading
plans that show how erosion would be controlled for new development in the
western hills area. The existing General Plan policies aimed at minimizing
erosion (policies on page 16 of the Open Space and Conservation Element),
General Construction Permit Requirements established by the RWQCB (for
projects over one acre in size), the standards of the required Municipal Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Program, and the City's stream enhancement plans,
would all substantially reduce erosion from new development. It is expected that
these standards and requirements would continue to reduce the cumulative
erosion impact to a less than significant level. Each project would need to be
assessed to determine site-specific impacts and to identify required mitigations
to ensure conformance with City policies and standards.
C. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 29
City of Ukiah
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less than
significant impact.
See Checklist Item VI(a) above.
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less than
significant impact.
See Checklist Item VI(a) above.
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water? No impact.
The City of Ukiah does not allow use of septic tanks or alternative water disposal
systems within the City limits.
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 30
City of Ukiah
VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
x
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
x
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
x
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
x
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment?
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
x
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area.
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
x
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
x
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
Ian?
h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury
x
or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands
are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less than significant
impact.
Hazardous materials are substances that can harm people or the environment.
These materials can impair human health if contacted, ingested, or inhaled.
Contacts that expose people and wildlife to harm occur when such substances
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 31
City of Ukiah
are encountered in soil, groundwater, surface water, or air or when operations
associated with specific land uses are deemed hazardous processes. Such
processes are classified as hazardous because of materials they use or because
of the potential for fires or explosions to occur at the facilities.
The implementation programs of the proposed Housing Element that were not
included in the 2004 Housing Element Update would involve changes in
residential development potential in areas that are already designated for
development by the General Plan. Mixed use development enabled by the Draft
Housing Element may create situations in which hazardous materials from
commercial or industrial development might affect residents. This possibility can
only be evaluated through environmental review of subsequent, site-specific
development proposals. As noted above, these projects would be required to
continue to comply with applicable local, State, and Federal hazardous materials
regulations. It is expected that development of project -specific mitigation
measures for projects located in the proximity of sites where hazardous materials
are used or stored would continue to reduce the impact to a less than significant
level.
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment? Less than significant impact.
See Checklist Item VII(a) above.
C. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Less than significant impact.
Residential development would not result in the emission of hazardous materials,
substances, or wastes.
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would
it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No impact.
Since the Housing Element would not directly result in housing development on
any specific site, no impacts involving listed hazardous materials sites would
occur. The potential for these hazards would be considered as necessary
through environmental review required for any subsequent housing development
projects. According to Department of Toxic Substances Control records
maintained in accordance with Government Code Section 65962.5, the City of
Ukiah does not contain any sites on the Hazardous Waste and Substances Site
List Cortese List). There is one site (Coast Wood Preserving) on Taylor Road,
just southeast of the City that is on the list.
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 32
City of Ukiah
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport, would the project result in
a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. Less than
significant impact.
Since the proposed Housing Element is a policy document that would not directly
result in housing development on a specific site, it would not result in airport -
related safety hazards. Indirect safety impacts from growth allowed by the
proposed Housing Element would be similar to those considered in the EIR
prepared for the Ukiah General Plan and in the 2004 Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the Updated Housing Element.
The City of Ukiah and the County have adopted a land use plan for the Ukiah
Municipal Airport. This plan identifies what types of development and densities
should be allowed near the airport to protect human safety and prevent
substantial noise exposure. The City reviews projects for consistency with this
plan. If projects are found to be inconsistent, they are referred to the Airport
Land Use Commission (ALUC). If the ALUC determines that a project is
inconsistent with the airport plan and should not be constructed, the City Council
does have the ability to override that recommendation. In preparing the vacant
and underutilized land inventory projections, City staff took into account the
restrictions on new development set forth in the Airport Master Plan. Thus, it is
expected that new development allowed under the Draft Housing Element would
not result in a significant safety hazard. However, this conclusion would need to
be confirmed when each project that is potentially inconsistent with the master
plan is submitted to and reviewed by the ALUC.
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No impact.
There are no private airstrips in Ukiah.
g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less than significant impact.
None of the Draft Housing Element provisions would impair implementation of an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Indirect
impacts on emergency response or evacuation plans from growth allowed by the
proposed Housing Element would be essentially the same as those considered
in the EIR prepared for the Ukiah General Plan and 2004 Updated Housing
Element.
The implementation programs of the Draft Housing Element that were not
included in the 2004 Updated Housing Element would involve changes in
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 33
City of Ukiah
residential development potential in areas that are already designated for
development by the General Plan. Assuming all new development is
constructed per the latest standards of the Uniform Fire Code and Ukiah Fire
Department requirements, the increased residential development in some
commercial areas should not significantly affect emergency response or
evacuation. Continued compliance with fire code standards and fire department
requirements should continue to reduce this impact to a less than significant
level.
h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Less than significant
impact.
Since no housing development on specific sites is currently proposed, the
proposed Housing Element would not directly expose people or structures to
wildland fire risks. The potential for these hazards would be considered as
necessary through environmental review required for any subsequent housing
development projects. These projects would be required to comply with
applicable policies of the Safety Element (pages 12-14) of the Ukiah General
Plan. New development in the western hills area, the primary area exposed to
wildfire hazard, would need to comply with the existing fire safety requirements
for the Hillside areas. These regulations would also reduce the chance of
wildfires entering the developed portions of Ukiah.
The implementation programs of the proposed Housing Element that were not
included in the 2004 Updated Housing Element would involve changes in
residential development potential in areas that are already designated for
development by the General Plan. These programs therefore would not create
new wildland fire risks not evaluated in the General Plan EIR or 2004 Mitigated
Negative Declaration. It is expected that continued compliance with fire code
standards and fire department requirements should continue to reduce this
impact to a less than significant level.
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 34
City of Ukiah
VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:
Potentially
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Significant
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
No Impact
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
x
requirements?
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
x
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been ranted)?
0. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
x
area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
x
area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
on- or off-site?
e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
x
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems
or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
x
g. Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as
x
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h. Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which
x
would impede or redirect flood flows?
i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury
x
or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of
the failure of a levee or dam?
f. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
x
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less
than significant impact.
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 35
City of Ukiah
New housing would generate increased wastewater. The City wastewater
treatment and disposal facility was recently expanded to accommodate full
buildout of the City. The expanded and improved facility was designed to treat
and dispose of wastewater generated by the new housing allowed under the
2004 Updated Housing Element and would accommodate the demand of the
currently proposed Draft Housing Element. No violations of water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements are expected. The City General
Plan contains policies and measures to ensure adequate wastewater treatment
and disposal capacity (pages 5-6 of the Community Facilities and Services
Element). Continued compliance with these policies, including upgrading of the
City's facility, would continue to reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or
a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Less than
significant impact.
The City pumped about 595 acre-feet of water from wells in 2000. This was
3.7% of the total water supply of the City for that year. According to the
department of Water Resources, groundwater levels in the Ukiah Valley
remained stable over the past 30 years (Department of Water Resources, Ukiah
Valley Groundwater Basin, Bulletin 118, updated 2003). The City's Urban Water
Management Plan 2005 predicts future (2005-2020) use of groundwater will be
approximately 970 acre-feet per year. It is not expected that this groundwater
use would substantially deplete the Ukiah Valley aquifer.
The areas that would be developed under the Draft Housing Element are the
same areas that would be developed under the existing General Plan and 2004
Updated Housing Element. The target areas for development are primarily small
infill properties. Development of these lots is not expected to substantially affect
groundwater recharge.
It is not expected that City projected use of groundwater would significantly affect
that resource. The City General Plan contains policies to protect this resource
(pages 15-16 of the Open Space and Conservation Element). Compliance with
these policies would be expected to continue to reduce the cumulative impact to
a less than significant level.
C. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Less than significant
impact.
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 36
City of Ukiah
It is not expected that new development would be allowed that would involve
altering the drainage pattern of the City. The City's General Plan and its stream
enhancement plans all protect the City's streams. Vacant properties available
for development, except in the western hills area, are infill lots, and development
of those lots is not expected to result in a substantial alteration of streams or the
drainage pattern. New development in the western hills would be on large lots
and required to avoid stream channels. The cumulative impact of development
allowed under the Draft Housing Element is expected to be less than significant,
though this must be confirmed for each project at the time an application is
made.
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
on- or off-site? Less than significant impact.
During times of sustained rainfall, lower lying portions of the City currently flood.
Any increase in runoff would aggravate these existing flooding problems. The
main areas of concern are near the Orchard Avenue/Cindee Way intersection,
the Oak Manor neighborhood, and the entire area east of Highway 101, west of
Babcock Lane and south of Gobbi Street. These areas flood on a relatively
regular basis. In addition to these three main areas of concern, there are
numerous other locations where existing open channels are at capacity (i.e., at
bank top during peak storm runoff), existing underground pipes are old and
require replacement, and areas where runoff must travel long distances in street -
side gutters prior to entering a storm drain inlet.
New development would add impervious surfaces, thereby increasing the speed
of runoff and the total amount of runoff. The areas where development is
possible are the same areas where development was possible under the 2004
General Plan Housing Element. The Draft Housing Element merely allows for
continued development within these areas. The increased development is not
expected to substantially increase the amount of impervious area over what
would have occurred under the 2004 Housing Element. New development is
required to include mitigations to avoid increased flooding per Policy OC -16.2 of
the General Plan.
Flooding of certain low-lying portions of the City is an existing problem. New
development under either the General Plan or the Draft Housing Element would
aggravate this problem. The City determined that General Plan policies
adequately addressed this impact when adopting the General Plan. The Draft
Housing Element would not substantially change the existing conditions or
impacts. It is recommended that the City continue to apply Implementation
Measure OC -16.2(a) requiring project review to ensure runoff from new
development does not exceed the carrying capacity of the storm drain system
and that the City develop the stormwater management plan called for in
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 37
City of Ukiah
Implementation Measure OC -16.2(b). The City is beginning the process to
develop this Citywide drainage plan. These measures should continue to
reduce the cumulative impact to a less than significant level. Each development
application must be reviewed to ensure the project does not cause downstream
flooding.
e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources
of polluted runoff? Less than significant impact.
See Checklist Item VIII(d)• above regarding potential flooding impacts. Major
pollutants found in runoff from urban areas include sediment, nutrients, oxygen -
demanding substances, road salts, heavy metals, petroleum hydrocarbons,
pathogenic bacteria, and viruses. Petroleum hydrocarbons result mostly from
automobile sources. Nutrient and bacterial sources include garden fertilizers,
leaves, grass clippings, pet wastes, and faulty septic tanks. As population
densities increase, a corresponding increase occurs in pollutant loadings
generated from human activities. Many of these pollutants enter surface waters
via runoff without undergoing treatment.
As described in previous impact discussions, the Draft Housing Element would
increase allowable residential development in areas already slated for possible
development. Over the five year lifespan of the plan, the total number of new
vehicles and trips generated would be the same as projected in the 2004
General Plan Housing Element. Denser development is not expected to
generate more pollutants than would occur under the existing General Plan and
Housing Element. The General Plan contains policies and measures to reduce
this urban water pollution (see Policy OC -16.2). In addition, the City is mandated
to soon develop and adopt an Urban Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program
which will further address ways to reduce storm water pollution. Compliance with
the General Plan and this new Program would be expected to reduce the
cumulative impact on water quality to a less than significant level, though this
would need to be confirmed for each project application.
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? No impact.
Other than described under previous impact discussions, the Draft Housing
Element is not expected to otherwise degrade water quality.
g. Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map? Less than significant impact.
Some areas of Ukiah are subject to flooding in a 100 -year storm. Most of the
City east of State Route 101 (e.g., the Oak Manor neighborhood) is in the 100 -
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 38
City of Ukiah
year floodplain of the Russian River. West of SR 101, areas immediately
adjacent to Orrs, Gibson, and Doolin Creeks may be within the floodplains of
those creeks. Consistent with State and Federal requirements, new
development within the floodplain must be constructed so the living floor is at
least one foot above the flood elevation. The area that would be developed
under the Draft Housing Element is the same as could be developed under the
2004 General Plan Housing Element. Much of the additional development
allowed under the Draft Housing Element would likely be units above the ground
floor, where they would not be exposed to flooding. The City General Plan
contains policies and measures to reduce human exposure to flooding, including
avoidance of development in the Russian River floodway (the active part of the
floodplain). Continued compliance with General Plan and other City regulations
regarding construction within the 100 -year floodplain is expected to continue to
reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
h. Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows? Less than significant impact.
See Checklist Item VIII(g) above. Development within the active floodway of
streams is prohibited.
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Less
than significant impact.
Much of eastern Ukiah would be inundated if Coyote Dam on Lake Mendocino
failed (see Figure IV.3-N of the General Plan. Failure of this dam is unlikely
given State and Federal maintenance and monitoring requirements. The Draft
Housing Element would develop the same areas allowed for development under
the existing General Plan and Housing Element. No additional people would be
put at risk as compared to the General Plan. People would be at risk, as are
many existing residents of the City and the valley. However, this risk is
considered less than significant given dam safety requirements.
j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Less than significant impact.
The Ukiah area is not susceptible to inundation by a tsunami (i.e., an ocean
wave generated by an earthquake) or seiche (i.e., an earthquake -generated
wave on an inland body of water, such as a bay or lake). Mudflow risks are
manly in the western hills area. The existing Hillside Development Regulations
require geotechnical reports for new development. It is expected that those
reports would place homes where they would not be subject to mudflows. The
areas where most new development could occur are infill lots in the City where
there is little risk of mudflows.
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 39
City of Ukiah
IX. Land Use and Planning
Would the project:
Potentially
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Significant
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
No Impact
a. Physically divide an established community?
x
Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
x
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
x
natural community conservation plan?
a. Physically divide an established community? No impact.
Development allowed under the Draft Housing Element would develop the same
areas allowed for development under the General Plan and existing Housing
Element. These are all areas the City has decided were logical locations for
urban growth. The lots are primarily infill lots. Their development would not
divide the City of Ukiah or any of its discrete neighborhoods.
b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less than significant with
mitigation incorporated.
The Land Use Element of the City's General Plan was amended in 2004 to
reflect the new types of land use allowed by some of the policies and programs
of the 2004 Updated Element. No further amendments are necessary for the
current proposed Housing Element because it would not result in substantially
more development than the 2004 adopted Housing Element.
Impact Significance After Mitigation
N/A.
C. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan? No impact.
There are no applicable Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community
Conservation Plans in the Ukiah planning area.
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 40
City of Ukiah
X. Mineral Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Less than
Significant
Less than
No Impact
Significant
with Mitigation
Significant
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
No Impact
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
x
x
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state?
x
5. Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral
x
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
Specific plan or other land useplan?
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of the state? No impact.
There are no known or mapped mineral resources in the City. Aggregate mining
(done by Granite Construction Company) is done under a vested right at three
gravel bars on the Russian River and two terrace pits adjacent to the river; all the
sites are within 0.25 miles upstream of their concrete plant at 900 Talmage
Road. These sources and the facility are outside the City limits.
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery
site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No
impact.
See Checklist Item X(a) above.
XI. Noise
Would the project result in:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
x
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
roundborne vibration of groundborne noise levels?
x
c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
x
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 41
City of Ukiah
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
x
project?
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
x
public airport or public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive
noise levels?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
x
project expose people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies? Less than significant impact.
The implementation programs of the Draft Housing Element that were not
included in the 2004 Housing Element would involve changes in residential
development potential in areas that are already designated for development by
the General Plan. Mixed use or live/work development enabled by the 2004 and
currently proposed Housing Element may create situations in which noise from
commercial or industrial development affects residents, or vice -versa.
The General Plan Noise Element contains policies and measures aimed at
protecting future residents from unacceptable noise levels. New residential
development is not allowed in areas where the outdoor activity area experiences
noise levels exceeding 60 decibels (db Ldn) or where inside noise levels exceed
45 dB Ldn. These same policies would apply to the additional development
allowed under the Draft Housing Element. Thus, even though some of the new
residential units could be located in noisy commercial or industrial locations, they
would only be allowed if the noise levels can be reduced by project design and
construction to levels allowed by the General Plan. Continued compliance with
the General Plan Noise Element should ensure that future residents are not
exposed to noise levels exceeding those established in the General Plan. This
impact must be evaluated during environmental review of subsequent, site-
specific development proposals.
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration of
groundborne noise levels? Less than significant impact.
Since the Draft Housing Element does not propose new development on sites
not assessed for development in the Mitigated Negative declaration for the 2004
Housing Element, no groundborne noise impacts beyond those evaluated in the
2004 document are expected.
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 42
City of Ukiah
C. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project? Less than significant impact.
Traffic generated by new development could increase noise levels along City
streets. The development allowed under the Draft Housing Element not allowed
under the General Plan or 2004 Housing Element would increase development in
certain commercial areas. These areas are likely already the noisier parts of the
City. Regardless of where new development occurs, it would tend to use the
man arterials which have the most traffic and noise (e.g., State Street). The
difference in where the new development occurs over the next five years is not
expected to result in a substantial difference in noise levels along main streets.
New residential development applications would continue to be reviewed under
CEQA to determine whether traffic generated by that development would
significantly affect existing residents. The noise created by traffic from
development allowed under the Draft Housing Element would not be more than
created under the General Plan or 2004 Hos=using Element. However, this
noise could affect specific street segments differently. The site-specific impacts
would need to be assessed and mitigated, if warranted, during review of future
project applications.
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less than significant
impact.
See Checklist Item XI(a) above. Construction of subsequent housing
development projects may produce temporary noise. Indirect temporary noise
impacts from growth allowed by the proposed Housing Element would be
essentially the same as those addressed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration
for the 2004 Housing Element and the EIR prepared for the Ukiah General Plan
(see page 137). The General Plan EIR found that these impacts could be
mitigated to a less than significant level through control of construction hours and
compliance with community noise ordinance limits. Temporary noise impacts
would be evaluated through environmental review of subsequent, site-specific
development proposals, and regulated through standard City limitations on
construction hours and noise levels.
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive
noise levels? Less than significant impact.
New development allowed under the Draft Housing Element would occur in
areas exposed to airplane noise. The areas where this development may occur
are the same areas where development was allowed under the General Plan and
the 2004 Housing Element though there would be greater residential
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 43
City of Ukiah
development in some commercial areas. City staff reviewed the properties on
the 2009 Vacant and Underutilized Map when developing the inventory of
potential new development. The development potential/density in the proposed
Housing Element is consistent with the standards included in the Airport Master
Plan adopted for the Ukiah Municipal Airport. New development applications that
potentially conflict with the guidelines set forth in the Airport Master Plan would
be forwarded to the Airport Land Use Commission for review. During that
review, projects that would expose residents to excessive noise would be
identified, and the ALUC (and the City if it disagrees with the ALUC finding)
would determine whether the noise exposure is acceptable for that project.
Existing policies of the General Plan (noise policies on pages 19-20 of the Noise
Element and policies of the Airport section of the Infrastructure Element) and the
Airport Master Plan provide protection from excessive noise. Individual projects
would be assessed per these policies and guidelines.
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No
impact.
There are no private airstrips in the City of Ukiah planning area.
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 44
City of Ukiah
XII. Population and Housing
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
No Impact
a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
x
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure) ?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
x
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
x
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Less than significant impact.
The implementation programs of the proposed Housing Element that were not
included in the 2004 Housing Element would involve changes in residential
development potential in areas that are already designated for development by
the General Plan. It is projected that 459 new units could be constructed by
2014. These units could be constructed even if the Draft Housing Element were
not adopted. They might be located in different areas, that is, not as many units
in commercial areas, but the Housing Element would not induce growth beyond
that already projected by MCOG. The Housing Element provides policies to
meet the housing demands of this projected population growth.
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere? No impact.
Since the general intent of the proposed Housing Element is to facilitate housing
rehabilitation and construction, it would not be expected to result in substantial
displacement of existing housing. Impacts related to displacement of existing
housing would be considered as necessary in future environmental review of
individual housing development projects, as they are proposed.
C. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? No impact.
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 45
City of Ukiah
See Checklist Item XII(b).
XIII. Public Services
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts Less than
associated with the provision of new or physically altered Potentially Significant
p p Y Y Significant with Mitigation
governmental facilities, the need for new or physically altered Impact Incorporated
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance objectives
for any of the public services:
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Fire protection?
x
Police protection?
x
Schools?
x
Parks?
x
Other public facilities?
x
a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the need for
new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
Fire protection? Less than significant impact.
The construction of as many as 459 new residential units over the next five years
would increase the demand for fire protection. It is expected that continued
compliance with General Plan policies aimed at providing adequate fire
protection to City residents and businesses (see policies and measures on
pages 12-14 of the Safety Element), continued project review by the Ukiah Fire
Department, and continued maintenance of adequate staffing and equipment
through the City's budgeting process would reduce the impact on fire protection
to a less than significant level. However, even if staffing is not to the level the
City would like, the increased demand would not be sufficiently large to require
the construction of a new fire station.
The potential for site specific -impacts on the Fire Department would be
considered as necessary through environmental review required for any
subsequent housing development projects. These projects would be required to
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 46
City of Ukiah
comply with applicable fees and other City requirements to ensure adequate fire
protection.
Police protection? Less than significant impact.
The construction of as many as 459 new residential units over the next five years
would increase the demand for police protection. It is expected that continued
project review by the Ukiah Police Department and continued maintenance of
adequate staffing and equipment through the City's budgeting process would
reduce the impact on fire protection to a less than significant level. The
increased demand would not be sufficiently large to require the construction of a
new police station.
The potential for site specific -impacts on the Police Department would be
considered as necessary through environmental review required for any
subsequent housing development projects. These projects would be required to
comply with City requirements to ensure adequate police protection.
Schools? Less than significant impact.
The 459 new units would generate about 321 students if all the new units were
single-family residences (using the District's student generation rate of 0.7
students per single-family residential unit). Since many of the new units would
be multi -family units, it is expected that the actual number of new students
generated over the next five years would be less than 321 students. The
District's new elementary school on South State Street opened in 2004. Upon
opening this school, the District removed the portable classrooms at most District
schools. Student enrollment in the District has been declining over the past few
years, though it stabilized in 2004. The Developer Fee Justification Study for
Ukiah Unified School District (Jack Schreder & Associates, 2002) found that the
District schools had the capacity to house the projected students for the year
2005-2006 (the last year the study covers; the District is in the process of having
a new Fee Justification Study prepared). It is concluded that the District would
have adequate classroom capacity to house students generated by the 459 new
units that could be built by 2014. The new housing units would be required to
pay the District's Developer Fee of $2.14 per square foot of new residential
development (or whatever the fee is at the time building permits are taken).
These fees are considered adequate mitigation for impacts to school facilities.
Parks? Less than significant impact.
The new residents that would inhabit housing allowed under the Draft Housing
Element would increase the demand for parks and recreational facilities.
Currently, the City operates 10 parks, a golf course, plaza, and conference
center. Additional recreational facilities in the City include facilities at local
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 47
City of Ukiah
schools, the Ukiah Softball Center, the emerging Riverside Park, City View Trail,
and a portion of the County owned and maintained Low Gap Regional Park. The
City is planning to develop a new park: the Observatory Property on the west
side of State Route 101 near the south end of town. New development would
continue to be required to pay Quimby Act fees to support the purchase of
parklands.
Other public facilities? Less than significant impact.
It is not expected that new development allowed under the proposed Housing
Element would require any new governmental facilities other than those
discussed above.
XIV. Recreation
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated? Less than significant impact.
See the discussing of Item XIII ("Parks") above. Assuming continued City
funding of park maintenance, it is not expected that the residents of new
development over the next five years would cause substantial physical
deterioration of parks or recreational facilities. Subsequent housing
developments would be required to dedicate land for park use or pay Quimby Act
fees.
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect
on the environment? Less than significant impact.
See Checklist Items XIII ("Parks") and XIV(a) above.
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 48
City of Ukiah
Less than
Potentially
Significant
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Significant
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
No Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood
x
and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
x
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated? Less than significant impact.
See the discussing of Item XIII ("Parks") above. Assuming continued City
funding of park maintenance, it is not expected that the residents of new
development over the next five years would cause substantial physical
deterioration of parks or recreational facilities. Subsequent housing
developments would be required to dedicate land for park use or pay Quimby Act
fees.
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect
on the environment? Less than significant impact.
See Checklist Items XIII ("Parks") and XIV(a) above.
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 48
City of Ukiah
XV. Transportation/Traffic
Would the project result in:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to
the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e.,
result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle
trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections?
x
b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads or highways?
x
c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
x
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm a ui ment)?
x
e. Result in inadequate emergency access?
x
Result in inadequate parking capacity?
x
g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)?
x
a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or
congestion at intersections? Less than significant with mitigation
incorporated.
The 459 new units that could be built in the next five years could generate
2,320-3,500 new trips (depending on whether the units are apartments or single-
family residences). Without knowing where the new development would be
located and how many units would be constructed at any one site, it is not
possible to assess impacts on specific streets and intersections. Compared with
conditions that would result from the existing General Plan, however, the
programs of the Draft Housing Element would create the potential to reduce auto
trips, since (1) the programs support mixed use and live/work development as
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 49
City of Ukiah
well as potential density increases, creating opportunities for people to work
close to home and use public transit; and (2) housing units allowed in mixed use
areas could displace the existing commercial development potential. These
possible effects can only be evaluated through environmental review of
subsequent, site-specific development proposals.
At a cumulative level, the new housing would add trips to City streets. It is
known that a number of intersections on State Street, Gobbi Street, Perkins
Street, and Talmage Road currently operate below Level of Service D (LOS D).
The City General Plan states that LOS D is the minimum acceptable level for
accommodating new development.
Traffic impacts would be considered as necessary through environmental review
required for any subsequent housing development projects. These projects
would be required to comply with City traffic standards and policies of the Ukiah
General Plan Circulation and Transportation Element.
b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads
or highways? Less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
See Checklist Item XV(a) above.
C. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic
levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Less than
significant impact.
As discussed previously under Impact VII(e), buildout under the Draft Housing
Element has been assessed by City staff for consistency with the Airport Master
Plan. It is not expected that new development would cause a change in air traffic
patterns in and out of the airport. Future housing development projects would
need to be reviewed by City staff and, if warranted, by the Airport Land Use
Commission to ensure that each development does not adversely affect airport
use.
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No
impact.
The Draft Housing Element does not include any proposal to construct new
roads or develop new incompatible uses on City streets. The potential for
hazardous traffic conditions would be considered as necessary through
environmental review required for any subsequent housing development
projects.
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 50
City of Ukiah
e. Result in inadequate emergency access? Less than significant impact.
New development allowed under the Housing Element would increase traffic on
City streets. However, this increase of as many as 2,320-3,500 new trips would
not be expected to cause sufficient additional congestion that it would
significantly affect emergency vehicle access. The potential for emergency
access impacts would be considered as necessary through environmental review
required for any subsequent housing development projects. See also Checklist
Item VII(g) above.
Result in inadequate parking capacity? Less than significant impact.
The City, through the Planned Development Zoning process, has adopted
flexible parking standards for mixed uses in commercial zoning districts and
potentially reduces parking requirements for senior housing, affordable housing,
mixed use housing, and live/work projects. These changes recognize that less
parking is required for these types of projects. This flexibility has not resulted in
inadequate parking capacity. However, each future housing project would need
to be assessed to determine that there is adequate parking.
g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Less than significant
impact.
As a document stating the City's housing policies and programs, the proposed
Housing Element would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation. It is not expected that future housing
allowed by the Draft Housing Element would conflict with the City's policies
regarding bicycle use or mass transit. Future housing projects would need to be
assessed for their impacts on alternative transportation modes.
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 51
City of Ukiah
XVI. Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project:
Potentially
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Significant
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
No Impact
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
x
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b. Require or result in the construction of new water or
x
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Require or result in the construction of new storm water
x
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
x
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
x
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in
addition to theprovider's existing commitments?
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
x
accommodate the r*ct's solid waste disposal needs?
g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
x
related to solid waste?
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water
Quality Control Board? Less than significant impact.
Future housing allowed under the Draft Housing Element would increase the
amount of wastewater that would need to be treated and disposed of. As
discussed previously under Impact VIII(a), the City recently expanded the
capacity of its wastewater treatment facility to be able to serve projected buildout
in the City and the sanitation district and to meet all applicable RWQCB
standards. Development under the Draft Housing Element would not require
additional expansion of the City's facility beyond the improvements currently
being planned.
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 52
City of Ukiah
b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects? No impact.
As noted above, the City has already upgraded its wastewater treatment facility.
The City has also make improvements to its water facilities, including making
improvements to its Ranney Collector (which collects surface water from the
Russian River) to increase its capacity, adding treatment processes to
adequately treat the additional water collected through the expanded Ranney
collector, and 3.26 million gallons of water storage. These improvements were
completed in 2005.
The new housing allowed under the Draft Housing Element would increase the
demand for water. The improvements planned for the water supply system
would provide sufficient water to meet this planned development. Additional
expansion of the facilities would not be required to serve development allowed
under the Draft Housing Element.
C. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects? No impact.
See Checklist Items VIII(c), (d), and (e).
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
Less than significant impact.
The City has adequate water rights to serve projected development under the
Draft Housing Element. The City has the following water sources:
• There are "pre -49 rights" (i.e., for water use that occurred before 1949) of
2,030 acre-feet per year.
• The City has "Appropriative Rights" for diverting the natural flow of the
Russian River or one of its tributaries after the authorization of the Coyote
Dam in 1949. These rights are for 12,450 acre-feet per year.
• The City has rights to a share of the "Project Water" for stored project water
in Lake Mendocino. This equates to 800 acre-feet per year.
• The City pumps groundwater from six wells. In 2000, it pumped 595 acre-
feet from these wells and predicts to pump 970 acre-feet per year in coming
years.
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 53
City of Ukiah
These sources total over 16,000 acre-feet of water available per year. Demand
at buildout under the General Plan would be 4,840 acre-feet per year (data on
sources and predicted demand from Urban Water Management Plan 2002
Update, Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, November 2002). It would appear that the
City has ample water to meet projected demand. However, the entire issue of
water rights in the Ukiah Valley is currently being reviewed by all valley
purveyors, water right holders, and the State Water Resources Control Board.
The City is in the process of "perfecting" a license that allows collection of up to
20 cubic feet per second from the Russian River underflow ("perfect" means to
show that the amount of water is withdrawn and beneficially used. The City has
never taken this much water from the underflow. Per their existing license, the
City needed to "perfect" this water withdrawal by the year 2000. The City has
applied for a license extension to allow them to perfect this water use. If the
water right is not perfected, then the City is restricted to the amount that was
perfected at the time allotted by the license.
This water issue is further complicated by the fact that the State opines that all
wells in the Ukiah Valley are collecting Russian River underflow water and not
groundwater. If the State proves this to be the case, then water taken from City
wells would count against the water the City is allowed to take from the river.
The issue of whether adequate water would continue to be available to meet
Housing Element demand plus future buildout remains speculative. The City
believes it has legal rights to sufficient water to meet buildout demand. There is
no evidence to the contrary. In addition, if it turns out that in the future the City
does not have rights to sufficient water, then new development would not be
allowed until such water was available. It is to be noted that the City has the
ability to conserve a considerable amount of water by installing water
conservation equipment in homes and businesses plus there is a major
opportunity to recycle treated wastewater for landscaping of schools, parks, and
other large landscaped properties. Development of a water conservation
program and/or a recycling program would free up substantial amounts of
potable water available for additional development.
Each new development proposal would be assessed to determine whether
adequate water is available for that project.
e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or
may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's
projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Less
than significant impact.
See Checklist Items XVI(a) and XVI(b) above.
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs? Less than significant impact.
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 54
City of Ukiah
Solid waste from Ukiah is collected and transported to a solid waste transfer
station just outside the City limits on the east side of State Route 101. This solid
waste transfer station was constructed to meet future solid waste demand of the
City and much of the County. Waste is transported from the transfer station to
Potrero Hills Landfill in Solano County which has ample capacity to handle
projected solid waste from new development under the Draft Housing Element.
g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid
waste? No impact.
See Checklist Item XVI(f) above. Solid waste from allowed new development
would be collected and disposed of in compliance with all Federal, State, and
local laws.
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 55
City of Ukiah
XVII. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory? Less than significant impact.
As discussed in previous sections, it is expected that the policies and
implementation measures of the City's General Plan, along with other pertinent
Federal, State, and local ordinances, laws and regulation would continue to
reduce the impacts of the additional housing possible under the Draft Housing
Element on the quality of the environment to a less than significant level. These
policies, measures, and regulations would continue to provide adequate
protection for fish, wildlife, plants, and cultural resources. Each future housing
development project would need to be assessed per these policies, measures,
and other regulations to ensure that the projects are consistent with those
policies and do not significantly affect the quality of these environmental
resources.
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 56
City of Ukiah
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of
x
the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,
x
but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future r*cts)?
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
x
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly
or indirectly?
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory? Less than significant impact.
As discussed in previous sections, it is expected that the policies and
implementation measures of the City's General Plan, along with other pertinent
Federal, State, and local ordinances, laws and regulation would continue to
reduce the impacts of the additional housing possible under the Draft Housing
Element on the quality of the environment to a less than significant level. These
policies, measures, and regulations would continue to provide adequate
protection for fish, wildlife, plants, and cultural resources. Each future housing
development project would need to be assessed per these policies, measures,
and other regulations to ensure that the projects are consistent with those
policies and do not significantly affect the quality of these environmental
resources.
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 56
City of Ukiah
of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)? Less than significant impact.
As noted throughout this Initial Study, the proposed Housing Element is a policy
document that sets forth the City of Ukiah's vision for housing, consistent with
State law. The proposed Housing Element would not directly result in housing
development on specific sites. The amount of new development occurring in
Ukiah during the planning period would not be any greater than assessed in the
EIR prepared for the Ukiah General Plan or in the 2004 Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the Housing Element Update. The General Plan EIR concluded
that cumulative impacts resulting from implementation of the General Plan were
either less than significant or could be mitigated to a less than significant level.
As described in previous sections of this Checklist, it is expected that the impacts
from the development of as many as 459 new housing units over the next five
years can continue to be reduced to a less than significant level.
C. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less than significant
impact.
This Initial Study has not identified any potential substantial adverse effects
associated with the proposed Housing Element. Continued compliance with City
General Plan policies (as revised per the recommendations in this report),
Zoning Ordinance requirements, and other planning guidelines and regulations
as well as compliance with the requirements of other local agencies (e.g.,
MCAQMD), State, and Federal agencies that have jurisdiction over resources in
the City would be expected to continue reduce impacts that might adversely
affect humans (e.g., geologic hazards, flooding, air pollutant emissions, traffic
congestion, aesthetic changes, noise, and impacts to public services and
utilities) to a less than significant level.
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 57
City of Ukiah
8.0 DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANT EFFECT
On the basis of this Initial Study, I find that the proposed project would not have a
significant effect on the environment. A Negative Declaration will be prepared.
2--?, -/)
Date
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update
City of Ukiah
Page 58
9.0 RESOURCES
California Department of Water Resources
2003. Ukiah Valley Groundwater Basin, Bulletin 118.
Jack Schreder & Associates
2002. Developer Fee Justification Study for Ukiah Unified School District.
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
2005 Ukiah Urban Water Management Plan.
Leonard Charles and Associates
1995. Redwood Business Park Draft EIR.
2001. Ukiah Western Hillside Constraints Analysis.
2002. Orrs Creek Bridge and Orchard Avenue Extension Project Draft EIR.
Mendocino, County of
2007. Draft Ukiah Valley Area Plan.
Shutt Moen Associates
1996. Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan Report.
Ukiah, City of
1995 Ukiah General Plan
2004 Ukiah Updated Housing Element
1996. Landscaping and Streetscape Design Guidelines
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 59
City of Ukiah
Cit iart
Planning and
Community
Development
IWAI j�_���►�
Ukiah General Plan Housing Element Update
2009-2014
PROJECT: Ukiah General Plan Housing Element Update 2009-2014
DATE: June 20, 2011
PROJECT
PROPONENT: City of Ukiah Department of Planning and Community Development
PROJECT LOCATION: Citywide — The City of Ukiah is located in southern Mendocino County.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project involves updating the City's General Plan Housing Element. The
Housing Element update has been prepared in accordance with Article 10.6 of the State of California
Planning and Zoning Law. The proposed Housing Element identifies and analyzes existing and projected
housing needs, and states the City's goals, policies, quantified objectives, and programs for the
preservation, improvement, and development of housing within the City and sphere of influence. The
proposed Housing Element would therefore be applicable citywide.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The City of Ukiah is a densely urban city and is the County seat located in
southern Mendocino County.
FINDINGS SUPPORTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
1. Based upon the analysis, findings and conclusions contained in the Initial Environmental Study, the
project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the local or regional environment;
2. Based upon the analysis, findings and conclusions contained in the Initial Environmental Study, the
project will not result in short-term impacts that will create a disadvantage to long-term environmental
goals;
3. Based upon the analysis, findings and conclusions contained in the Initial Environmental Study, the
project will not result in impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable; and
4. Based upon the analysis, findings and conclusions contained in the Initial Environmental Study, the
project will not result in environmental impacts that will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly.
5. The Initial Environmental Study examined areas of potential impacts and based on the conclusions
reached in the Initial Environmental Study, it has been determined that implementation of the updated
general Plan Housing Element would not have significant adverse impacts on the environment because
no new sites would be rezoned, no changes to General Plan land use designations or zoning
classifications would occur, and no increases in existing densities would occur.
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 60
City of Ukiah
STATEMENT OF DECLARATION: After appraisal of the possible impacts of this project, the
City of Ukiah has determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the
environment, and further, that this Negative Declaration constitutes compliance with the
requirements for environmental review and analysis required by the California
Environmental Quality Act.
The Initial Environmental Study and all resources information used to perform the initial
environmental analysis may be reviewed at the City of Ukiah Department of Planning and
Community Development, Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California.
/ 111A
--�--/
Ch eFkiah p, erect Date
�itv
nnind Commun' Development
of
Initial Environmental Study
2009-2014 General Plan Housing Element Update Page 61
City of Ukiah
ITEM NO.: 11b
MEETING DATE: July 6, 2011
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION AMENDING
USER FEE SCHEDULE FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT FEE
ITEMS INCLUDING GOLF, PARKS, FACILITIES, GRACE HUDSON MUSEUM,
MUNICIPAL POOLS, SPORTS FIELDS, RECREATION PROGRAMS AND
SERVICES.
BACKGROUND: The City of Ukiah Community Services Department provides golf, parks, facilities and
programs in a variety of capacities. Through the Recreation Division, the community has access to
aquatics programs, recreation classes, organized sports leagues, and scheduled use of athletic facilities
and fields. The Golf Division operates the programming of tee times, tournaments and ongoing
maintenance. Park Division maintains the park facilities and public picnic areas. Likewise, the Grace
Hudson Museum operates a number of art exhibits, educational programs and tours. The Ukiah Valley
Conference Center coordinates the scheduling and use of public rental facilities as well as park and
picnic space.
In 2009 and again in 2010 the City Council reviewed and adopted the community services fees as a
comprehensive schedule. Prior to 2009 the fee schedules were presented to City Council and adopted
for each individual facility or service as needed. Conducting an annual review of the comprehensive fee
schedule has been an important component of budget management. The annual review has assisted
staff in monitoring the growth and success of services, planning the marketing and service delivery
objectives, and forecasting for each budget cycle. The current public hearing item includes a fee
schedule for golf, parks, facilities, museum, pools, and services in recreation and sports.
Recommended Action(s): Adopt resolution amending the user fee schedule for Community Service
Department Fee Items including Golf, Parks, Facilities, Grace Hudson Museum, Municipal Pools,
Sports Fields, Recreation Programs and Services.
Alternative Council Option(s):
1. Determine adoption of resolution requires further consideration and remand to staff with direction.
2. Determine adoption of resolution is inappropriate at this time and do not move to approve.
Citizens advised: Park, Recreation and Golf Commission
Requested by: N/A
Prepared by: Katie Marsolan, Community Services Administrator,
Sage Sangiacomo, Assistant City Manager
Coordinated with: Kerry Randall, Facility Administrator, Stephanie Young, Recreation Supervisor,
Sherrie Smith -Ferri, Museum Director, Tom Hamblet, Parks/Golf Superintendant
Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution
2. Draft Resolution Exhibit "A": Proposed Fee Schedule
Approved: �J_1' el"���
J e Chambers, City Manager
Staff members utilize a variety of tools in the review and assessment of fees. Community Services staff
participated in the City-wide fee study conducted by Wildan. This study analyzes the costs of providing
services. The draft study results were useful in the review of community services fees. Likewise, staff
has reviewed existing fees, analyzed operating costs and service levels. Staff has also conducted fee
schedule comparisons with like facilities/programs. Staff feels that it is prudent to review and update user
fees for these facilities, programs and services on a regular basis.
Golf
The goal for the golf fee schedule is to have revenue for the maintenance and operation of the course
while also providing a competitive and attractive rate for golfers. Over the past year the Park, Recreation
and Golf Commission has discussed the golf fee schedule. During the months of March, April and May
the Commission reviewed the fees and discussed the current economic climate as it relates to golf. In
many cases neighboring golf courses are lowering rates to attract golfers. After much debate the
Commission along with the Ukiah Golf Pro Frank Johnson and Jimmy Stewart of Tayman Park Golf
Group, Inc. felt it was not an appropriate time to implement a fee increase. The group felt that an
increase would cause the rounds play to decrease and have a negative effect. The recommendation was
to keep fees at the current rates and pursue marketing, partnerships and other revenue sources. They
intend to review the fees and golf trends in December to consider a fee change at that time.
Parks & Facilities
The purpose of establishing a user fee schedule for parks and facilities is to provide a stable source of
revenue while continuing to offer affordable facilities at a competitive market rate. Facility rental revenue
provides funds for routine maintenance, the ability to provide facility improvements and prepare for long
term capital improvement projects. The staff members who coordinate the use and maintenance of the
parks and facilities include the Conference Center staff, Parks staff and Building Maintenance staff. Staff
members have worked diligently to keep their operating and maintenance costs low and to manage the
facilities within budget guidelines. This fee category includes Todd Grove Park, Vine Wood Park, Oak
Manor Park, Alex R Thomas Plaza, Civic Center Council Chambers, Todd Grove Room, Grace Hudson
Meeting Room and the Ukiah Valley Conference Center.
Grace Hudson Museum
The Grace Hudson Museum provides art exhibits, educational programs, tours and workshops. With the
adoption of the Community Service Department fee schedule in May 2009 the Museum instituted
admission fees. Implementing small entry fees has helped to recover revenue while continuing to make
visiting the Museum a low cost activity. The fees are prepared in a range to allow flexibility to adjust fees
during specific seasons or activities. In FY 2007-2008 the general fund contribution to the Museum was
$189,498 and in FY 2011-2012 the general fund contribution is $51,310. Not only has the staff been
mindful of potential fee based activities they are also expanding upon their partnerships and other
resources for potential revenues.
Ukiah Municipal Pools
With the adoption of the Community Service Department fee schedule in May 2009 there was a small
increase in pool fees. Additionally, staff adapted public swim hours and schedules for swim lessons to
reduce staff costs. With these changes the pools facility is operating at a greater rate of cost recovery.
For example in FY 2007-2008 the aquatics revenue collected was $29,900 and in FY 2011-2012 is
$55,000. In FY 2007-2008 the general fund contribution to the Aquatics Fund was $133,200 for FY2011-
2012 the general fund contribution is $70,000.
Staff is operating this summer pool season with the large pool open and the small pool closed for
construction. In preparation for this season the staff took a number of steps to ensure that revenues
would not be impacted by the facility construction. Staff is pleased to report that the swim lesson
program has experienced an increase in registrations making this the largest program season to date.
Recreation Proqrams & Services
There are many programs and services provided by the Recreation Division. The staff members have
successfully operated sports leagues, instructional classes, art based programs, fitness activities, dog
training and many others. There are many formats for the structure of classes, clinics, camps and
leagues. It would not be feasible to set a rate category for each individual class type or service.
Therefore, the proposed fees are set for approval in a range. For example, the Youth Basketball League
has a registration fee and a late registration fee. The fee schedule shows a range that includes both fee
types.
In recent years the Recreation Division has been tremendously successful in offering specialty camps.
Camps are typically held during a school break holiday and focus on a particular sport. The programs
provide a healthy activity and serve a need for working parents. As with all of the program, the Youth
Scholarships are available to assist with financial needs so that all children can participate.
Athletic Facilities & Sports Fields
There are a variety of athletic fields in Ukiah and for specific rental uses there is a fee schedule.
Recently, there has been an increase in requested rentals of the Sports Complex and other athletic
fields. This facility is available on a rental basis to private groups who wish to conduct Tournaments.
SUMMARY: At this time there are very few areas where staff is, recommending increases to the fee
schedule. However, staff are already preparing for the programs that will come in the next year and
intend to recommend increases for particular areas in the next review cycle. Namely, staff is working to
improve programming at the Municipal Pool after the completion of the construction. Staff is researching
other aquatics facilities in the hopes of identifying ways to program, schedule and budget smartly.
As demonstrated, staff has conducted extensive work in preparation for this comprehensive fee
schedule. Staff feels that it is prudent to review and update user fees for these facilities, programs and
services on a regular basis. The Ukiah Daily Journal published the public hearing notice on Saturday,
June 25 and Sunday, June 26 in accordance with public hearing requirements. Staff is therefore
recommending that Council conduct the public hearing, collect public input on this item and consider
approval of the proposed resolution amending the Community Services Department user fee schedule.
Fiscal Impact:
Budgeted FY 10/11 F1New Appropriation Not Applicable Budget Amendment Required
Amount Budgeted Source of Funds (title and #) Account Number Addtl. Appropriation Requested
Attachment #1
RESOLUTION 2011 -
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH
AMENDING USER FEE SCHEDULE FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES
DEPARTMENT FACILITIES, PROGRAMS AND SERVICES
WHEREAS, the City of Ukiah owns, manages, maintains, and provides
facilities, programs and services for public use; and
WHEREAS, community members and private organizations request the
use of facilities and participate in these programs or services; and
WHEREAS, the use of facilities and the participation in programs or
services necessitates a need for fees which have been established to provide for
maintenance, utilities and other operational expenses; and
WHEREAS, the City Council may from time to time consider fee
adjustments in order to continue operation of facilities, programs and services in
a fiscally responsible manner; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing and has heard
public comment on these issues,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council amend the
Community Services Department Fee Schedule as attached in Exhibit "A", which
is incorporated herein.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of July, 2011, by the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
Joanne Currie, City Clerk
ATTACHMENT---Z--
EXHIBIT
TTACHMENT-
EXHIBIT "A" page 1 o 5
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
A. UKIAH MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE
Facility located at 599 Park Blvd
Fee Category/Description
Current Fee
in dollars
Proposed Fee
in dollars
Week da s
9 Holes/Twilight League Rate 19
19
18 Holes 27
27
Senior 18 Holes 23
23
Junior 18 Holes 14
14
Twilight (after 1:00pm) 23
23
Weekends
9 Holes/Twilight League Rate
21
21
18 Holes 32
32
Twilight (after 1:OOpm) 25
25
Annual Memberships
Unlimited Adult 1623 1623
Unlimited Adult Couple 2164 2164
Unlimited Junior 525 525
Unlimited Senior 1407 1407
Unlimited Senior Couple 1948 1948
Limited Adult 1299
1299
Limited Couple 1731
1731
Limited Senior 1082 1082
Limited Senior Couple 1623
1623
Limited Junior 315 315
Private Cart Fee 265 265
The Golf Course provides a variety of services including individual bookings, group bookings, and tournaments. The
listed rates are for daily fees associated with golf play. The Golf Pro may provide promotional rates, discounts,
specials or packages to attract golfers.
B. PARK AND FACILITY RENTALS
1. Todd Grove Room Rentals
Facility located at 599 Park Blvd.
Capacity: 225 Assembly, 125 Dining with Kitchen Facility
Primary Use: Social Gatherings, Celebrations, Meetings, Workshops
Fee Category/Description Current Fee
in dollars
Proposed Fee
in dollars
All Types of Use
Refundable Deposit
Businesses & Individuals
500
500
Dail Rate 500
500
Non Profit or Government Agencies
Daily Rate 300
300
2. Grace Hudson Museum Meeting Room Rentals
Facility located at 431 S Main Street.
Capacity: 49 Assembly/Dining with Kitchen Facility
Primary Use: Small Gatherings, Meetings, Workshops
Fee Category/Description
Current Fee
in dollars
Proposed Fee
in dollars
Public/Private Meeting
All Types of Use
Refundable Deposit 200
400
Businesses & Individuals
Daily Rate 400
400
Non Profit or Government Agencies
Daily Rate 200
200
EXHIBIT "A" page 2of 5
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
B. PARK AND FACILITY RENTALS Continued
3. Civic Center Council Chamber Rental
Facility located at 300 Seminary Ave.
Capacity: 141 in Council Chambers
Primary Use: Meetings and Lectures
Fee Category/Description
Current Fee
in dollars
Proposed Fee
in dollars
Weekend & Holiday Use: Saturdays, Sundays and City Holidays
Refundable Deposit
200
200
Businesses & Individuals
Daily Rate
200
200
Non Profit or Government Agencies
Daily Rate
150
150
Weekday Use: Monday - Friday
Refundable Deposit
200
200
Businesses & Individuals
Daily Rate
150
150
Non Profit or Government Agencies
Daily Rate
100
100
Services
Equipment Use $50 additional/day
$50 additional/da
4. Park Facility Rental: Picnic Area and Other Uses
Parks that are have rental areas include:
Todd Grove Park at 600 Live Oak
Vinewood Park at 1260 Elm Street
Oak Manor Park at 500 Oak Manor Drive
Primary Use: Gatherings, Picnics, BBQ's, etc.
Fee Category/Description
Current Fee
in dollars
Proposed Fee
in dollars
Park & BBQ Rate
First Four Hours
50
50
All Day Use
100
100
Volleyball Net Rental
10
10
Access to Electricity
25
35
Use of Equipment such as Jump -House
0
50
5. Alex R Thomas Plaza
Facility located at 310 S State Street
Primary Uses: Large Gatherings, Fundraising Events, Music, Vendors,
Booths, Farmers Market
Fee Category/Description
Current Fee
(in dollars)
Proposed Fee
(in dollars)
All Types of Use for the Entire Plaza including Stage & Pavilion
Refundable Deposit
300
300
Businesses & Individuals
Daily Rate
400
400
Non Profit or Government Agencies
Daily Rate
300
300
Expanded Use: Street Closure and/or School Street Electricity
Daily Rate
0
100
EXHIBIT "N' page 3of5
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
C. UKIAH VALLEY CONFERENCE CENTER
1. Room Rentals
Daily Rate applies Monday through Friday 8:OOam-5:OOpm
Non Profit Rate applies to the Daily Rate only
Evening/Weekend Rate applies Monday through Friday after 5pm
& Saturday or Sunday
Fee Category/Description
Current Fee
(in dollars)
Proposed Fee
(in dollars)
Red Rooms: Cabernet 1, Cabernet 2, Merlot & Zinfandel
Up to 300 people Dining or 400 Theater/Assembly
Daily Rate
1500
1500
Evenin /Weekend Rate
2500
2500
Non Profit Daily Rate
1200
1200
Cabernet 1 & Merlot or Cabernet 2 and Zinfandel
Cabernet 1 or 2
From 1 to 120 people Dining/Classroom or 175 Theatre/Assembly
Daily Rate
600
600
Evening/Weekend Rate
750
750
Non Profit Daily Rate
500
500
Add Merlot Room or Zinfandel Room
150
150
Chenin Blanc Room
From 1 to 40 people
Daily Rate
300
300
Evening/Weekend Rate
400
400
Non Profit Daily Rate
250
250
Riesling Room
From 1-20 people
Daily Rate
150
150
Evening/Weekend Rate
250
250
Non Profit Daily Rate
125
125
Chardonnay Room
From 1-20 people
Daily Rate
150
150
Even in /Weekend Rate
250
250
Non Profit Daily Rate
125
125
Merlot or Zinfandel Room
From 1-20 people
Daily Rate
150
150
Evening/Weekend Rate
250
250
Non Profit Daily Rate
125
125
The Conference Center provides a variety of rentals, rooms and services. The listed rates are
for small conferences,
seminars and educational trainings. Rates for banquets, receptions, fund raisers and festive occastions will be priced
according to client requirements. Additionally, the Conference Center Administrator may provide promotional rates or
discounts for multiple bookings.
EXHIBIT "A" page 4of 5
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
D. GRACE HUDSON MUSEUM & SUN HOUSE
Facility located at 431 S Main
Primary Use: Art museum with educational presentations, tours, workshops.
1. Use Rates
Fee Category/Description
Current Fee
in dollars
Proposed Fee
in dollars
Admission Rates
Child 1-7
Adult 30 Pass Punch Card 1-10
Senior 1-5
Family 1-10
School Rate per student 1-3
1-7
1-10
1-5
1-10
1-3
E. UKIAH MUNICIPAL POOLS USER FEES
Facility located at 591 Park Blvd.
Primary Use: Open during the summer months for "drop-in" use during public swim hours.
includes swim lessons, trainings, aqua fitness classes, and more.
Programming
1. Use Rates
Fee Category/Description
Current Fee
in dollars
Proposed Fee
in dollars
Public Swim Rates
Children 0-5 years old 4
Children 6-17 years old 4
Adult 30 Pass Punch Card 4
Children 30 Pass Punch Card 96
Adult 30 Pass Punch Card 96
4
4
4
96
96
2. Swim Lesson Rates
Fee Category/Description
Current Fee
in dollars
Proposed Fee
in dollars
Traditional Swim Lesson Program
2 -week session 50 1
50
Other Aquatic Based Programs
Aqua fitness classes, clinics, camps, etc. 1-200
1-200
3. Private Facility Use
Use: A Private Pool Use includes exclusive use for both pools with lifeguards
Fee Category/Description Current Fee
in dollars
2 -hour period, exclusive use 200-300
Proposed Fee
in dollars
200-300
F. RECREATION PROGRAMS AND SERVICES
1. Youth Sports Leagues
Qualifying participants can utilize the Youth Scholarship program for a reduced fee.
Fee Category/Description Current Fee
in dollars
Proposed Fee
in dollars
Youth Sports Team Sponsor
Business S osorship Fee 100-300/team
100-300/team
Girls Youth Softball
Individual Player Fee
55-85
55-85
Youth Basketball
Individual Player Fee 55-85
55-85
Other sports
Individual Player Fee 20-100
20-100
EXHIBIT "A" page 5of 5
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
F. RECREATION PROGRAMS AND SERVICES (continued)
2. Adult Sports League
Fee Category/Description
Current Fee
in dollars
Proposed Fee
in dollars
Adult Sports Team Sponsor
Business S osorshi Fee 200-500/team
200-500/team
Adult & Co-ed Softball
Individual Player Fee
25-45
25-45
Adult Basketball
Individual Player Fee
25-45
25-45
3 Ton 3 Basketball League
Team Fee 50-200
50-200
Other Sports
Individual Player Fee
20-50
20-50
Other Sports
Team Fee 50-500
50-500
3. Classes and Recreation Fees
Fee Category/Description
Current Fee
in dollars
Proposed Fee
in dollars
Contract Instructor Classes
Registration for one participant
0-1,000 per class
0-1,000 per class
Clinics, Workshops, Trainin s, Specialty Camps
Registration for one participant 0-500 per class
0-500 per class
Recreation Guide Advertising Rates
1/8 page - full page 0-1,000
0-1,000
4. State Street Banner Program
Fee Category/Description
Current Fee
in dollars
Proposed Fee
in dollars
State Street Banner
Banner Fee
100
100
G. ATHLETIC FACILITIES AND SPORTS FIELDS
1. Athletic Fields
Ukiah Sports Complex
Facility located at 905 City Well Road, at River Street off Hwy 101
Amenities: 3 Softball Fields, Lighting, Concession Facilities and Restrooms
Primary Use: Sports Leagues, Tournaments
Fee Category/Description Current Fee Proposed Fee
in dollars in dollars
Field Use
One Field 150/da 150/da
Lighting for One Field 50/day 50/day
Refundable Deposit 1000 1000
Other Park Locations with Athletic Field
Fee Category/Description Current Fee Proposed Fee
in dollars in dollars
Field Use
One Field 150/day 150/day
Lighting for One Field 50/day 50/day
Refundable Deposit 500 500
Athletic Fields are used for a variety of functions such as tournaments, fundraisers, and league play. Facility use will
be priced according to client requirements. Additionally, the Community Services Adminstrator or her designee may
provide promotional rates or discounts for multiple bookings.
City cf-T.ikjafi
ITEM NO.: 12a
MEETING DATE: July 6, 2011
UKIAH CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
SUBJECT: LETTER APPEALING DECISION TO CLOSE DOWNTOWN POST OFFICE
SUMMARY: The City Council requested the City Attorney to prepare a draft letter, appealing the decision
of the postal service to close the downtown post office and move its retail and mail processing functions to
the post annex on Orchard Avenue.
Attached is a draft letter for the City Council's consideration.
Fiscal Impact:
F-1BudgetedFY 10/11 F-1New Appropriation Not Applicable Budget Amendment Required
3456.
Recommended Action(s): Consider attached letter for approval or modification.
Alternative Council Option(s): N/A
Citizens advised: N/A
Requested by: City Council
Prepared by: David J. Rapport, City Attorney
Coordinated with: Mayor, Mari Rodin
Attachments: 1. Appeal letter
Approved: _
JayW Chambers, City Manager
[City letterhead]
[Date]
Vice President Facilities
Attn: Diana K. Alvarado
Pacific Facilities Service Office
Facilities Planning and Requirements
395 Oyster Point Boulevard, Suite 225
South San Francisco, CA 94080-0300
ATTACHMENT
Re: Appeal of decision to close Ukiah Main Post Office
Dear Ms. Alvarado:
By this letter the City of Ukiah appeals the decision to close the Main Ukiah Post Office,
which has been located at 224 N. Oak Street, in the heart of the historic downtown of the
City of Ukiah since 1936, dispose of the building, and transfer the retail and mail
processing functions from that building to the current postal annex located at 671 S.
Orchard Avenue, in a portion of the City that was annexed in the late 1970s. The project
necessarily includes physical changes to the postal annex to accommodate these
additional retail and processing functions.
The City is appealing the decision for the following reasons.
1. The City has been deprived of a meaningful appeal in violation of 39 C.F.R.
§241(c)(6). According to the June 20, 2011, letter from Ujwala Tamaskar to Mayor Mari
Rodin, announcing the decision to take these actions, the Vice President, Facilities, has
already approved this action. 39 C.F.R. §241.4(c)(6), which provides the procedures for
this appeal, states that:
The Vice President, Facilities, will obtain the views of the decision maker,
review relevant parts of the project file, and if necessary request more
information from the appellant. Upon review of the facts, the Vice
President, or a representative, will issue a written determination ...
This procedure implies that the Vice President, Facilities is not the initial decision -maker
and will act impartially in deciding the appeal, only consulting with the decision maker
after an appeal has been filed. Apparently, the Vice President, Facilities, was the
decision -maker in this case and the City is being deprived of a meaningful appeal,
because its only right of appeal is to the initial decision -maker.
2. Before undertaking a major federal action, as described in the first paragraph of this
letter, the Postal Service was required to perform an environmental assessment in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"). 42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq. and implementing regulations at 40 C.F.R. § 1500 et seq. The postal service has not
furnished the City with a copy of the environmental assessment and the City does not
Letter to Vice President, Facilities Page 2
Subject: Appeal of decision to close downtown Post Office
Date:
believe that one has been prepared in accordance with the required procedures. The
project is a class of action requiring an environmental assessment under 39 C.F.R.
§775.5(b). See, e.g., subsections (9) [Acquisition or lease of an existing building
involving new uses or a change in use to a greater environmental intensity];
(10) [Real property disposal involving a known change in use to a greater environmental
intensity].
Alternatively, if the project does not come within any of the classes identified in
§775.5(b), the regulation is invalid, because it does not specifically identify categorically
excluded projects or provide criteria for determining when, due to unusual circumstances,
an environmental assessment should be performed for a class of project which is
categorically excluded. The historic character of the Ukiah Post Office and the unique
and artistically important murals therein are just one circumstance which are unusual and
warrant an environmental assessment. In addition, the Ukiah Post Office lies in the heart
of Ukiah's historic downtown. Removing the retail postal operations could well lead to
the closure of other businesses in the downtown which, in turn, could lead to physical
blight, the deterioration of buildings and a downward spiral in the downtown with
substantial adverse impacts on the physical and social environment of the City.
The City has formed a Main Street Program for downtown businesses, a business
improvement district, and a redevelopment agency to help support and maintain the
financial health and viability of the downtown. The City has spent substantial sums to
develop a new zoning ordinance for the downtown with a primary goal of preserving its
unique architectural character. The postal service decision to close the Ukiah Post Office
and consolidate its retail operations with those at the postal annex undermines all of these
efforts and poses unique and serious adverse impacts on the physical and social
environment of the City.
3. The proposed action violates the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act, 31 U.S.C. §6506,
including Executive Order 12372, because the postal service has made no effort to
accommodate the concerns expressed by the Mayor and City Council or explain why
those concerns cannot be accommodated. In that connection, the City Council formally
requested detailed information developed by the postal service in reaching its decision to
close the Main Ukiah Post Office and dispose of the building. The postal service refused
to provide that information, relying on the deliberative process privilege in the Freedom
of Information Act. The postal service even refused to allow the City to inspect the Main
Post Office building to make an independent determination of the cost to rehabilitate and
preserve the building.
4. The project qualifies as a consolidation of a post office within the meaning of 39
C.F.R. §241.3 and the decision required the postal service to make specified findings
which it has not done.
5. The proposed project violates the postal service obligations under 16 U.S.C. §470h to
assume responsibility for the preservation of historic properties which it owns or controls
Letter to Vice President, Facilities Page 3
Subject: Appeal of decision to close downtown Post Office
Date:
and to use historic buildings to carry out its mission to the maximum extent feasible.
Again, the postal service refused to allow the City the opportunity to gather information
in order to demonstrate that there may be little or no cost savings in carrying out the
proposed project as compared to continuing the use of the historic post office building.
Under the National Historic Preservation Act, the postal service has an obligation to
nominate buildings that are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places
and to manage and maintain buildings which are eligible for nomination in a way that
considers the preservation of their historic, archaeological, architectural, and cultural
values in compliance with section 106 of the Act [16 USCS § 470f] and give special
consideration to the preservation of such values in the case of properties designated as
having National significance. The Ukiah Post Office qualifies for this treatment and it is
not receiving it from the postal service.
6. The postal service is required to engage in consultation under Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act which it has not done before making the decisions
which will lead to discontinuing its use, disposition of the building and the possible
destruction of its historic character and of the historic and artistically significant murals it
contains.
7. The City joins in the appeal filed by the Save Ukiah Post Office Committee and
incorporates herein by reference the grounds for appeal stated in its letter, appealing the
decision.
If you need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
cc:
Sincerely,
Mari Rodin, Mayor
City of Ukiah
City Council
Congressman Mike Thompson
Senator Diane Feinstein
Patrick Donahue, Postmaster General
United States Postal Service
475 L'Enfant Plaza SW
Washington, D.C. 20260
city n1 Wkiah
ITEM NO.: 12b
MEETING DATE:
UKIAH CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
July 26, 2011
SUBJECT: FOLLOW-UP MEETING ON STRATEGY FOR MAXIMIZING BENEFIT OF CITY WATER
RIGHTS AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CONSULTANT
AND STAFF
SUMMARY: At an August 18, 2010, special City Council meeting, the City Council heard a report from
Robert C. Wagner, the City's water rights engineering consultant, and the City Attorney, on the City's water
rights. Specifically, they notified the City Council that it could take to the year 2077 to use the City's full 20
CFS permit right, if the City's use were limited to its current boundaries and the sphere of influence
proposed in the City's 1995 General Plan. (A copy of the ASR for the Water Workshop is attached as
Attachment 1.)
At the conclusion of the workshop, the City Council requested its consultant to return with specific
recommendations as to how the City should proceed to maximize the benefits under its permit and its other
water rights, including its "Pre -1914 Water Rights."
Since that time, the City Attorney contracted with Darcy Vaughn to gather evidence and prepare a report on
the extent of the City's Pre -1914 Water Rights. This was work that the City has needed to do for many
years in order to evaluate the extent to which it can rely on those rights, which are exercised outside any
permit issued by the State Water Resources Control Board and which are not subject to the Water Board's
jurisdiction. Attachment 2 is a memorandum from Darcy which includes an Appendix containing the
documents she has located which substantiate the City's pre -1914 water rights. The memorandum also
explains the legal basis for pre -1914 rights and how those rights can be used, even when diverting water
from different locations than were used prior to 1914, and how the amount of water that can be diverted
pursuant to a pre -1914 water right can be increased before and after 1914.
Attachment 3 to this memorandum is an outline from Bob Wagner of his. presentation that he will make to
the City Council at its meeting, including his recommendations.
Continued on page 2
Recommended Action(s): Authorize staff to pursue water transfer agreements with Flood Control
District and other water districts; provide additional direction on strategies proposed at meeting.
Alternative Council Option(s): N/A
Citizens advised: N/A
Requested by: City Council
Prepared by: David J. Rapport, City Attorney
Coordinated with: Jane Chambers, City Manager, Robert C. Wagner
Attachments: 1. Agenda Summary Report for August 18, 2010 Water Workshop
2. Memorandum on City's Pre -1914 water rights
3. Outline of presentation and recommendations
Approved: `/
Jane ambers, City Manager
In summary, Bob will recommend that the City staff continue to discuss with the Mendocino County Russian
River Flood Control and Water Conservation Improvement District ("Flood Control District") transferring a
portion of the City's permit water to the Flood Control District for use within the Flood Control District place
of use, until such time as that water is needed within City limits, and/or discussing such transfers directly
with other water districts in the Ukiah area which need additional water to meet current demand.
The City would proceed with its current amendments to its permit, including the petition to extend its time to
put that water to beneficial use, with the possibility of amending its application to include water transfers, if
agreements are reached with the Flood Control District and/or other districts.
Bob will also discuss other strategies in light of the additional information now available about the City's pre -
1914 water rights and recent developments.
Fiscal Impact:
Budgeted FY 10/11 1-1 New Appropriation Not Applicable Budget Amendment Required
ATTACHMENT 1
ITEM N0.
DATE: August 18, 2010
City nJ-T-1kiali AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
SUBJECT: WORKSHOP TO EXAMINE IMPACT OF PENDING PETITIONS TO AMEND
CITY'S APPROPRIATIVE WATER RIGHT PERMIT ON CITY'S ABILITY TO PUT THE
FULL AMOUNT OF DIVERSION AUTHORIZED BY THE PERMIT TO BENEFICIAL USE
SUMMARY: The purpose of this workshop is to discuss the impact on the City's
appropriative water right permit of limiting future use of water under that permit to the
sphere of influence proposed in the City's 1995 General Plan. If future use is limited to that
area, the City could lose a portion of the 20 cubic feet per second ("cfs") its current permit
authorizes it to divert.' Staff would like direction from the City Council on which of several
policy options the City should pursue to either accept or avoid this potential reduction in
the City's water right.
In the course of this discussion, the City Council will also address the issues
Councilmember Baldwin has indicated he would like to address in the workshop:
1. Current City source capacity.
2. City wells as percolating groundwater or as underflow. Do we have to fish or cut bait?
3. Future of the Ranney Collector and the Water Treatment Plant.
4. City use of well water in summer months during drought.
5. Place of use expansion and potential for City water sales beyond City limits.
6. Should the City drop out of the Coyote Dam Feasibility Study?
7. Conflicts of interest of City water engineering firm.
' It is possible that the SWRCB will not approve the full time extension requested or could reduce the permit entitlement
for other reasons. City staff hopes that discussion of these other possibilities does not divert the City Council from
focusing on the issue posed by staff.
(continued on page 2)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide policy direction to staff
ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: N/A
Requested by: David Rapport, City Attorney
Prepared by: David Rapport, City Attorney
Coordinated with: Bob Wagner, Consultant; Charley Stump, Planning Director, Tim Eriksen,
Public Works Director, Jane Changers, City Manager
Attachments: Outline
Approved:
Jane Chambers, City Manager
ITEM NO:
Meeting Date: August 18, 2010
8. Water permit extension and beneficial use of 20 cfs.
BACKGROUND: The City has filed petitions with the State Water Resources Control Board
("SWRCB") to amend its permit to appropriate water as follows:
1. Change the points of diversion to include an additional well and designated well
fields;
2. Expand the place of use where water under the permit may be applied to include
the sphere of influence proposed in the City's 1995 General Plan (`1995 SOI"); and
3. Extend the deadline for putting water diverted under the permit to beneficial use
from 2000 to 2035.
In preparing the initial study for the Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for these
proposed changes to the City's permit, Leonard Charles, who is the consultant performing
this work, has proposed examining the impacts from diverting only as much of the 20 cfs
available for diversion under the City's permit as it is likely to use based on the following
build -out projections within the 1995 SOI:
That is the amount of water needed to serve an additional 128 single-
family units, 1,341 multi -family units, and 400,000 square feet of non-
residential development. Based on the calculations presented in the City's
[Urban Water Management Plan,] UWMP, this growth correlates to an
additional 1,280 connections that would require approximately an
additional 1,469 acre feet of water per year, which is about a 38%
increase over the 3,831 acre feet per year supplied in 2006. (Proposed
Initial Study, p. 8.)
These uses are based on the maximum development possible under the draft Ukiah Valley
Area Plan, but retaining Lover's Lane in its current agricultural use classification.Z
Using these projections the City could not put the full 20 cfs to beneficial use within the
requested time extension to 2035. This could result in the SWRCB reducing the City's
maximum diversion under the permit from the current 20 cfs.
OUTLINE FOR DISCUSSION
2 Staff hopes the discussion does not focus on these development assumptions. Others may or may not be more
appropriate, but the assumptions are not important for this discussion. What is important is that even under the most
intense development assumptions, the City won't use its full 20 cfs entitlement within the 1995 SOI over the next 25
years.
Page 2 of 8
ITEM NO:
Meeting Date: August 18, 2010
Staff has prepared a detailed outline which is attached to this ASR. That outline is intended
to include information the City Council needs to make a decision about three policy options
proposed by staff. There could be others staff has not considered, but the staff's goal for
this workshop is for the City Council to provide policy direction to staff. A summary of the
detailed outline follows.
1) Background
a) Sources and use of water
i) City water by source
ii) Maximum use
(1) By City currently
(2) Estimated future use within proposed service area
b) Overview of City water rights (permit, pre -1914, percolating groundwater)
2) Dilemma posed by pending petitions (can't use full 20 cfs in currently proposed
place of use — 1995 SOI) Consequence: SWRCB may limit City to amount of water it can
put to beneficial use within extended time period, resulting in a reduction of its
appropriative water right.
3) Policy options
a) Expand proposed place of use
b) Pursue transfer of surplus water
c) Make no changes
4) Pros and cons of policy options
5) Next steps for each option
6) Discuss whether City should continue funding Coyote Dam Feasibility Study
Page 3 of 8
WATER WORKSHOP OUTLINE
August 18, 2010
1) BACKGROUND
ITEM NO:
Meeting Date: August 18, 2010
a) Current quantity of water (in cfs, mgd, afa) from existing City water sources, including Ranney Collector, Gobbi
St. Well, Oak Manor Well, Well No. 4, Well No. 3 (See Attachment 1- Water Source Speadsheets.)
b) Current maximum amount of water (in cfs, mgd, afa) used by City (See Attachment 1.)
c) Estimate maximum amount of water(in cfs, mgd, afa) required, if City service area expanded to include Sphere
of Influence proposed in 1995 General Plan ("1995 Sphere") (See Attachement 1.)
d) Pertinent water rights
i) Basic information about groundwater and surface water rights
(1) Groundwater — SWRCB permitting authority - SWRCB has permitting authority over groundwater
flowing in a known and definite channel underground
(a) Criteria for establishing subterranean stream
(i) Garrapatta Creek test
1. Is there a subsurface channel?
2. Does it have relatively impermeable bed and banks?
3. Is the course of the channel known or capable of being known by reasonable inference?
4. Is groundwater flowing in the channel?
(ii) North Gualala decision by court of appeal seems to confirm SWRCB's use of these criteria
(b) Implication for Ukiah Valley
(i) Subsurface channel criteria is poorly defined.
1. Based on "relative impermeability"
2. Lacks dimension
(ii) Almost any alluvial valley will meet criteria
(iii) Water quality differences between wells and river indicate different source
1. Source differences do not necessarily indicate lack of jurisdiction
2. Source, like proximity to the river, are not defining criteria
3. Source is important for water right priority
a. Project water restricted to East Fork
(iv) Presumption remains that groundwater is not subject to SWRCB permitting authority.
However, it is likely that, at some point, SWRCB staff will consider the Ukiah Valley a
subterranean stream
(2) Water Right Priorities
(a) Pre -1914 appropriative
(i) Senior to most other appropriative diverters including project water
(ii) Senior to some riparian diversions
(iii) Less sensitive to reduction in Eel River import reduction
(b) SWRCB Permit
(i) Junior to other appropriations commenced prior to 1954
(ii) Senior to some riparian diversions
(iii) Junior to Project Water
(iv) More sensitive to Eel River import reductions
(c) Access to sources not available to Project
(i) West Fork
(ii) Tributaries downstream from Coyote Dam
(iii) Groundwater discharge
(iv) Incident precipitation
(3) Impact of Return Flow
(a) Not all water diverted is consumed
Page 4 of 8
ITEM NO:
Meeting Date: August 18, 2010
(b) Return flow to Wastewater treatment plant is significant
(c) Reduces impact on groundwater depletion
(d) Can be put to beneficial uses
ii) Permit to appropriate Russian River underflow
(1) 1954 priority date
(2) All sources of water to Main Stem Russian River subject to right, including East and West Fork, other
tributary creeks (Gibson, Orr, Doolan, etc.) flow from groundwater aquifer, return flows
(3) Flood Control District and SCWA permits have earlier priority date (1949), but only East Fork Russian
River water stored in Lake Mendocino subject to those permits
(4) To perfect by going to license, must put to beneficial use within time allowed by permit
(5) Well No. 3 already included as point of diversion under permit
(6) Pending petition seeks to add Well No. 5 and designated certain areas as well fields. In addition, Gobbi
and Oak Manor wells identified on map with notation that they are included in the event it is later
determined that they are pumping from an underground stream, but City currently regards them as
pumping from percolating groundwater
(7) In determining that RR fully appropriated, SWRCB counted full 20 cfs as being appropriated by City
(SWRCB Decision 98-07)
iii) Pre -1914 right
(1) Arises from development and use of water tributary to or in Main Stem Russian River, beginning with
formation of Ukiah Water Company, Inc. in 1872, its contracting with City to provide water beginning
in 1886 and purchase of water system and rights by City in 1922.
(2) Water claimed or diverted prior to 1914, when state first required permits to appropriate surface water,
not subject to jurisdiction of SWRCB.
(3) Quantity generally based on actual use prior to 1914, but if intent to use more established prior to 1914,
may include increased use after 1914 (subject to development plan consistent with City growth over
time).
(4) Decision 1030 approving City's permit recognizes that City was using 2.8 cfs in 1949.
(5) Changes in points of diversion and place of use possible (Water Code 1706).
(6) Transfers authorized but require consideration of "no injury" rule. (See Water Code § 1006.3)
(7) Use does not count toward perfection of permit water, but see limited exceptions in Water Code
Sections 1005.4 and 1011.5(b).
iv) Percolating groundwater
(1) Not subject to SWRCB control.
(2) Use does not count toward perfection of permit water, but see limited exceptions in Water Code
Sections 1005.4 and 1011.5(b).
(3) SWRCB taking an increasingly aggressive position that groundwater in alluvial valleys like the Ukiah
Valley part of an underground stream and, therefore, require a permit to use. (See 1)d)i)(1) above.)
(4) Nevertheless, presumption remains that groundwater is percolating groundwater and burden on
SWRCB to establish otherwise.
(5) City collecting hydro -geologic and chemical data about Gobbi Street, Oak Manor and No. 4 wells
which may support position that wells pumping percolating groundwater (Tabor Report, Balance
Hydrologics). But see ld)i)(1)(b)(iii), above.
(6) Until SWRCB formally notifies City that it regards wells as requiring a permit, City entitled to treat
them as percolating groundwater.
2) SCOPE OF FIR —
3 Nothing in this division affects or limits in any manner whatsoever the right or power of any municipality which, prior
to December 19, 1914, had appropriated or acquired water for municipal purposes, to use, sell, or otherwise dispose of
such water either within or without its limits for domestic, irrigation, or other purposes in accordance with laws in effect
on that date.
Page 5 of 8
ITEM NO:
Meeting Date: August 18, 2010
a) Conflict arises from current amendments to:
i) change place of use to include only 1995 Sphere and
ii) receive time extension to 2035 to put full 20 cfs to beneficial use
b) Problem —
i) State Board will require City to establish that it can put the full 20 cfs to beneficial use within the requested
25 year time extension (given past growth, suggest requesting 50 years). If the City cannot provide evidence
that it can put the full 20 cfs to use within the extended time, the SWRCB may reduce the maximum
available under the permit to the amount the City could put to use within that time period. (23 CCR 840-
844.)
ii) Under any supportable growth projections, the City cannot put full 20 cfs to beneficial use within a service
area expanded to include only 1995 sphere (within 25 years; see graph of growth of water demand).
iii) Other issues also affect the City's ability to perfect its permit right to the full 20 cfs
(1) Status of Gobbi Street Well, Oak Manor Well and Well No. 4.
(a) If percolating ground water, use not counted toward use of 20 cfs.
(b) Other consequences:
(i) If the water pumped by those wells is flowing in a definite channel underground (i.e., is found
not to be percolating groundwater), extraction would require a permit from SWRCB, and City
could not use the wells until the SWRCB has approved adding them as points of diversion
under the City's permit, unless it could use those wells as points of diversion under it pre -1914
water right.
(ii) Even if considered underflow, source probably not East Fork which means City's use not
junior to and not in competition with Flood Control District or Sonoma County Water Agency
permits, which are limited to East Fork water. With the exception of its 2.8 cfs of pre -1949
water, the City could not rely on its permit to appropriate water from RR, if the only water in
the river was East Fork water. This would be highly unlikely, especially with respect to Well
No. 4, Gobbi Street Well and Oak Manor Well.
(2) Quantifying City's pre -1914 water right, the use of which is not counted toward perfecting the 20 cfs
entitlement under the City's permit.
(a) Recent legislation required the City by July 1, 2010, to file a statement with the SWRCB that it is
diverting water under a pre -1914 water right and identifying the points of diversion. By January
2012, the City is required to file a statement of the quantity of water it is diverting under its pre -
1914 right from each diversion point. (Water Code §§ 5100-5107.) The statements or the failure to
file them does not affect the City's right to claim or establish the extent of its pre -1914 water right.
(b) The City has not performed the historic research necessary to quantify its pre -1914 water right.
This is a valuable right that should be quantified with necessary steps taken to preserve it. This
may require hiring qualified professionals.
(3) Water conservation, whether necessary due to draught or mandated by state. (See Water Code §§
10608-10608.8, requiring urban retail water suppliers to set targets for water reduction with statewide
goal of reducing urban water use by 20% by 2020.)
3) POLICY OPTIONS
a) Expand place of use to encompass larger area in order to sell water to districts which need it (e.g., Millview,
Redwood Valley, Calpella, Willow, Hopland (?)).
b) Pursue transfer of surplus water to Flood Control District or other water districts pursuant to Water Code §§
381-387.
c) Make no changes to pending petitions and risk SWRCB limiting permit to amount of water City can reasonably
put to beneficial use within existing limits and 1995 Sphere or approximately 11 cfs. (See 1)c) above.)
4) CONSEQUENCES OF POLICY OPTIONS
a) Expand place of use
i) Pros -
Page 6 of 8
ITEM NO:
Meeting Date: August 18, 2010
(1) Maximizes City water right
(2) Preserves water for inland Mendocino County
(3) Makes water available to other districts that lack an adequate supply for current users as well as future
uses.
ii) Cons —
(1) Requires amendment of petition to change place of use
(2) Political opposition
(3) May require LAFCO approval, if City purports to serve without annexing area or obtaining SWRCB
approval of water transfer
(4) May impact future development
(5) May enable development outside City limits
(6) May delay preparation and increase cost of EIR.
b) Pursue transfer of surplus water
i) Pros —
(1) Encouraged by state water policy. (See Water Code §380. 4)
(2) Supersedes LAFCO approval. (See Water Code §381.5)
(3) Allows for written agreement which can establish the terms and conditions under which water is being
transferred or sold
ii) Cons -
(1) Could enable urban development outside City limits
(2) Requires additional petition to be filed with SWRCB
(3) Will delay preparation of EIR until City ready to proceed (see Next Steps below)
(4) May increase cost of EIR
c) Leave proposed amendments unchanged and risk losing the portion of 20 cfs City cannot put to beneficial use
within next 25 years.
i) Pros —
(1) Avoids filing any additional petition or amendments with SWRCB
(2) Existing project description adequate and Leonard Charles can prepare draft EIR without further delay
or increased cost
4 Water Code § 380. Findings and declarations
The Legislature hereby finds and declares as follows:
(a) The various regions of the state differ widely in the availability of water supplies and in the need for water to
meet beneficial uses.
(b) Decisions regarding operations to meet water needs can depend in part upon regional differences.
(c) Many water management decisions can best be made at a local or regional level, to the end that local and
regional operational flexibility will maximize efficient statewide use of water supplies.
(d) The authority granted by this chapter to local and regional public agencies, as defined in subdivision (a) of
Section 65930 of the Government Code and not including federal agencies, is in furtherance of the policy declared in
Section 2 ofArticleX of the California Constitution and in Section 109.
5 Water Code § 381. Authority over conflicting law
The authority of local or regional public agencies pursuant to this chapter shall control over any other provision of law
which contains more stringent limitations on the authority of a particular public agency to serve water for use outside the
agency, to the extent those other laws are inconsistent with the authority granted herein.
Page 7 of 8
ITEM NO:
Meeting Date: August 18, 2010
(3) Makes less water available for development outside current and probable future City limits
ii) Cons -
(1) Reduction in valuable water right
(2) Loss of water right to inland Mendocino County in favor of downstream users, including SCWA
(3) May inhibit future expansion of SOI, if such desired by future city council
5) NEXT STEPS FOR EACH POLICY OPTION
a) Expand place of use
i) Notify and meet with Redwood Valley, Calpella, Millview, Willow Water Districts to explain proposed
expansion and reason therefor
ii) Direct Wagner/Bonsignore to file revised amended petition
iii) Revise project description for EIR
iv) New scoping session for FIR
b) Pursue transfer of surplus water
i) Decide whether to offer to Flood Control District or to individual water districts or both
ii) Meet informally with selected district or districts to discuss proposal
iii) If district or districts are interested, negotiate terms of agreement for approval of governing bodies
iv) File petition with state for approval
c) Make no changes to pending petitions
i) Instruct staff to proceed with current petitions, current project description, and currently proposed initial
study
COUK117.DOC
Page 8 of 8
David J. Rapport
Lester J. Marston
Scott Johnson
Mary Jane Sheppard
ATTACHMENT 2
Law Offices Of
RAPPORT AND MARSTON
An Association of Sole Practitioners
405 W. Perkins Street
P.O. Box 488
Ukiah, California 95482
e-mail: drapport@pacbell.net
(707) 462-6846
FAX 462-4235
MEMORANDUM
TO: David J. Rapport, City Attorney
FROM: Darcy Vaughn
DATE: June 30, 2011
SUBJECT: City of Ukiah's Pre -1914 Water Right
QUESTIONS
1. Under what circumstances can the City of Ukiah perfect a pre -1914 appropriative water right if the point
of diversion changed before or after 1914?
2. What quantity of water can be perfected under a pre -1914 appropriative right?
3. If quantity of water diverted increases, is it possible to protect a right to a portion of any increased usage
even if the increase occurs after 1914?
CONCLUSIONS
1. An appropriative pre -1914 water right is perfected once construction of the diversion project is complete,
and when the water is diverted and applied to a beneficial use.
2. The quantity of water that can be perfected under an appropriative pre -1914 right is not the amount
originally diverted, but the amount of the originally contemplated appropriation. Any increased diversion
must be in accordance with a plan of development, and the plan must be executed within a reasonable time
by the use of reasonable diligence.
3. An appropriator's right is protected given an increase in quantity diverted provided that the increase does
not cause injury to other legal users of water. Prior to 1914, Civil Code 1415 barred changes that injured
senior rights holders. After 1914, Water Code 1706 barred changes that would cause injury to any
appropriative right holder.
The City's most promising claim to a Pre -1914 appropriative right, other than the 2.8 cubic feet per second
("cfs") allotted as a pre -1949 right in SWRCB Decision 1030, is the 26.5 cfs recorded by the Ukiah Water
Memorandum re: City of Ukiah Pre -1914 Water Rights Page 2
Dated: June 30, 2011
and Improvement Company in 1884 and 1896. Though there is evidence to support perfection of the
pre -1914 right through diversion and beneficial use, the City may also need to present evidence showing a
plan of development of water that includes consumptive use in order to claim the full recorded amount.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Ukiah Water Company ("UWC") was incorporated on January 4, 1872 for the purpose of serving
domestic water to the then unincorporated area known as the Town of Ukiah City. (Appendix pgs. 1-6.) After
the incorporation of Ukiah City ("City") in 1886, the City maintained contracts with the UWC under which the
latter guaranteed the City a supply of water for domestic and fire protection uses. (Appendix pg. 7-10.) In
1892, UWC's successor, the Ukiah Water and Improvement Company ("UWIC"), entered into a franchise
agreement for the sole right to build, equip, and operate a water works in the City via pumping plant, wells,
dams, and reservoirs. (Appendix pgs. 11-13.) On February 14, 1922, after the City Board of Trustees
determined that public interest demanded acquisition of the City's Water Works, the UWIC deeded to the
City all water rights and facilities appurtenant, including real estate, reservoirs, pumping stations, and a well
diverting Russian River Underflow. (Appendix pg. 14-17.)
Before 1914, UWC and representatives of the City posted and recorded four notices of appropriation for
tributaries of the Russian River. Applicant UWC claimed appropriation of 60 miners inches from Orr's Creek
to furnish the City with water for domestic and irrigation purposes as of August 1, 1884. (Appendix pg. 18.)
On July 9, 1885, an L. Van Dusen claimed 1000 miners inches of the waters of Cold Creek to furnish the City
with an adequate supply of water for domestic, industrial, and irrigation use. (Appendix pg. 19.) On August
20 of the same year, E. Carr claimed 500 miners inches of the waters running through Carr's Canyon to the
Russian River to furnish water to the City for domestic, industrial, and irrigation use. (Appendix pg. 20.)
Neither Van Dusen nor Carr were listed as initial trustees of the UWC in its Certificate of Incorporation, so it
is unclear whether either man acted on behalf of the UWC or as sole operators. (Appendix pg. 3.) The final
notice of appropriation posted by the UWIC claims an additional 1000 miners inches of water from Orr Creek
for the purpose of providing the City with water for domestic and irrigation purposes on February 3, 1896.
(Appendix pgs. 21-22.) Converted to the contemporary standard unit for rate of diversion, cubic feet per
second (cfs), the total rate of diversion claimed for eventual beneficial use by the UWIC before 1914 is 64
cfs.
We have found no notices of appropriation of water directly referencing amounts of and sources of diversion
specifically from the Russian River prior to 1914. However, other historical sources do indicate that the City
used water pumped from Russian River underflow as early as 1892. In a water rights dispute between Grace
Hudson and the Ukiah Water & Improvement Company (UWIC), the Supreme Court of California notes that,
after an 1880 decision involving rights to Gibson Creek, the UWIC had increased the amount of water used
by the City by diverting all the water of Gibson Creek, by diverting water from Orr Creek, and by pumping
water from wells on the Russian River. (Hudson v. Ukiah Water & Improvement Co. (1918) 177 Cal. 498,
500; Appendix pg. 23.) By 1899, demand for water had increased to the point that the City entered into a
contract with UWIC to "put in an additional pump at their station on Russian River," as noted in the Bureau
of Trustees' meeting minutes of February 20, 1899. (Appendix pgs. 24-25.) This would suggest that the
pumping plant alluded to in the City's 1892 franchise agreement with UWIC was constructed on the Russian
River. The UWIC completed construction and commenced diversion of Russian River underflow in
November of 1892. (Appendix pg. 13.)
One of the best sources for information about sources of and amounts of diversion, as well as for
information about reservoir location and capacity, are Sanborn Maps for the Town of Ukiah City for the years
1888-1894, 1898-1905, and 1911-1918. Originally created for assessing fire insurance liabilities in
urbanized areas, Sanborn Maps included detailed information regarding water resources. According to the
1888-1894 map, the City's water supply during this period came from a well near the Russian River. A
steam pump moved water from this well to a 220,000 gallon reservoir at the head of Church Street.
(Appendix pgs. 26-27.) The 1898-1905 map provides additional detail, indicating that, in winter, the City's
Memorandum re: City of Ukiah Pre -1914 Water Rights Page 3
Dated: June 30, 2011
water was diverted from Gibson Creek and stored in a 200,000 gallon reservoir located 3/ mile from the
Court House. (Appendix pgs. 28-29.) During the dry spring and summer, water was pumped from a well on
the Russian River two miles northeast of the City and diverted to the aforementioned reservoir. The
1911-1918 map indicates that the City's water system utilized both gravity and direct pressure delivery
systems, that the primary supply source was a 200,000 gallon reservoir located 3/ miles west of and at an
elevation of 162 feet about the Court House. (Appendix pg. 30.) In addition, the map indicates that the
reservoir is supplied in winter from diversions from Gibson Creek, and in summer by three wells on the
Russian River, located 2 miles northeast of the City limits. An electric centrifugal pump with a capacity 890
gallons per minute facilitated the diversion of Russian River underflow from these three wells to the City
Reservoir.
The City would operate, maintain, and expand the facilities diverting Russian River water as described in the
Sanborn Map after purchasing all UWIC rights and property in 1922. In the years following 1922, the City
added two additional underflow wells located near the pumping plant (AKA the Brush Street Well Field), and
an additional well on East Perkins Street for pumping Russian River underflow. (Appendix pg. 31.)
In response to the commencement of the Russian River Project and construction of the Coyote Valley
Reservoir, the City applied for a permit with the State Water Resources Control Board ("SWRCB") to secure
appropriation rights to Russian River underflow for municipal purposes within the City and environs.
Application 15704, filed on January 25, 1954, requested a permit to appropriate 20 cfs of Russian River
water, year-round, to be pumped from wells located within the Russian River Project Area. (Appendix pg. 32.)
In Decision 1030, adopted on August 17, 1961, the SWRCB approved of the application and granted to the
City Permit 12952 to divert the requested 20 cfs, and indicated that City could share in the Mendocino
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District's 8,000 acre-feet annual yield of Project water from
the East Fork Russian River. (Appendix pg. 33.)
SWRCB Decision 1030 also categorized appropriative rights to the Russian River System as either
pre -1949 rights — those uses perfected prior to January 28, 1949 — and those rights commencing January
28, 1949 — the date of initial applications for Project water submitted by the State Department of Finance.
(Appendix pg. 34-35.) The SWRCB recognized and assigned senior priority to pre -1949 rights for holders
who continuously diverted and used Russian River water prior to 1949. Because the City testified that the
maximum amount of water diverted and used prior to 1949 was 2.8 cfs, the SWRCB decision acknowledged
a pre -1949 appropriative right to 2.8 cfs from the Russian River for a maximum of 2,027 acre-feet annually
("afa"). (Decision 1030 pg. 25; Appendix pg. 36.) In addition, the SWRCB recognized that diversions from
the Russian River for use in the river valley in Mendocino County below the Coyote Valley Dam prior to 1949
were estimated to be about 8,100 afa. (Decision 1030 pg. 23; Appendix pg. 37.) The City was recognized
as one of the primary users of this Pre -1949 diversion. Id. In recognizing and categorizing pre -1949
appropriations and uses of Russian River water, the SWRCB leaves open the possibility that the City can
claim a part of the 8,100 afa reserved as a senior, pre -1949 right for the Mendocino District.
Currently, the City diverts Russian River underflow from the following locations: Well 5 and the Ranney
Collector, both of which are located in the Brush Street Well Field; and Well 3 on East Perkins Street.
(Appendix pg. 38.) Underflow diverted at these locations is legally considered surface water diversion
subject to the requirements of the City's water right permit. Use of Well 1, which commenced use in 1906,
ceased in the 1970s, and use of Wells 2 and 6 ceased when their pumping capacity was severely reduced
due to construction of a 1.5 million gallon clearwell for the Water Treatment Plant. (Appendix pg. 39.)
LEGAL ANALYSIS
Perfection of Pre -1914 Appropriative Water Rights
An appropriative water right is an entitlement to a specific amount of water, for a specified use, at a specific
location with a definite date of priority. Prior to 1914, appropriative water rights could be claimed by simply
Memorandum re: City of Ukiah Pre -1914 Water Rights Page 4
Dated: June 30, 2011
diverting and putting water to beneficial use. (Haight v. Costanich (1920) 184 Cal. 426.) Beneficial use has
been interpreted to mean "the amount actually used and reasonably necessary for a useful purpose to which
the water has been applied." (Haight at 431.) The quantity of water that can be claimed by appropriation is
limited to the amount of water actually applied to beneficial use. (Haight at 431.) In 1872, the California
Legislature enacted Sections 1410 through 1422 of the California Civil Code. These sections established
the procedure for fixing the priority of an appropriation of water. Under these sections of the Civil Code, a
person intending to appropriate water was required to post a written notice at the point of intended diversion
and record a copy of the notice at the County Recorder's office which stated the following: the amount of
water appropriated, the purpose for which the appropriated water would be used, the place of use, and the
means by which the water would be diverted. (Civ. Code § 1415.) By recording notice, an appropriator
memorializes the date on which the appropriator took the first act of constructing his water diversion project,
thus establishing this right as senior to appropriations commencing after this date. The appropriator's water
right relates back to the time of this first act even if full appropriation isn't achieved until a later date, provided
that the appropriator exercised due diligence to complete appropriation. (Kelly v. Natoma Water Co. (1857)
6 Cal. 105, 108.) The appropriative right is perfected once the right holder completes the diversion project,
commences water diversion, and applies the water diverted to beneficial use. (Haight, supra at p. 431.)
Here, UWC, individuals claiming and providing water to the City, and the UWIC all recorded copies of posted,
written notices with the County Recorder's office. As outlined in the statement of facts, each notice stated
the amount of water appropriated, the purpose for which the water would be used, and the place of use. In
addition, each recorded instrument describes the system of pipes and the operation of gravity and pumping
mechanisms to transport the water from the point of diversion to the place of use. Thus, each appropriator
memorialized their intent to appropriate water and earned conditional right to the future use of the water.
Each right was perfected once the holder began diverting water from the stated source and furnishing the
City of Ukiah with water for domestic, irrigation, and industrial purposes. Unfortunately, there is little
supporting evidence that water from Carr's Canyon or from Cold Creek was actually put to beneficial use.
Minutes from meetings of the Board of Trustees of Ukiah City before 1914 discuss the need to appropriate
additional water from Cold Creek, but there is no documentation as to how much water was actually diverted
and put to beneficial use. Nor have we located any documentation associating Mr. Carr or Mr. Van Dusen
with the UWC or UWIC that suggests that the appropriations each claimed became part of the City's water
system. Without such documentation, perfection of the pre -1914 appropriative right may be difficult to prove.
It may be possible to show perfection of UWC's and successor UWIC's appropriation of Orr Creek. The
August 15, 1884 issue of the Ukiah Dispatch Democrat indicates that the UWC had connected pipes
diverting Orr Creek water into Ukiah. (Appendix pg. 9.) However, we lack evidence regarding the actual
amount diverted from Orr Creek and put to use, such that we cannot determine whether the UWIC took
steps to develop and divert its full, recorded quantity. The Sandborn Maps, as well as the minutes from the
City's Bureau of Trustee meetings, indicate that the UWIC (and later, the City) was indeed diverting water
and putting it to beneficial use, but from Gibson Creek and from Russian River underflow, not from Orr
Creek. The UWIC may have perfected its pre -1914 claim to 1060 miners inches (or 26.5 cfs) of water, but
only if its change in point of diversion from a tributary of the Russian River to the River itself is a permissible
change. This will be discussed infra.
Perfecting Amount of Appropriation and the Progressive Use Doctrine
The quantity of water to which the appropriator is entitled is not necessarily limited to the amount actually
used at the time of the initial diversion. Rather, under the doctrine of progressive use and development, a
pre -1914 appropriator may increase the amount of water diverted up to the amount of the originally
contemplated appropriation. (Haight, supra at p. 433.) Under the progressive use doctrine, the quantity of
water to which an appropriator is entitled is a fact specific inquiry, measured by all the circumstances of the
case. (Haight, supra at p. 433.) Any new use must be within scope of original intent, the increased diversion
must be accordance with a plan of development, and the plan must be carried out within a reasonable time
by the use of reasonable diligence. (Senior v. Anderson, (1896) 115 Cal. 496, 503-04; Trimble v. Heller,
Memorandum re: City of Ukiah Pre -1914 Water Rights Page 5
Dated: June 30, 2011
(1913) 23 Cal. App. 436, 443-44.) The holder of the appropriative right must demonstrate that the increased
quantity of water diverted was intended to be applied to future needs as conceived at the time of the original
diversion, and that this increased quantity is reasonably necessary to achieve these needs. (Haight, supra
at p. 433.) If the use of water is not pursued as required, the right to the additional water becomes subject
to intervening claims. (Haight at 432.)
In SWRCB's Decision 1030, the City testified that its maximum pre -1949 use of Russian River water totaled
only 2.8 cfs, and that its maximum 1954 demand was 6.4 cfs — far short of the 26.5 cfs claimed by UWIC.
However, Decision 1030 also states that the City's projected maximum requirement with a population of
30,000 in the year 2000 would be 20 cfs. (Appendix pg. 36.) One might infer that the SWRCB is recognizing
a plan of development and corresponding increase in appropriation until the requested 26.5 cfs is achieved.
Still, the pattern of development represented in Decision 1030 may not be sufficient to qualify as a plan of
development, nor to show that this plan was carried out within a reasonable time by the use of reasonable
diligence. In a previous SWRCB hearing related to the application of the progressive use doctrine to
pre -1914 appropriative rights, successful claims to increases in quantity have been supported by detailed
statements of use and plans of development in which beneficial use is specified and quantified — for
example, to divert water from Lake Arrowhead to supply a planned resort community with an ultimate
population estimate of 8,000 resident population and 2,100 transient guests. (SWRCB Order WR 2006 —
0001, pgs. 12-14; Appendix pgs. 40-42.) While UWIC's recorded notice of appropriation does indicate its
intent to provide the City with water for all purposes, this information may be too nebulous to constitute a plan
of development unless supported by city planning documents projecting residential growth. In addition,
without supporting documentation of such a plan of development and corresponding timeline, any attempt
to assess the reasonableness of the time in which the plan is carried out would be cursory at best.
Alternatively, one could argue that the matter demonstrating a plan of development involving City's pre -1914
rights is distinguishable on the facts from the similar matter discussed in SWRCB Order WR 2006 — 0001.
The City was not a planned community with a predetermined population capacity, so that detailed planning
documents, such as those existing for Lake Arrowhead, would not be available. We can be certain that the
City's population grew steadily after incorporation, as the Sandborn maps indicate a population increase
from 1,500 to 2,200 people between 1888 and 1918. (Appendix pgs. 26-31.). Clearly, the SWRCB had
evidence of the continued population increase, as discussed infra, and anticipated that the City would be
using its entire post -1949 Russian River allotment under Permit 12952 by the year 2000. The SWRCB has
stated that a "plan of development" need not be a single document that expresses the original intent to
appropriate, only that there be substantial evidence of the initial intent with respect to the use of water.
(SWRCB Order WR 2006 — 0001, pg. 9; Appendix pg. 43.) Even without pre -1914 City planning documents
that indicate a certain anticipated population and certain anticipated amount of water put to beneficial use,
the City does have evidence of continued population growth and of increase in beneficial use of Russian
River water, and this evidence has been acknowledged by the SWRCB in Decision 1030. One could argue
that the UWC and UWIC demonstrated an initial intent to provide the City with all needed water for all
beneficial purposes, as stated in pre -1914 notices of appropriation. It would be reasonable for the UWC and
UWIC to anticipate that the City's population would steadily increase, that an increase in the quantity of
water diverted would be necessary to support this growing population, that the need for water related to the
population increase would be open ended, and that the UWC, the UWIC, and the City exercised reasonable
diligence to appropriate the full 26.5 cfs needed for beneficial use within a reasonable amount of time.
Perfection of an Appropriative Right and Changes in Point of Diversion — Differences Between the
Civil Code Section 1415 and Water Code Section 1706 Regimes.
An appropriator of water under a pre -1914 water right can change the point of diversion, place of use, or
method of diversion provided that these changes do not cause injury to other legal users of water. This
principle applies whether the change occurred before or after 1914. Enacted in 1872, Civil Code Section
1415 allows changes in the point of diversion after notice is recorded if senior right holders are not injured
Memorandum re: City of Ukiah Pre -1914 Water Rights Page 6
Dated: June 30, 2011
by such a change. Enacted after 1914, Water Code Section 1706 indicates that a pre -1914 right holder may
change the point of diversion if the change avoids injury to any other right holder, whether senior or not.
Whether these changes amount to injury to other users is a matter for decision on the merits for each
particular case. (Orange County Water Dist. v. Riverside (1959) 173 Cal. App. 2d 137, 196.) Injury from a
change in place of use generally occurs when use at the new location results in the appropriator using a
greater amount of water than the right holder was entitled to or when use at the new location reduces return
flows to the watercourse, thus reducing the amount of water available for diversion by downstream users.
(Barnes v. Hussa (2006) 136 Cal. App. 4th 1358, 1369.)
Here, the UWIC began diverting Russian River underflow for beneficial use in the City starting in 1892 but
apparently did not record this diversion, possibly because the water diverted from wells was groundwater not
subject to an appropriative surface water right regime. One could argue that the City could claim at least a
portion of the 26.5 cfs recorded appropriation from Orr Creek because the UWIC changed its primary point
of diversion to the Russian River prior to 1914. If so, there is no record of injury to a senior right holder, such
as via a protest or a legal action. Also, it is unlikely that the Russian River was over appropriated at this time
in the basin's development, such that the City's diversion interfered with a downstream user's ability to divert
his full appropriation.
If a change in point of diversion or quantity diverted occurred after 1914, the City would have to demonstrate
that these changes did not injure any holder of an appropriative right. Again, there is no record of injury or
protest recorded by any other appropriative user against the City during this time.
APPENDIX TO MEMORANDUM ON PRE- 1914 WATER RIGFFFS
di,
420
R
G�%/moi � /y ----
�i1 �� /? Zfi Gerry �-��- .���v�v — �`� /
- Ala,
4 7
�y%yLdyGG�Z-a'jj,'jTi9�v/�,G-��/UO.�y�,�r�t�i��� l�}�r�
G f.Efu./ ����!��G,��IZ�j .2���v( i�� � C�'L-%! LC
_ 1�-�� LT�ic� C-4�a-r-t"� dy�y�yZ�yi-t�� ,G�zG��,�-� �� ;.
y r
U /
`�'���'(��iyyr/ ��07G�,,Lrr`�2��-�f y1G�s�2fr,/ GC�z-Gi�',rs�✓�'���-�«--/�
71
6,0/
`i AZ
aze l lGyl� amu
/ Lx/� �J-C�dGv, Zri1 CG�Z-��.IG-�G�c�-�GI�G'�.�!•�?�Z.GG�
applez Or PRE comwrr ezvvz
COUNTY OF ---
I----------
-----------
----------------- County Clerk of the.--------------- ---------------- ---------------
runty 0J., Slate of California, and Clerk of the -----
---- --------
?md,li, reof, do hereby certify the foregoingI be a ull trite, and correct cofiy of the14,2�r,,
•�,�! �tc� r�?nzcc, �r�-��L�2� r�ti�i� 2 L�a•�� �•�i��e can2���eeG�
-
BURN
2e ,za ?.yzp�z�n -r a .. ..��G2�27.�tccI! --------
------
-; --G--- - --- ------------- --
----
iT`y'�,4;�Y N f?v+,a-�r�n{y' N.�1 "x^"^Typ `: /^. ^ar-.w..�..� .•/%//%��„r,..r... - - .. ---------------..._.-
yn?�
4
Secretary of State.
Y
--
-------
-----------------------------------
---
Deputy.
Memorandum from David J. Rapport to Mayor and Council, Jan. 4, 1991
Pre -1949 rights: Rights recognized in Decision D 1030 as superior to permits issued to SCWA
and MFC & WCID by that decision, which have a priority date of Jan. 28, 1949.
Riparian land: A legal parcel of land that lies adjacent to a surface water source, such as a river,
creek, stream or lake.
Riparian right: The right to divert surface water for immediate use on riparian land. After the
adoption of Article X, section 2 of the State Constitution in 1928, a riparian right is superior to
appropriative rights and downstream riparian rights as to the amount of water that can be
beneficially used on the riparian land without undue waste.
Surface water: Water present on the surface of land or subsurface water flowing in a definite
water course. In the Russian River surface water is present both above and below the streambed.
Water percolating from the river through the gravels below or adjacent to the river are considered
surface water. This subsurface water is referred to as "the underflow" of the river.
Groundwater: Subsurface water that does not flow in a definite water course. In the Ukiah
Valley groundwater is water accessible through wells that is hydrologically separate from the
Russian River; that is, water that collects beneath the valley directly from rain and run-off.
Project Water: The water available for diverison from the Russian River that would not exist but
for the construction of Coyote Dam and Lake Mendocino. "Project" refers to the Army Corps of
Engineers Flood Control Project for which the dam was constructed.
CHRONOLOGY OF MAJOR EVENTS, DECISIONS AND PERMITS
1872- Ukiah Water Company incorporated
1884- recordation of use of 60 miners inches from Orrs Creek in name of Ukiah Water Company.
1885- recordation for use of 1000 miners inches from Cold Creek for City of Ukiah.
1885- recordation for City of Ukiah of 500 miners inches from Carr's Canyon.
1886- Ukiah Water Company began contracting with City to provide water to City.
1892- Ukiah Water and Improvement Company formed with franchise to build, equip and operate
water works in City, included the establishment of wells near present location, pumping from
underflow of Russian River. Facilities expanded in 1899.
1896- Ukiah Water and Improvement District recordation of 1000 miners inches from Orr Creek.
1908- Eel River diversion at Van Arsdale Resevoir completed and water diverted through Cape
Horn Dam from Eel River into East Fork Russian River to drive hydroelectric generators for Snow
Mountain Water and Power Company, later acquired by PG & E.
1921. Lake Pillsbury on Eel River completed with capacity to store 93,700 afa. Through siltation
that capacity is now reduced to approximately 80,700 afa.
1922- City purchased all water rights and facilities of Ukiah Water and Improvement Company
WATER
1883
--- -23-Mar. UCP.5 "Mr. nughes, Superindendent of Ukiah Water
Company, is anxious -'that -citizens should appreciate a fact; A water
famine -is certain this year. The situation can be -partially remedied
ZQns._will be. econo.mi.q 1. in the...ua�QP.__w�tar_.__..IP_they _will ......
irrigate their gardens moderately, a tremendous waste will be stopped."
-July _U_CP 5 "ZNZ.J. H. Hughes, collector. of, the,Ukiahwater ._
works, reports water a$ getting scarce and advises those using it not
_-to waste any, or the supply maygive out entirely,"
13J111y UCP"5 "Water Shut Off. In -o'on-sequence of thesoaraity
-01f -water-,--and the- oust om--of- some. -con sumers..-who--leave-their--faucets- open
at ni_gnt, Mr. Hughes, agent of the Ukiah Water Company, is compelled to
shut' 6ff-the"'street main at night. The water will be shut off at'7;30
---p.m.,-and _.turned on at 5 a.m. It consumeFps. will._ provide__ for _the _
drought by keeping a supply on hand, personal discomfort will be red.._uced
minimum, The possibility of a firein-our"season ofdefenselessnes�
�uat__e�aSt-e_.gr. a Vit_ • appr e he.n s.ion . "__ -
WATER WORKS• 1883
7 Sept. MDD 3
"ITast-Sunday"" -we -took a stroll up Gib"soh Canyon to`where W.A Forse has
_.SSV_ersa1___ men ._tQ-W-Qrk-siig-ging--a--tr-ench-- prepaxa_to -y +o--bui-lding_..a.-_s.ubs-tan-t_ia-1- c
that will withstand the floods of winter. The site selected for the work i�
-a��2as-t 37`¢"-o�-a�n?.�e-abot7�th��ariks , an yearcZ, -below fhe- oTd--mi I�"den
- - - When_the-dam noseL-under way-_
constructed from the point to the tanks, the water supply will be ample for
ani--iT=udiwte--dE ttt-and-- bu rse oes no propose o s op---tj�er`- ohne
_.int -e -da ; n__the__no.distrant-future.,--._to_._build-a-��
contents of which catchment he will hold in reserve next season until the
a
23Nov�oMDDo shI-have been exl�aus e ongratu te etc. r-—
"The new reservoir, about half a mile up Gibson Creek, the property of
-----�- __.....
WATER 188+
—9 -May -DD -.3 _!'- T he -Ukiah.-Water- C ompany' s_ neva._-dam.__commene ed -__t n__leak __..
last Friday morning, when there was no one watching it, and before
7--eight-o'clock all -the water had escaped - 'It' was the result of -an
.-._Oversight An the building of .the dam,_.w.hi.ch. Mr.._...For.e_e_a,e,sures- us _ -_can
be readily remedied, and a sufficient supply still caught from the
—'__-preBngt--surplus--for the -town's -summer-
15
summer15 Aug DD 3 "The Ukiah Water Company has connected thea new
— extension-of:pipes,- leading from a point -on --Orr -creek some two and a
__Half miles from Ukiah, with --.the main of the old works, and thereby,
materially increased the supply of water, but still there is only a
----limited . quantity.: _ ..
4 April UCP 5 "If the anticipation of the owners and operators
- -of-our -water works are realized, we will have more water this summer
than ever before, an end most devoutly to be wished for."
UCP_5 '!The Water Co. Great _improvements have lately --been _.
made in the Ukiah Water Works. A new main, five inches and three -and- -1
three-fourths; has been laid down to Todd ' -s -gate; and -will be extended
__.aoon._ _...The... work of laying _the pipes over _ to- _Orr.'.s _crae.k_ is fast nearing
completion, and the company expect to be able to furnish more water than
-the city --can use, for some years'to come ---Meantime they have been to
w_ .sidera..12.1e._eXpepse,
having
__ja-i,d out_.nearly-- 7,OOQ, ,and_t.t�ey__st.ouZd
--------------
WATER 1885
-------- 1 -Aub UE3P-5 -I'The--water•-compamy--have-t)een--prospecting_ for--- _ ._..
water down near the river for the past ten nays, but have abandoned
the prospects so far found. They seem to lose sight of the fact
-
-------that-there is plent* of water in tue uIlls if they will take proper
means to preserve it. Meanwhile, we all suffer."
25 rapt UCP
___..._
..,The. -example of George McCowen, in putting up a windmill to obtain
a constant supply of water, will be followed by many before we pass
----through another- suumrer. '' There is nothing "in" whioh-Ukiah-is so deficient
except _coin.".
WATER 2 1884
1 -July UCP 5f'(coritinued)- receive the Support
- It--1s--lnz-ended--to-lay a thine -inch main through$the-nd rencouragement l�
ateetin-front- of
Dr. Barnes, andel down Perkins street, so as to have two mains to the
Rawer part -of t own.
WATER 1b87
_ 2•T May DD 3 "The Ukiah Water Company is laying a larger pipe
down Scnool Street."
A
WATER 1888
------ 2 Mar -DD Y -Al ' The Ukiah-Cit,later Works .. changed hands- -t his -week;
_beaam4ng _gole__pX.2p
LIN�_89-n-1_1 gietor. We understand it to
be Xr Jameson a intention to build —a 02 , 000 tank at once to X-6-p—jace
city. A Epod supply of water at all seasons of tneyear will encourage
many improVb7ffi6_fi_ts T ffd_t___c_on_no_t_rj_o ken—, an ff wears
beneficial to the twon and remunerative to himself."
4
other machinery can be ------
secured. The well is down 300 feet, and the
.--of li_st a_te_r - _1q_Qr ks a-ya j_jQ_js _detjjrmjnQA__U, have an aijuddantm
SUPPI y for all purposes if it costs him all he is worth. He will
—hold a_.a_ap_p3_y__.s_arf_jQ Lqnt_rQr_dOubje
_ vhe present po�au�ation for sic __
months, even though there should be no possible means of securing any
ceed.11
-- ------- --
20__JAnQQk_5___"The wAtqr t,4_ak__us_e_"y..the street
leaked for several days, and makes a stream of ice - for water on the
WATER 1887
L'1& Ltl&
.."-The, Ukiah_ tater. C , Ompany_ha_ve__had_J- wo_br eaka__in__.t tie I
main p6pe On Perkins street b mend this week."
_The water , makn on Perkins strre, opposite' the residence of
Samuel Wheeler, burst Monday evening, pausing some-11t,fle mid-ce--of
-
------- water and inconvenience. The pipe at that place has burst several--
��timas, and
will--probably be -replaced with a better one soon."
27 --May UCP 5 "The Ukiah. -Water Company are -putting -in -new pipes
on several of our streets, which shows they are looking forward to a
Population."
12 Aug UCP 5 ".Geo. McCowan has furnished water for street
---
_,__.__sprinkling-most of -the present week, the supply-from--t-he-Water,-Gompany'a
_being too- low to allow of drawing_fpr t
26 Aug.,u,.,r- 5 ",;later Is more scarce than ever in town.- If Ukiah,
is to grow, better -facilities for obtaining water must be nad.."
IL
OM *1UICE RC, 47
GROTRIG ME RIGHT TO BUILD, EQLTP AT -ID OirRATE i7ATER
ITORR5 IPI THE TOZ OF IMIAH CITY, COMM. GF ''01DMI1d0
CAI,_r'OW. .
That parmiss:ion and authority be and the same is hereby granted to J. W. Hartzell,
or his assiLms, to construct and maintain such pLmping plant, well, dams, reservoirs,
and to lay rains and pipes in all such streets and roads within the corporate limits
of said Tam as shall be necessary for a complete system of 'mater works for the
purpose of supplying all the inhabitants of the Toxin of Ukiah City, State of California
with water for domestic, mechanical and all other purposes also to supply hydrants
at such places within the corporate limits of said Torm as may be necessary to
ex'tingiiish fires; said permission and authority to extend for a period of fifty
years from and after tl:e date of the passage of this ordinance.
The said J. W. Hartzell, or his assigns, shall have the privelege of charging such
water rates as may be necessary to ray a fair compensation on the moneys invested
In the ecnstrlotion cf said rater works and maintaining and operating the s ---e,
said rates to be fixed by the Board of Trustees cf said Tom:, as required by law.
The privelege and franchise conferred by this ordinance are ;ranted upon the
following conditions:
F1'35'1: That said ,;. W. Hartzell, or his assigns, shall commence �wrk upon said
:Tater works system •ori whin three months after the 4assage of this ordinance, and shall
steadily and diligently prosecute said work to completion. The whole to be completed
within t'901ve months from the passage of this ordinance.
SECC_M; That the mains and pipes of said :rater -works system in passing through the
streets of said TcTrn shall be located under the direction of the Street Coi;mittee
of the Board of Trustees of said Town.
THIM. That the said water works shall supp
for all purposes. ly said Town of Uriah City and the
inhabitants thereof sith an ample and abundant sup;;ly of pure, fresh water, sufficient
The Tmvn of Ukiah City shall have the privelege of purchasing the entire system of
water works aforesaid at any time by paying such price as may be hereafter agreed
upon.
TFd s ordinance shall be in force and take effect from and after its publication.
In the ?turd of Trustees :sassed this 28th day of 'Larch 1592.
'rasident
Attest; H. ;!orris, City Clerk.
The foregoing Ordinance -eras duly passed by the Beard of Trustees of Tile ibxm
of t*;ciah City in adjo;rned meeting held on the 28th day of ;;arch 1592 by the
following vote; Ayes: Day, gown, Gibson, _Tsbell. ;,Roes; „one, Absent: Hagans.
Attest; H. L'orris: City Clerk
Dispatch & Democrat
August 12, 1892
a.a
♦ ` � �Q'''�aao` �k
I &
�
•r
Of 2! 4 5'^ sm
va«+o a.��H o'c°� i7r
�FGa�S
�•�1
OCRiS���� d.�C!(•f'r
mo o
roH oa cz '^.ed
g'a
•fin &
ms.;:o ei�cuympna�y c.w v�:�m 8:
�� a
ommdaoma��mc•s=y yam" c.-'.':.
m_m.$m�.-�
�moEcFS
Dispatch & Democrat
August 12, 1892
rca°o �r9mXmc°�`'mcWo? �c?mcd
r= E
�� ... �• m c m „^ o g o ..` m �.cQ m a a� ., 3 a�=? m —''
BE m m� `c
tc
M m u m• � J C C C �[ .' S C O C T T O
Y( d r�c[[ � � C, .: 5 'C � m = D S m _ •q»-. C ,,. m � � � C C m
' Z. U = e` a v x •• m y^ a �-• n j ep a
02
!
G3
Qi' Ism E i ate' ma 1 �a = a•: E/ az'� E
'c co a n s a m o i S F O p
� �; z I! �^' i y 6 M m S � L o� E .0 5 �� m z ° "` ti E L•°
6 � � .` c e � �' � o � .c .m � o G' 6a c � � •c
c04
a
Recorded at r�queat of C. M. Hannon ;Ear 14, 1922 at 34 min, past 10 A. M. in ]cher
168 of Deeds page 314 et aeq. Records of Mendocino Co..
¢1.40 Tames R. Elder, County Recorder.
2449 Compared LGE/ECC,
" iiiM %
,_t, I
thereunto belonging, or in snywiee appertaining, and the rento, issues and prnfite
thereof,
?0 HAVE ;^� TO 11M all and singular the above mentioned and described pre-
mises, together with the appurtenances, unto :he party of the second part, and to
its suceeeaore and assigns forever.
Said party of the first part also sells, assinge, transfers and sets over to
the said party of the second part all buildings, etructuree, pumping equipment,
collecting acqueducta, intakes, supply mains, distribution mains, meters, materials,
supplies, and personal property of every kind and character, owned by or ')slanging
to said party of the first part, excepting however, all cash on hand and book
accounta.
Said party of the first part hereby conveys, assigns and transfers to said
party of the second part all property of every kind and character, real and personal
owned by or beloning to said party of the first part excepting
operative and Inoperative,/however, said cash on hand and nook accounts.
This conveyance, transfer and assignment to made, executed and delivered pur-
auant to an Order duly given, made and entered by the Railroad Commission of the
State of California on the 2nd day of February, 1922, authorizing said Ukiah Water
and Improvement Company to sell and said Town of Ukiah City to purchase all of the
property hereinabove particularly described.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF said Ukiah Water and Improvement,,CwynPITS, President and
Secretary thereunto duly authorized has subscribed its name and affixed its corpor-
ate seal the day and year first above written.
UKIAH WATFR A11D IMPROVEMENT COMPANY
(CORPORATE SEAL) By Edward I. Barr.+
President,
and Henry P. Hilliard.
Secretary.
STATS OF CALIFORNIA, 1
as
County of San Diego
On this 6th day of March, 1922 before me, F. B. Thompson a Notary Public in and
for said County and State, residing therein personally appeared HENRY P. HILLIARD
known to me to be the Secretary of Ukiah Water And Improvement Company, the corpor-
ation that executed the within instrument, known to me to be the person who executed
the within instrument on behalf of the corporation therein named and acknowledged
to me that said corporation executed the same.
In witness whereof I have hereunto set sty hand and official seal the day and
year first hereinabove written.
(SEAL) F. B. Thompson
Notary Public in and for said County and State.
My Commission expires Dec. 19, 1925.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
City and County of San Francisco. as.
On this Twenty -Third day of February in the year One Thousand Nine Hundred
Twenty -Two, before me, JAMES F. MOCUE, a Notary Public, in and for the said City
and Cotr my of San Francisco, residing therein. duly commissioned and sworn person-
ally appeared Edward I. Barry known to me to be the President of Ukiah Water and
Improvement Company the corporation described in and that executed the within inatru-
ment, and also known to me to be the person who executed the within instrument on
:ii1-+
behalf of the corporation therein named, and he acrnoeledged to me that such corpor-
ation executed the same,
IN WITNESS lrHEREOF, T have hereunto set my hand and affixed my Official Seal, at
my office in the eald City and County of San Francisco, State of California, the day
and year in this certificate first above written,
(SEAL] James F. McCue.
Notary Public in and for the City and County of San Francisco, State of California.
Recorded at request of c. M. Mannon Mar 14, 1922 at 55 min, past 10 A. U. in liber
168 of Deeds page 316 et seq. Records of Mendocino Co..
Tames R. Elder,
'1.30 County Recorder.
2450 Compared LGE/FCC.
-------#### ---.
1 r
i.II5 Z":I7st "i E.v, made the 1Jth day of Larch one thous^nd nine liun-.red an<l t:renty two
B.ET:l-'21 0. P. J7 lls and Mabel U. ':'/ells,hJil :cif ,
of Y
errlcoino Ccinty, sV-te of Oalifornia
i
the parties of tae first ;art, ane:'rillira Reardon and John J, Reardon, of -nn
2r—ncisco, California, the Tti^_s of the second :art,
iitat the said parties of the first ;art, in consiaeration of the sum
of ten (loll-. rs, Lawful •.Toney of the Chited <Aetes of Lmeric,., to them in hand laid by
I 1
the said l,arti ea of the second j,;_rt, the r=_ceil)t :3:ereof is herely -csnowledrad, do by
C these Presents, ;rant, br.r,;ain, and sell unto the said :artier of Site second part, and
to their heirs acd astir:ns forever, all t3.t certain lot, ciece or aaresl of land situate
in t c County of �aendoc_no, State of California, and bo<,:nr.ed and described �o follo'ar, ,
to -Tri t:
i
t'Mt Part of lot 1 of ..ection 6, T. 15 1;. R. 1L -.- lyin_r soz th and -,.est
Of the right'of ,way of the CalifOrn'_a itorta_restern Railway ]omu;ny -no beim, more
C�
o particularly described as on:.enc in at a point .7here the south line of the said right
p{
1 of way intersect- the Brest line of said lot 1, eecticn 6, "1, 16 l:. R. 12 -1.1Z. :, and
running thence in a t— theasterly 3irecticn -lon- t:e southerly lire o- said right of
1 say a distan-e of 19,25 chains: more or less, to .hers t7;e nail southerly line of said
ri.-ht of way intersects the rout:: line of said lot 1; thence
in a westerly direction
along tele south line of said lot 1, a dist—ce of 17.45 ch.ins, more or leas, to tP,e
if Southwest corner of s.id lot
l: 'rd thence in .: nortzerly direct5cn alonr t._„ rest line
of said lot 1 a cist:nce of 9,00 o1nins, more or less to tae place of be,,innin .-.Iso
j the Southe;-st qu:_rter of tie i:ortheact quarter of Section 6, T. 16 li. R. 12 1. •,-. D.
exceptir.; therefrom that ?ortion of the Conthecst ge-,rter Of 2:ort:.east cuarter of -:ection
6 aforesaid conveyed by :illi::m 12inne tc .te--e C.-Ai-fcrnia 5ortinrestern =:ailw�y Cc pany
by deed recorded in :-iber 1C2 of ''eeds at >age 387 in t:.e office of the County -ecorccr
of 'rcndocino County, :nate of California,
i.lso excepting; frog t:e above that certain portion thereof described as foll.o•.as,
i
to nit-,
Beginnin-, at t:ze south:vest corner of t: -.e southe:est qv.-rter of the northeast
i
inuarter of section 6 Twp, 16 ll R 12 '.lest L:, D. 7. rennin,; Lienee north alon- the i est
j line of said .:if of ; ten chain., t4erce ce.st and parallel with tune south line of
i
said „_ ; of 1 li „nd tern north tnerefrors a r.istar. •;e of tea: chains; thence at
am.les south ten ch:_ins to .;d a- of ;:T; -S and r.:,,,,,,.r r., r.t :,.�„n r•
rirrnt .. �;ie snctn ?.t,�e n�� .... ....
234 -
Ukiah oat 1.()tk 1921.
Tke Board of T Iruetess of the Town of Ukiah C ity list Aooday oysainir
r3ct 10 th 19?1 at the @ity Beall at 7.30 n.17. with the fellewf�g
members present. Y
H.B.Smith President. +`ea.p.Asderson. 1.g.p•oster
and J-D.Davis. zr
Absent p.E.Dimmick.
iLiautss of tkes
Previous msstings were read and a i
pproved.
*4 motion carried the license of ]?oy. T.t7slaon
to AZ.Daae. was ordered trsasfersd
F
Trustee Anderson introduced and moved the adoption of the f'ollawisg
�`esol�ztian.
``' �so'1'eO'l•
That the Board of
trustees of the Iwo of Ukiah Qit
F
b l%f ci pal lorporatiora do hereby determine that the public interest
€ or 0e00881ty demands the aenuisitiok of a certafra2,funicipal lm r
�r
r to -wit Water PForks that is the entire h sisal F � C
p proprs:ties of ;
*ter and lmProstment n
amPany a corporation_ and that the most
of mill be too great to be the seas.
Paid out of the ordinary income
and rer
Raid 'down of Ulciah ^ity. eat of t3�a+
t
Trustee xostsr .seeended the motion and.ths nuestion bei* ,
.: g Put b
$¢residenrt the metiON was carried andthe reaelation adopted b t .
following vote. to wit. P tlCs
t'` Ayes. Trustees. Anderson, i avis,�!aster, 3mitk,
Moes .game.
!ibeent Trustee, laimnic�c.
p
•11 IR@ti@n e f
lir drothe was granted a Lease for l6.
years of the Sexar
. '
-he action of buying „n
{Automobile was laid over until the board. }
in a body see the Automobiles and choose From all of them.
Resolved, That pursuant to ?rdinance no 88. of the m
all of the ordinaxeer own of d
amandator thereof thereof there bo and
�7 f
tom:
s lcvisd on all of the taxable property within the To" of rTkfsk r .�
for municipal
Pmrposss for the fiseal
Year 1921.at a rate of I
axe hundred dollars of the assessed valuation thereof divid*d
%brary '�und., *, ..R . ......
Sewer Pund- _DRId_--------
.09
Lrlectric Tight Bond ----------
3ORtie Task Bond eusd-------
.13
(00sera:l Fuad-_-_----
�. Resalutien of the
bard of Trustees off' the mown of Ukiah � T4--
tais streets in said Town of U'siah City.
F
Wksrea.s,
the
Barad of Trustees of F :
the gown of Ukiah Cit�
V
Public interest €znd V. re
eonveniencc rerruired the
�---
//
Z-P_-' g..c c: P� f" /.ts✓�sr.-�e-.c./ e-�c- z:a'c-G-?_ .(�s.�.--
t
1.x.6.0 /!� t -t..- ' .r. ,t✓�-�-itl l -- ��/ y-r t `c_C-.', ri La-v � / /
r
57
" eo
-
t--c_y,!L G.-c..G�ff...C._..
L�1
2 a��
Ne 6.,-
%A4/I l Il�C . /�y/(j Gl_
`.��.4^J t_n/�.�- f l✓' ,((.rL' HCl r�1�.Q/Yl/ %-�-�N_Y�_QJ-h-Q.�L,Q/Vl/ �-/v/ �.(S / 4�
_ _ - � �-/�/✓1 � �l �.�t/�/l��n ^-^'�' �2J .mac/���-lti-�C J� (� p� y �}.�
.,t_,nJ�-L�d��-/h! c�.i-l`-CJ���Q../t/ >1L�U--�/v�/ �1 /1''✓-'�GZ.(./i/'�tF/ .GiN�/� (�
ItQ �JtJt.�r--[r�-t%t,-d/ '�-0✓t/ !�_�,r t_/ �-.c.�c�J�?�.1-1/1 G1nn�C� ��2!
_.���-a�.�-2_/v �Q_,v--c.v�-c�,n, ,c�.u--c,ct—✓v ��1.n.�v `{'Q�:.�.�o� .%e.,'
,a, ...cr-c,cl--c.(✓v � A-Q�/t.Za�-,r..-�� Q--o-.-v-✓ ' '
r f
Y
r ��
S3
Old -Q-A,
c,_4
177 Cal. 498, *; 171 P. 93, **:
1918 Cal. LEXIS 631, ***
take from the waters of the defendant corporation, all the
water that may flow through a pipe of the same size as
permitted by the old decree, without limitation or
restriction as to the lands on which, or the purposes for
which, it is to be used, and without regard to the fact that
by reason of the defendant having largely developed and
increased its water supply and pressure, and decreased
the friction, by enlarging its pipes; the plaintiffs one-half
inch pipe will give it a much larger quantity of water
than contemplated by the old decree, is erroneous, and
must necessarily be reversed, without the necessity for
deciding many other questions raised, since the judgment
in the instant action is obviously an enlargement of the
plaintiffs water right tinder the old decree.
Itt.--Limitation on Private Right as Against Right
of Public Service. --Where in such case the defendant is
a corporation supplying water as a public service to the
inhabitants of a city, the private right of the plaintiff must
be to the quantity of water which has been actually taken
and applied to a beneficial use on the land to which such
private right was appurtenant.
Id. --Effect of Judgment --Judgment Though
Erroneous Binding on Parties: .A judgment though
erroneous in law is binding on the parties and their
successors so that the defendant in the old decree in such
case, although such defendant is performing a public
service, is barred from claiming that the right confirmed
to the plaintiff, in such old decree, is violative of the law
against creating preferential rights in water appropriated
to public use.
Id—Prescriptive Right --Not Maintainable
Against Public Use. --So far as any enlarged right may
be claimed under such a decree, arising by prescription
or implied grant, no such right can be thus created
against waters appropriated or acquired by the defendant
for public use.
SYLLABUS
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
COUNSEL: Robert Duncan, for .Appellant.
Preston $ Preston, for Respondent.
JUDGES: Wilbur, J. Melvin, J., and Victor E. Shaw, J.,
pro tem., concurred.
OPINION BY: WII BUR
OPINION
[*499] [**93] Defendant appeals from the
judgment establishing plaintiffs water right.
Page 2
The water right in question was before this court in
Farmer v. Ukiah Water Company, 56 Cal, 11. Plaintiff
claims as the successor to the plaintiff in that case by
mesne conveyances of the land owned by Fanner, and
seeks to bind the defendant [*500] as the successor of
the defendant corporation, the Ukiah Water Company.
Assuming, without deciding, that the parties hereto are
bound by the decree in the case of Farmer v. Ukiah
Water Coniliai v, the judgment must, nevertheless, be
reversed for the reason that the water right described
therein is entirely different from the water right
confirmed in the decree in Farmer v. Ukiah Water
Company. To make this apparent, it will be necessary to
state some [***2] of the facts and to compare the
provisions of the decree in the former case and in this
case. At the time of the rendition of the decision in.
Farmer v. Ukiah Water Company, supra, the defendant
corporation therein was appropriating a portion of the
water of Gibson Creek by means of a dam, diverting the
water into its reservoir, and conducting the same
therefrom in a two-inch pipe, to which plaintiffs
predecessors attached a half-inch pipe, and it was to this
water of Gibson Creek so diverted that the decree
declared plaintiffs right. That decree was entered on
retrial atter reversal, and described the water right of
plaintiff therein with reference to the amount of water
that would flow through a half-inch pipe, as does the
decree in this case. That amount varies with supply,
pressure, and friction. Since the decree in Farmer v.
Ukiah Water Company, the defendant has increased the
supply by diverting all the water of Gibson Creek, by
diverting water from Orr Creek, and by pumping water
from wells on Russian River. It has increased the
pressure by diverting the water a mile higher up Gibson
Creek and constructing reservoirs at a higher elevation,
and it has [***3] decreased the friction in the pipes by
increasing to six inches the diameter of the pipe to which
plaintiff's one-half inch pipe is attached. It is evident that
the plaintiff will [**94] receive a vastly greater quantity
of water through a half-inch pipe under the
circumstances stated than under the system as established
at the time her right was granted to tier predecessor. But
the decree also confirms in plaintiff a right for all future
time to use the pipes and water of the defendant
corporation. If it erects new reservoirs at greater
elevation and establishes larger pipe -lines, the plaintiff
under this decree would be entitled to the increased flow
in her one-half inch pipe due to such increased supply,
for the decree herein provides that "plaintiff is the owner
of so much of the water of the defendant corporation as
may now or hereafter at any time flow in or [*501]
through their aqueducts, reservoirs, or pipes, as may or
can be conveyed in, through, or by a pipe or aqueduct
one-half inch in diameter. Also all the right to draw such
supply of water from the main pipes, aqueducts, or
`` q
11
Ofpo 11 IN oil II
I °
00 GR«o1v� w .
TCN S7. �
UKI H
IVENDOCIIVO CO. CAL . I ��
w
f n'aaur /oa �' SURYE YEO BY
cc
/4ARCH— 1894,
0
cu
2
4
o �
x
`G
l n
� k
2
k y
I �i�
0
G;
S
DESCR/PT/ON.
//3 Yii� Es CJPor/ u j C �N z./n/E O,- S N F R R. -- 1-0 P U LA. T 10 r[ /SG
PREJ. W I Nu 5, Sr1M�/Eh Wt W'Al,
BUSrtJESS rz ur�c.a9 > F��•�/cc7L ruRE �,•S'f/�EP /PRi5/NG a" Cc uNTY SEAY----
yyp�ygf� SiiPP4'I. FN.or I f7 ww<s-- NCRR Txe .4✓3'Stlx K/✓EK lTY N wUFTH�^�r)"�:
,%-rff /T ✓ iIQO✓r /PtlP o. :X> GA <P/✓'" /N .ZN No�/FS . 1VRT,.=K /-s MPEG !�✓/O .9 •mss
✓Ol.� , L!<<Yx>L% /�O FT. h'.C'b./E Sng7;= ST N' GOCRTLP /9T T G f/PHO 6F
-P�Su�R
Gx /O ' B" 6
✓9" /¢o.v P.vG`5 . .SUPr•X-Yr��G N
TraNc� o/s re.a✓rr: o Y/iR ou
3� F'iR.4' .YYOiFNKTS f:C1°S. !/FE RBouT //fj aas TP Yt'!
Ao."f�sr/C FURf�'G6 i t -' .."T/[.h i.v vtf)r_.E Eiur i4.cE
Ti+9 C7LG
S CST --M crF C/ u TLRNu�' .9F'E
FIRa APPARA-r'JS: zHasr CirRrS, /i/A 4 ExG, �V�G FGF_ / K
a•T. vo<wlrvt� cam-.•-+�Y vn- Noour .7S .�^`,
Homs, _ ��ecc• Dom..
F,me
Fa,}SL.: wooer.• G.�6H-• 4..•S: �"Ec rz/c s�n.s- Ta !-R✓<'<
71 70 G9 6&
�- I5 GL...].,--
N(�OP�E � S r
L 1 Q ST El
61
F 30
l
' NOKrENSE sr.
11.... II
-
NIGH SCHOOG
OOYA S
E Bu��3N sr. Ir—
F1 L [.-6 3S J/1 J'9 32 L
O.aK 6-)-
20
r20 2/ 22 } Z3 a LA
z^ o no /?
111,71k /6 h c aT /s F /- , FB
� sr. Z
N 6.
5,
p4vr/!Nb
ell Ic
u
i
�r 2T
�i
HENDUCIND
63 S,
Copyright 1898 by the Sanborn -Perris Map Co. Limited.
Z"glf)flrTzz? 14:49a., /9015
2000. Pret, Winds: N W
6-R fl-7CIZITIES'. i',Iy UAiah Wc7lel- :V 11-7pl-C7VC177C171 Co. ?'Wo ScorC-,.,s
r' :Trrrrfh5 jW7 SUPP/y is 015aAlled /'/-0"7 ClibSC117 0 f
177'
,��//0. ;;'
1 //7 ACJ& -1171116 IVNC�'I'OPW7
/o 6i71UYlecl 1711le WOI COVrl 17CI eleV
five Curl //u. �yl 0/ ZOOC/06
0/ IUW17� N,I,Tf I�Y 1111111/1/117 /rOfll I-2VC1- ./I/ F' ftrll!,1/11017 5t191J 7 C 0
/7 P �719/ 30. 00��711
-um fc!;, ,Yu/,/ or by pamp chl-.f hlowrg a6aw'
Tuck, 0 hW-c
400,'Z Cofto -,,cl '0/-/ hose of 7owr 11Y/1 717(l ZWC Wl,'11 4X,e&7ftt7 S 1W,Z16ber17OSe a1,'
IV04' 7ose � , . "T/r/ , au
errs Yhow,,z 6,y heavy red Af7c a7 IlideY
/3O
/Sq
/94 I I I /9s-
fS SNEErs.
y SN MAP CQ�
poPuLarlati A
.L 28oO +9
PAimaNNW
WINDS W
CO)?r
WRIER tAMIT!£S SE£ NOTE
NO $TEAM b No NAND fMaNE +
2 /❑�;Yy�D�EPENDENT HOsECRRT5
l XX K b LADDER TRUCK
Uff/Ali
MENDOCINO CQ
CA t. .
trua us r .�
MWAY> lid
f8/z FHF S DARK t�
CORR 067 me
W977F)? WOR IfS: Ukiah Water 4 Improvement Ca
(f3iraie omoarabb").- 6rarity 4 Vireo press. syb/ema.
Source of suppiqq : from 200000ga/ reserma"(/pWfed
$'y n :,W of B r/ev. /62 `ab✓ Cour/ lfol, wh/ch i� 3upphh+d
in winter 1•`rom AL, Creek, a5/ poii// /h 'Hat-hr/l3
d W uf we//svw each 22 �&e p 4 e!o ated a Mi N, ted fi rs B
oktawn, by an elec. do✓en cro t/rf, pump //e4/ 490 g+!
per /77tH) - /T6aut 9 mi. /0? B' 6, V, 4e h'Or/ mairrJ
/aid 1;7J996.- 92 84i7g/e 4 / d6/ hYeS.
Rrye. press„ bath direct G grarity, about 65'/64•
FmE DEPT:' Yo% company (aryBniEed) ! rhir{, 4
4O !t>emders.
7- zs- //, c/reln! tan/i"9 rvif/! 2fL*"/`ra66e!- hdsr, z /,tzno'
yren Iter , ! Y• r L. , 96D Zi I$r ' /3 'h/!s�°, W/
tdn Y-ur/- c'i.rrss.
/-
114r,/•n•�' rvlfn eO✓ 2-<,;:�or•!•. < Kase.
fire a/a�mfiie/%
/`iter/mii`s•s��ory/rbyheary�ed/tee �orreyMaa
6/-ades. yr:�dus/ !rse torus. -d t/re YYesf Fvm R.�'oepo>.
Pub/i c /i�ir/ is e/ec.
EI
WATER SYSTEM
FACT SHEET
January 1991
City Water Permit No. 12952. 20 CUBIC FEET PER SECOND (20 CFS)
Application No. 15704 filed with State January 25, 1954
Decision D 1030, State Water Board August 17, 1961
Term of Permit. 08-24-1961 to 12-01-1985
Now extended to December 1, 2000
City's appropriation is for a 20 cubic feet per second year round diversion
from the underflow, of the Russian River.
Diversion Locations:
I. Brush Street Well Field including Wells 2, 5 and 6 and the Ranney
Collector.
2. Well No. 3 on East Perkins Street.
NOTE: Well No. 4 on Lorraine Street is not included in the permit because
it a groundwater source.
GENERAL INFORMATION
The Ranney Collector was built in 1966 for an ultimate capacity of 13 million
gallons per day to coincide with the 20 CFS Water Permit. Current water
production from all water sources in 1990 was 1,198,080,000 gallons of which
approximately 2/3 or 800,000,000 gallons is pumped under the 20 CFS permit.
Maximum month was 182,000,000 gallons in July 1984.
CONVERSIONS
The following values have been rounded off for convenience.
1 cubic foot = 7.5 gallons.
20 cubic feet = 150 gallons.
20 CFS (or second feet) = 9,000 gallons per minute or 13,000,000 gallons per
day.
I acre-foot = 326,000 gallons.
20 cubic feet per second per day = 40 acre-feet per day.
20 cubic feet per second, year-round = 14,500 acre feet.
R:PWIO
M ROUGHI
0
Use of water will be for swimming, boating and fishing
on the lakes created by the storage dams.
Application 15704, filed by the City of Ukiah on January 25,
1954, is for a permit to appropriate 20 efs, year-round, from the
underflow of Russian River for municipal purposes. Water is to be
pumped from wells located within the SE4 of NE4 of projected Section
17 and SEB of SW4 of projected Section 16, T15N, R12W. Water is to be
used within the City of Ukiah and environs.
No evidence having been submitted at the hearing in support
of Applications 15738 and 15739 filed by Mendocino County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District on February 18, 1954, a description of
their feature is omitted.
Hearing
All of the aforesaid applications were completed in ac-
cordance with the Water Code and applicable administrative rules and
regulations. A public hearing under the provisions of the California
Administrative Code, Title 23, "Waters", was held before the State
Water Rights Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") on June 9
10, August 18, 19, 20, and 21, at Santa Rosa, California, before Board
Members W. P. Rowe and Ralph J. McGill, and on September 28, 1959, at
Sacramento, California, before Board Members Ment Silverthorne (Chair-
man), W. P. Rowe,and Ralph J. McGill.
On May 16, 1960, ;the Board adopted Decision D 965, That
decision was vacated on June 10, 1960, pursuant to a petition for
reconsideration by the Sonoma District.
Further hearing was held on November 22 and 23, 1960,
at Sacramento, before the entire Board. The applicants, protestants
-7-
other quantities should be denied, inasmuch as the waters
sought are either covered under prior applications of the
District or cannot be physically taken under control by the
District.
City of Ukiah
Application 15704 of City of Ukiah should be
approved, The City is within the Mendocino District and as
such may share in Mendocino's 8,000 acre-feet annual yield of
the project. However, the Mendocino District has no immediate
plan for constructing diversion facilities for delivering water
to its consumers, and it is proper for the City to proceed under
Its own application insofar as its use of water is not already
covered under a valid right,
Mendocino County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District
Applications 15738 and 15739 of Mendocino County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District should be denied,
Inasmuch as no evidence in their support was presented by the
applicant.
-32-
r' aJ J
0
6
Pre -1949 Uses
A written, unsigned statement was presented at the
hearing as Mendocino District Exhibit 3 and was accepted by
counsel for both the Mendocino and Sonoma Districts as signifying
an agreement between such Districts (RT 764). It provides for
releases of inflow to the Coyote Valley Reservoir sufficient
to supply beneficial uses under rights vested prior to January 28,
1949, the date of filing of Applications 12919 and 12920, and,
subject to reasonable conditions imposed by the Districts,
sufficient to supply beneficial uses established as of January 28,
19491 without regard to legal rights,
The Board finds that the protection of water uses
supplied from the Russian River which existed at the time
Applications 12919 and 12920 were filed in 1949 is in the
public interest, and that permits issued to the Sonoma and
Mendocino Districts should be appropriately conditioned for
that purpose. Although the assignment of the State applications
did not specifically reserve water to the extent of the pre -
1949 uses in the Russian River Valley, there is no question that
both the Corps of Engineers and the State contemplated that only
water surplus to these uses was to be appropriated by means of
the Project for future requirements.
In view of the special circumstances involving the
long -continued diversion of water from the South Eel River to
East Fork Russian River, the apparent naturalness and permanence
of this water supply to lands in the Russian River Valley, and
y -34-
2
the very substantial economy that had grown and prospered for
many years in reliance upon that supply, the Board finds that
the aforesaid protection should be afforded to all pre --1949
uses without regard to whether there has been compliance with
statutory procedures for appropriating water, provided the
users hereafter comply with such procedures to the extent
necessary to establish a valid right to the use of water.
Protection to Valley Lands
Both the State assignment of Applications 12919A
and 12920A and the Corps of Engineers Survey Report (Sonoma
Dist, Exh, I.4A) express the intent that of the originally
estimated project yield of 24,000 afa, about 8,000 afa would be
used in Mendocino County and the remaining 16,000 afa would be
made available for uses along the Russian River in Sonoma County,
There should be reserved for these primary project service areas
sufficient water to meet their future requirements for a reason-
able time in the future, and permits issued to the districts will
be so conditioned.
In light of the entire record, 10 years is found
to be a reasonable time within which water users along the
Russian River within the Sonoma District should exercise their
preferred right to contract for project water, after which time
any water not contracted for should be made available for use
elsewhere. No time limit need be specified for use of the
Mendocino District's share of project water, since that District
does not plan to export any water from the valley.
c.<yc —35—
L
The recreational area in Sonoma County has been
organized into a zone (zone 5) for tax purposes to pay for the
benefits received (RT 179, 200; Sonoma Dist, Exh, 2; Staff
Exh. 2). A substantial portion of the economy of Sonoma .County
depends on the recreational features of the Russian River
(RT 179 and 789 to 795).
The City of Ukiah
Maximum use of water by the City of Ukiah prior to
1919 was 2.8 cfs (RT 11/23/60, P. 321). 'In 1954, the maximum
demand was 6.4 cfs (RT 11/23/60, P. 322). A population forecast
introduced into evidence as City of Ukiah Exh. 1 indicates a
population for the City of 30,000 in the year 2000. Based upon
the present average per capita use of 120 gallons per day, the
City's maximum requirement in 2000 will be 20 cfs (Ukiah Exh. 6).
Project Works
Coyote Valley Reservoir as constructed has a maximum
capacity of 122,500 acre-feet. The U. S. Corps of Engineers
requires a 3 -foot freeboard on the spillway to prevent wave
erosion. This factor reduces the total allowable storage to
116,500 acre-feet (Sonoma Dist. Exh. 5B). If additional storage
space is required by the applicants, flashboards, sandbags, or
some other device can be installed to prevent wave erosion of the
spillway, and the full 122,500 acre-foot storage capacity can be
-�5-
a
Ll
Water Requirements
The Mendocino District
The ultimate annual consumptive use water requirement
for those portions of Mendocino County below Coyote Valley Dam
and susceptible to service from the Russian River is estimated
to be 25,300 acre-feet during the irrigation season (Mendocino
Dist. Exh. 1, p. 44). This figure includes consumptive use of
7,800 acre-feet annually for municipal and industrial purposes.
Diversions from the Russian River for use in the
river valley in Mendocino County below Coyote Valley Dam prior
to 1949 were estimated to be about 8,100 acre-feet per annum
(Mendocino Dist. Exh, 1, p. 24), including the use at that time
of the City of Ukiah, Masonite Corporation, and others. It has
been estimated that this quantity, plus the 8,000 acre-feet
per annum to be made available to this area from the project,
will be sufficient to supply the total requirements within
Mendocino District until about 1977, at which time an additional
water supply will have to be secured (Mendocino Dist. Exh. 1,
P. 45).
The Sonoma District
In addition to the irrigation uses as of 1949 (20,000 afa),
there is need for sufficient water to irrigate 8,259 acres in the
Russian River Valley in Sonoma County (Staff Exh. 2; Sonoma Dist.
Exh. 4D; Mendocino Dist, Exh. 1). The ultimate consumptive use
-23-
CITY OF UKIAH URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
'flus 2005 Urban Water Management plan (UWNIP) for the City of Ukiah (City), California is an update to
the U VNIP adopted by the City Council in 2002. The UNVNIP is prepared in compliance with the Urban
Witter Management Planning Act (California Water Code Division 6, Part 2.6, Sections 10010 through
I065T1J
. This act requires that all urban water suppliers providing water for municipal purposes to more than
3000 customers or supplying more. than 3000 acre-feet annually prepare an UWNIP update every Five years.
The goal of the LA \dP is to assn -re that every effort is made to provide the appropriate level of reliability in
water service to meet the needs of the various customers during normal, clay, and multiple dry years. The
1AX- AIP documents the City's planning activities for the nest 25 -years to ensure that this goal is met. The
UWNIP is submitted to the California Department of Water Resources (DCX'R) for general compliance with
the Urban Water _blanngemeut Planning Act.
The following sections provide a summary of this UXX'NIP.
Water System
Chapter, 2 and 3 of the (J-WNfP present it description of the City's existing water supply and treatment
facilities, water rights, and distribution system. Water supply is defined as the amount ofwater available from
a source or combination of sources (e.g., streams, rivers, ponds, lakes, groundwater, etc.) for use b} a water
purveCor. Water supp ties from the Russian River and its underflow are subject to the State Water Resources
Control Board (S\VRC13 or State Water Board) mluirements outlined in the City's water right permit. A
water right permit or license provides the legal entitlement to divert water from a defined channel by a user
from a specified source (water supply) for a beneficial, non-wastefirl, use. The petruit or license spells out the
point of diversion, place of use, purpose of use, the amount or rate of water that can be diverted, and the
time allowed for putting water diverted under the permit to beneficial use. Sources, such as percolating
groundwater, that are. riot from the Russian River or its underflow, do not require a permit or license issued
by the State Water I3oard.
In this plan, references to "groundwater" will include both percolating groundwater, which does not require
an appropriative water rights permit from the State Water Board and groundwater flowing in a definite
channel, which does require a permit. References to "percolating groundwater" will only refer to groundwater
not requiring a pernrit. References to "underflow" will refer to groundwater flowing in a definite channel that
does require a pert -nit. just as a water right permit or license restricts the amount of water available for use,
pumping and treatment capacity can also limit the amount of water that can be diverted from a water supple-.
Pumping capacity is the amount of water the Cite can physically divert using its diversion works (wells,
pumps, storage tanks, etc.) under its water right permit or from non -permitted sources snch as percolating
groundwater or water subject to pre -191.1 water rights- The pumping capacity is dependent on the pump
flow rating and aquifer yield -['he water treatment and its capacity are rcg ilated by the strict requirements of
the California Department of I Teatth Services (DHS).
Water Supply. The City obtains its water supply from groundwater sources tinder the direct influence of the
Russian River, which in this report are treated as surface water sources and one groundwater well which is
recognized as percolating groundwater. T'he pumping sources for the distribution system consist of a Rannev
collector and two wells (Wells 3 and 5), which are considered surface water diversions subject to the
requirement,, of the City's water right permit, and one percolating groundwater well (Well 4).
........................... ..... _................... _.—
ES -1
Executive Summary 2005 Urban Water Management Plan
Wells 1, 2, and 6 are no longer used by the City. W'cll 1 has been out of service since the 1970's. Wells 2 and
6 (\Fater from Well ti was pumped into Well 2) were removed from the City's latest domestic water supply
permit and may no longer be used as a source of supply. Wells 2 and 6 had to be taken out of service during
constriction of the new 1.5 million gallon clearwell for the. \k'atcr Treatment plant. If a water supple well is
removed from service for more than a year, it must comply with current DHS standards. The cost to
rehabilitate the: wells to meet DIMS standards, which would require installation of an annular seal and electrical
upgrades snake it economically infeasible to return these wells to service. The pumping capacity of \'"ells 2,'6
is only 50 gallons per minute (gpm). Even though it is not cost effective to rehabilitate Wells 2%6 for the
City's water supply, Well 6 could be used un its present condition to irrigate the adjacent softball complex
fields, which would reduce the potable water used for irrigation.
The Ranney collector, which provides the source of water for the water treatment plant (WIT), has an
existing pumping capacity of 3,400 gpm or 4.8 million gallons per clay (mgd). The available capacity of the
Ranney collector is significantly less than the designed capacity of 13 mgd, which is equal to the City's water
right. `Ihe maximum capacity obtained from the Rauncy collector was 9 ingot, well below its design capacity.
The Ranney collector has steadily declined from 9 mgd to its current capacity Of 4.8 m&d. The significant loss
in capacity of the Ranney collector may be a result of changes in the Russian River channel moving away
from Ranney collector and the compaction of clays and silts in the riverbed over the Ranney collector.
Another concern is the Ranney collector can only be used approximately sit months a year during the crier
weather months. During the rainy months, the turbidity in the Russian River increases, which increases the
turbidity of the seater in the Ramaey collector. 'I'he'Iicr:otkoc contact clarification -filtration units located at
tlx: WIT cannot be operated efficiently under high turbidity conditions- It is not possible to rely on the
Ranney collector as a water supply source during the winter when the turbidity of the Russian River is high.
Well 3 has a pumping capacity of 65U gpm. It is available for use throughout the year.
\X7 It ] has a pumping capacity of $UO gpm. It is available for use throughout the year.
Well 5 has a pumping capacity of 300 gpm. Well i is located near the Ranney collector. When the Rattnev
collector and Well 5 are used at the same time, the pumping capacity of \''ell 5 is reduced because it is within
the cone of water craw dcxvru depression of the Ranney collector. Also, Well 5, like the Ranney collector, can
be affected by high turbidity in the Russian River. 'flierefore, Well 5 is used during the winter when the
Ranney collector is not used.
The total pumping capacity of the City's water system during the dry months is approximately 4,850 gpm or
698 rngd. Most of this water (3,400 gpm) is provided by the Ranney collector. The typical peak day water
demand during the dry months is approxirnatety 6 mgd and the peak water demand has been as high as '.6—
mgd (Stnnmer 2000). If the Ranney collector was lost, Well 5 would be operated, but it only has a pumping
capacity of 300 gpm. The City does not have the redundant pumping capacity to meet peak demands without
the Rannev collector ill service. During the rainy months, when the Ranney collector can not be used
because of the high turbidity, the pumping capacity is approximately 1,'50 lynn or 2.52 mgd. The typical
peak day water demand during the rainy months is 2 mgd. The loss of any pumping capacity during the
winter months puts the City in a difficult position to meet peak water demands.
Drought conditions also affect the pumping capacity of the water supply system, especially the surface water
supplies. The city is evaluating the addition of hyogroundwater wells to increase the water supply and
Provide reliability and redundancy to the water supply system.
The Potter Valley project diversion from the Ecl River watershed to tine Russian River watershed by Pacific
Gas and Electrical (PG&E) has recently been reduced by an estunated 26 to 33 percent. 'Kris diversion has
been ongoing for almost 100 years with agricultural, municipal, and conunercial economies relying on this
diversion. A preliminary analysis was conducted to determine the effect reductions in flow would have on
-8R0iYV ,, uL'n LUWELL
be changed to consumptive rights, there will be adverse policy implications to existing uses of
water because this would allow millions of acre-feet of non -consumptive hydropower rights to
become senior consumptive water rights. Section 1706 precludes this scenario, however, if
others will be injured by the change. Considering that most of the major natural watercourses in
California are fully appropriated or nearly so, it is unlikely that a situation will arise in which a
large non-conswnptive use of water under a pre -1914 water right can be changed to a
c011suutptive use without injuring a junior appropriator, It also is unlikely that such a change
would injure only instream beneficial uses of water without injuring junior appropriators, since
recent appropriators usually have instream bypass and release terms in their water right permits
or licenses to protect the instream uses. As a result, there are no adverse policy implications of
construing section 1706 to mean what it says; what precludes changes from non -consumptive
uses to consumptive uses is the prohibition of injury to others.
4.0 CEASE AND DESIST ORDER
4.1 Plans for Development and Resulting Pre -1914 Right
4.1.1 Plans of Development of Pre -1914 Right
Plans for development of a water right existed before 1914 for the purposes of developing a
resort community around Lake Arrowhead and were commenced in a timely fashion.
Koeberg initially filed for water rights for Lake Arrowhead in 1891 by claiming an appropriation
of 30,000 miners inches under a 4" pressure (equivalent to 434,386 AFA). (PT 16)
An amended notice of appropriation was filed in 1905 seeking 4,000 miners inches under a 4"
pressure (equivalent to 57,918 AFA). (PT 17.) As required under Civil Code section 1416,
commencement of construction had occurred prior to 60 days after the May 1905 filing, because,
construction of the foundation had begun in 1904. (LACC 1, p. 5; LACC I7, p. 10.) The
Arrowhead Reservoir Company posted several notices or amended notices of appropriation of
water for storage in Lake Arrowhead on May 22, 1905, and filed these notices in the County
Recorder's Office on May 24, 1905. (LACSD 12-21.) Each of the notices includes domestic use
of water. They also specify the place of use as San Bernardino Valley; however, as discussed
above, Civil Code section 1415 allows an appropriator under that section to change the place of
12.
use after having filed a copy of the original notice for record, if others are not injured by the
change. As discussed below, it became impractical for the appropriator to deliver water to the
San Bernardino Valley, which is outside the Mojave River watershed, and so the appropriators
instead planned to serve water in the area around Lake Arrowhead, effectively changing the
place of use of the consumptive uses of water under the appropriation notices.
There are several bases for finding a plan to specifically develop a resort community around
Lake An-owhead prior to 1.914. As evidenced in the 1905 articles of incorporation of the
AR&PC, one of the company's stated purposes was "establishing and conducting, in connection
with and as part of it general business, stores, hotels, restaurants, parks, eating houses and other
places of refreshment and amusement". P.C. Finkle, an engineer for the AR&PC, reported in
1912 that the company had plans to develop 4,700 acres owned by the company for sura ner
homes and hotels once construction of the lake was complete. (LACC 11, pp. 2, 27, 58;
LACC 1, pp. I 1-12.) A 1915 complaint fled against trespassers to the Lake states that the
Company was organized in part for the purpose of developing a mountain resort and that lake
water would be used for domestic use. (LACC 1, pp. 14; 29; 37; 38; 39; 40.)
Early use by AR&PC consisted of supplying hydroelectric power to construction camps and
other facilities around its mountain storage reservoirs. (LACC 1, p. 19.) AR&PC built a fence
around its land in the vicinity of Little Bear Lake in 1912 or 1913 and closed the lake and
surrounding acreage to the public in 1913 - 1914 to preserve it for future use as a private summer
resort. The Southern California Trout Association appealed to the officials of the AR&PC to
open the lake to public use and the company turned down the offer because it "hope[d] to make
the lake a summer resort some day ...." (LACC 1, p. 12.) Public pressure to open the lake to
fishing and other public uses put pressure on the company to allow fishing and camping around
the lake in 1915, (LACC 1, p. 13.)
In 1921, AR&PC sold its properties to Arrowhead Lake Corporation, which pushed forward with
development of a resort on the 6,000 acres previously held by AR&PC. The whole property was
designated as an exclusive community, which was subdivided. The first cabin on the Lake was
completed in May 1922. (LACC 1, p. 21.) Development increased rapidly through the 1920s,
13.
'P,4 1 e Ill .
which included construction ofa clubhouse and golf course. (LACC 1, p. 27 and LACC 10,
p. 257.) The fact that the reservoir was completed despite the infeasibility of earlier plans to
deliver the water to San Bernardino Valley, together with the rapid development of the
community as soon as the reservoir project was completed, is further evidence that the service of
water to the community was the result of a change in place of use of the reservoir's water, to
serve the resort community instead of the San Bernardino Valley.
The ultimate size of the planned resort community is stated in the transcript of a hearing before
the State Board of Health in Los Angeles on June 23, 1923. In testimony at this hearing, the
ultimate plans for the resort were estimated to be 8,000 resident population and 2,100 transient
guests. (LACSD 80, p. 29.)
Development continued as ownership of Arrowhead Reservoir and the properties owned by
AR&PC changed ownerships several times eventually leading to the formation of Lake
Arrowhead Community Services District in 1978, which took over distribution of Lake
Arrowhead water. (PT 36, 36-19-01.) Although the course of development took place over
about seventy-six years , the rate of increase in water use reflected development in southern
California generally, accelerating in economically vigorous periods and slowing during the
depression and recession periods. Considering that the consumptive uses of water at Lake
Arrowhead are primarily municipal or domestic in nature, and considering the preferences for
municipal uses of water and the extended periods over which statutory policy allows municipal
uses to be developed, it is not unreasonable for the consumptive use of water at Lake Arrowhead
to have been developed over this period. (See Meridicin, Ltd., supra,; Wat. Code, §§ 106, 106.5,
1203, 1460-1464.) Municipal uses of water cannot and should not be developed immediately,
unlike irrigation uses or other uses for which the entire amount can be used immediately.
4.1.2 Resulting Pre -1914 Right
The amended notice of appropriation filed in 1905 which sought 4,000 ruiners inches under a 4"
pressure was clearly in excess of the quantities needed to serve the planned resort community.
(PT 17.) As stated above, the ultimate size of the planned resort community was estimated in
1923 to be 8,000 resident population and 2,100 transient guests. (LACSD 80, p. 29.)
14.
development doctrine allows an appropriator under a pre -1914 appropriation to increase the
amount of water diverted up to the amount of the originally contemplated appropriation, if the
development is prosecuted "within a reasonable time by the use of reasonable diligence."
(Haight v. Costanich (1920) 184 Cal. 426, 432 [194 P. 261, citing Senior v. Anderson, 115 Cal.
496, 504 [47 P. 454, 456); see also Inyo Consolidated Water Compwr y v. Jess (1911) 161 Cal.
516, 519 [ 119 P. 9341; State Water Board Order WR 95-10.) If the use of water is not pursued as
required, the right to the additional water becomes subject to intervening claims. (Haight,
supra.) Order WR 95-10 refers to the required expression of initial intent as a "plan of
development," This does not, however, imply that a single document express the entire intent,
but rather- that there is substantial evidence of the initial intent with respect to the use of water
appropriated at Lake Arrowhead. In this case, the evidence in the hearing record is sufficient to
constitute a plan of development that would reasonably result in the beneficial use of up to 1566
acre. -feet per year for consumptive purposes; this evidence is discussed below.
3.4 Changes, Including Chan2in2 a Non -Consumptive Use to a Consumptive Use
LACSD argues that it has a pre -1914 water right at least to a non -consumptive use of water
impounded in Lake Arrowhead, and that it can incrementally convert its non -consumptive use of
water stored in the lake to a consumptive use to serve the municipal, irrigation, and domestic
uses surrounding Lake Arrowhead. LACSD bases its argument on Water Code section 1706 and
section 39 of the Water Commission Act, which was repealed in 1925. Section 39 allowed the
conversion of other uses of water to domestic uses. It has not been in effect since 1925,
however, and consequently cannot be the basis of changes that LACSD may have made since
1925.
Further, LACSD's theory that the pre -1914 water right for consumptive uses that exists was
developed by changing a non -consumptive use to a consumptive use of water is erroneous. In
fact, the pre -I914 water right for consumptive uses identified in this order sterns from the 1905
Civil Code filings. Nevertheless, it is important to discuss the law regarding changes from a
non -consumptive to a consumptive use of water under a pre -1914 water right because LACSD
has increased its consumptive use of water above the amount that can be attributed to the Civil
Ate_
ATTACHMENT 3
City of Ukiah
July 6, 2011 City Council Meeting
Recommendations for Management of Ukiah's Water Resource Entitlements
Presentation Outline
Issue before Council:
Management of water resource entitlements.
-Maximize beneficial use under the City's water right entitlements (pre -1914, post
1914, groundwater).
Presentation Purpose:
1. Describe hydrology and the City's water rights
2. Identify actions required to perfect beneficial use
3. Provide recommendations regarding future water resource management decisions.
Presentation Outline:
1. Sources of water and claims of right
a. Surface water/subterranean stream
b. Groundwater
2. Ukiah's water resource entitlements
a. Perfected rights
b. Unperfected rights
c. Groundwater
3. Status of City's water rights
a. Pre- 1914 Rights
b. Permit 12952
i. Description of Pending Petitions before the SWRCB
1. Petition for Change
2. Petition for Extension of Time
ii. Petition approval process
4. Right to use groundwater
a. Relevant SWRCB decisions
1
BREAK AND QUESTIONS ON BACKGROUND INFORMATION
City of Ukiah
July 6, 2011 City Council Meeting
Recommendations for Management of Ukiah's Water Resource Entitlements
Presentation Outline Continued
1. Hydrology supporting water resource entitlements
a. Groundwater basin description
b. Russian River system description
2. Importance of return flow
a. What is return flow
b. Source of supply
c. Ubiquitous in water resource planning
BREAK AND QUESTIONS ON HYDROLOGY
1. Making water resource management decisions:
a. Consideration of existing conditions
i. Appropriative rights
ii. Groundwater
iii. Actual water use change
iv. Population growth
1. At current population growth rate, full beneficial use occurs around
2077
b. Ukiah's policy options:
i. Perfect Beneficial Use
1. Pursue sharing agreements of surplus water
ii. Request license on existing use
2. Recommendations
a. Continue processing the Petitions before the SWRCB
b. Acceleration perfection of full beneficial use by:
i. Entering into transfer and exchange agreements
2
ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE:
City al -Z-1kinh
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
July 6, 2011
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF RENEWABLE ENERGY CERTIFICATES TRANSFER AGREEMENT
Background:
The City of Ukiah ("City") is a member of the Northern California Power Agency ("NCPA"). City has full and
unfettered rights and title to its Project Entitlement Percentage of the Capacity and Energy attributable to
NCPA project generation, as specified in the respective NCPA Project Agreements. Such project Capacity
and Energy includes, but is not limited to, all renewable and environmental attributes associated with the
production of electricity from a renewable energy resource, including Renewable Energy Certificates
("RECs"). City is also eligible to receive RECs made available to the customers of the Western Area Power
Administration's Sierra Nevada Region ("Western") attributable to Western Base Resource hydroelectric
generation.
NCPA has established an account with the Western Renewable Energy Generation Information System
("WREGIS"), and has been, and will continue to be, issued RECs by WREGIS sourced from NCPA's
Registered Generating Units. Such RECs are initially issued to and are held by NCPA in its WREGIS
account. In addition to RECs attributable to NCPA project generation, NCPA may, on behalf of City, be
transferred RECs from Western attributable to City's share of Western Base Resource hydroelectric
generation, consistent with City's assignment of its Western Base Resource percentage to NCPA.
Issue:
City may utilize RECs to satisfy its compliance with renewable energy standards, and RECs may have
certain monetary value. As a result, City has requested that NCPA transfer to City its share of RECs
attributable to City's Project Entitlement Percentage of NCPA project generation and Western Base
Resource hydroelectric generation that are held in NCPA's WREGIS account. In order to clearly specify the
terms and conditions under which NCPA will transfer RECs to City, NCPA has developed the Renewable
Energy Certificates Transfer Agreement. In order for City to receive RECs transferred from NCPA, City will
be required to 1) establish an account with WREGIS, and 2) execute the Renewable Energy Certificates
Transfer Agreement with NCPA.
Continued on Page 2
Recommended Action(s):
City staff recommends that the City Council delegate authority to City Manager to execute the
Renewable Energy Certificates Transfer Agreement to allow City to request NCPA to transfer
City's share of RECs attributable to its Project Entitlement Percentage of NCPA project
generation and Western Base Resource hydroelectric generation held by NCPA to City. (EUD)
Alternative Council Option(s):
Citizens advised:
Requested by: Mel Grandi, Electric Utility Director
Prepared by: Mel Grandi, Electric Utility Director
Coordinated with: David Rapport, City Attorney
Attachments: (1) Renewable Energy Certificates Transfer Agreement
(2) Resolution
Approved:
Ja Chambers, City Manager
Renewable Energy Certificates Transfer Agreement:.
In accordance with the Renewable Energy Certificates Transfer Agreement, City can request NCPA to
transfer its share of RECs attributable to NCPA project generation and Western Base Resource
hydroelectric generation held by NCPA in its WREGIS account to City's WREGIS account. The Renewable
Energy Certificates Transfer Agreement solely provides for the transfer of RECs and does not include
services from NCPA to sell or market RECs on behalf of City. Once City has executed the Renewable
Energy Certificates Transfer Agreement with NCPA, and has established an account with WREGIS, City
can request a transfer of RECs by submitting a written request to NCPA using the Renewable Energy
Certificates Transfer Request form included as part of the agreement.
By executing the Renewable Energy Certificates Transfer Agreement, City agrees not to transfer, assign,
sell or exchange any RECs sourced from NCPA project generation, directly or indirectly, in any manner, and
shall not take or permit to be taken any other action or actions, which would result in any of the bonds
supporting NCPA project generation in being treated as an obligation not described in Section 103(a) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended. Also, the Renewable Energy Certificates Transfer
Agreement is structured so that City accepts a limited insurance based recourse against NCPA, and
includes the option that City may procure additional insurance at its sole expense, thereby ensuring that
NCPA will substantially limit its risk for the provision of such transfer to City.
The Renewable Energy Certificates Transfer Agreement is attached to this staff report as Attachment 1.
Fiscal Impact:
By executing the Renewable Energy Certificates Transfer Agreement, City agrees to pay NCPA for its share
of all costs NCPA incurs for providing the services described in the Renewable Energy Certificates Transfer
Agreement. Such costs include REC transfer fees, direct costs associated with the management and
transfer of RECs, NCPA management costs set forth in NCPA's then current Annual Budget, and any other
reimbursable expenses incurred in performing the services provided pursuant to the Renewable Energy
Certificates Transfer Agreement. Based on the number of RECs likely to be transferred from NCPA to City,
it is currently estimated that City's cost for receiving a transfer of RECs from NCPA pursuant to the
Renewable Energy Certificates Transfer Agreement will be insignificant.
❑ Budgeted FY 10/11 F-1 New Appropriation ❑X Not Applicable ❑ Budget Amendment Required
Amount Budgeted Source of Funds (title and #) Account Number Addit. Appropriation Requested
ANC PA
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY
ATTACHMENT 1
RENEWABLE ENERGY CERTIFICATES TRANSFER AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY
AND CITY OF UKIAH
This RENEWABLE ENERGY CERTIFICATES TRANSFER AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made
by and between the NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY ("NCPA"), a joint public powers
agency with offices located at 651 Commerce Drive, Roseville, California and City of Ukiah,
Contracting Member corporate form, with offices located at 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah,
California ("Contracting Member") (together sometimes referred to herein individually as "Party"
and collectively as "Parties") as of 2011 (the "Effective Date") in Roseville,
California.
Section 1. RECITALS
This Agreement is entered into based on the following facts, among others:
1.1 NCPA is a public agency created by a joint powers agreement established under
California law for the purpose of assisting its members in the efficient use of their common powers.
1.2 Contracting Member is engaged in, among other things, transmitting and distributing
electric power in its corporate limits. Contracting Member is also a member of NCPA or a Project
Participant. Contracting Member desires that NCPA provide Contracting Member with the Services
described in this Agreement.
1.3 Article III, section 3 of the "Amended and Restated Northern California Power
Agency Joint Powers Agreement" (as amended and effective January 1, 2008) (hereinafter "JPA")
entitled "Powers and Functions" provides that none of the debts, liabilities or obligations of NCPA
shall be the debts, liabilities or obligations of any of the members of NCPA unless assumed in a
particular case by resolution of the governing body of the member to be charged." Notwithstanding
the foregoing, Article V, section 1 of the JPA entitled "General Provisions" provides that "[t]he
governing Commission of NCPA is authorized to procure public liability and other insurance as it
deems advisable to protect NCPA and each of the parties hereto, charging the cost thereof to the
operating costs of NCPA."
1.4 Contracting Member desires to secure NCPA's Services under this Agreement in a
manner that balances its interests and the interests of other NCPA members with the ongoing
financial viability and professional responsibilities of NCPA, Accordingly, Contracting Member
desires to secure NCPA's Services under this Agreement by accepting a limited insurance based
recourse against NCPA, with the option of procuring additional insurance at Contracting Member's
sole expense, thereby ensuring that NCPA will substantially limit its risk for the provision of such
Services which, in turn, allocates risks back to the Contracting Member in the event NCPA is not
adequately insured.
Renewable Energy Certificates Transfer Agreement
v.5/26/2011 Page 1 of 17
1.5 Contracting Member and NCPA agree that the terms and conditions of this
Agreement are made solely for the purpose of transferring Renewable Energy Certificates
("RECs") from NCPA to Contracting Member. The terms and conditions of this Agreement are
specific to this Agreement and have no precedential value as to any NCPA Project Agreement.
1.6 Contracting Member has a Project Entitlement Percentage of the Capacity and
Energy from a NCPA Project ("Project") as specified in the respective NCPA Project Agreement.
Project Capacity and Energy includes, but is not limited to, all renewable and environmental
attributes associated with the production of electricity from a renewable energy resource, including
RECs. All NCPA Projects that are Registered Generating Units, and for which NCPA is issued and
receives RECs are listed in Exhibit B of this Agreement. Contracting Member's allocated share of
RECs attributable to Project generation is calculated pursuant to Section 4.2.
1.7 Contracting Member may be eligible to receive CVP RECs made available to a
customer of the Western Area Power Administration's Sierra Nevada Region ("Western"). If
NCPA, on behalf of Contracting Member, receives a transfer of CVP RECs from Western,
Contracting Member may request its allocated share of CVP RECs be transferred in accordance
with this Agreement, and Contracting Member agrees to be solely responsible for compliance with
all applicable rules and obligations associated with CVP RECs as may be established by Western
(e.g. CVP RECs may be nontransferable and may not be available for resale by Contracting
Member), Contracting Member's allocated share of CVP RECs is calculated pursuant to Section
4.3.
1.8 NCPA has entered into an Account Holder Registration Agreement ("Terms of
Use") with WREGIS and Services provided under this Agreement shall be performed in a manner
that does not violate any of the rules or obligations contained in the Terms of Use.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises set forth, NCPA
and Contracting Member agree as follows:
Section 2. DEFINITIONS
Whenever used in this Agreement with initial capitalization, these terms shall have the
following meanings as applicable, whether in the singular or plural:
2.1 "All Resources Bill" shall mean the single, combined monthly bill from NCPA to a
NCPA Member or Project Participant, with respect to all NCPA programs and projects.
2.2 "Annual Budget" shall mean the budget for the ensuing Fiscal Year adopted by the
Commission, as may be amended from time to time.
2.3 "Base Resource" shall mean Base Resource as that term is defined in Contract 04 -
SNR -00782 made between NCPA and Western.
2.4 "Capacity" shall mean the maximum load carrying ability of an electric generating
unit or combination of units in kilowatts.
Renewable Energy Certificates Transfer Agreement
v.5/26/2011 Page 2 of 17
2.5 "Central Valley Project" shall mean the multipurpose Federal water and Power
project extending from the Cascade Range in northern California to the plains along the Kern
River, south of the City of Bakersfield, California,
2.6 "Commission" shall mean the NCPA Commission.
2.7 "CPUC' shall mean the California Public Utility Commission.
2.8 "CVP REC" shall mean RECs that may be associated with the megawatt -hours from
Central Valley Project hydropower generation.
2.9 "Energy" shall mean the electrical energy produced, flowing or supplied by
generation, transmission or distribution facilities, being the integral with respect to time of the
instantaneous power, measured in units of watt-hours or standard multiples thereof, e.g., 1,000
Wh=1 kWh, 1,000 kWh=1 MWh, etc.
2.10 "Fiscal Year" shall mean the NCPA fiscal year; currently the twelve month period
beginning July 1 and ending on the next following June 30.
2.11 "Good Utility Practice" shall mean any of the practices, methods and acts engaged
in or approved by a significant portion of the electric utility industry during the relevant time period,
or any of the practices, methods and acts which, in the exercise of reasonable judgment in light of
the facts known at the time the decision was made, could have been expected to accomplish the
desired result of the lowest reasonable cost consistent with good business practices, reliability,
safety and expedition. Good Utility Practice is not intended to be limited to the optimum practice,
method or act to the exclusion of all others, but rather to be acceptable practices, methods, or acts
generally accepted in the region and consistently adhered to by the electric utility industry.
2.12 "NCPA Members" shall mean the signatories to the JPA or those agencies which
have executed an Associate Member Agreement with NCPA.
2.13 "NCPA Project" or "Project" shall mean generating resources and/or contractual
rights to electric energy designated by the NCPA Commission as an NCPA Project.
2.14 "Project Agreement" shall mean any second phase, third phase or operating
agreement relating to a specific NCPA Project.
2.15 "Project Participant" shall mean a NCPA Member or third party which enters into an
agreement with NCPA relating to the second phase, third phase or operation of a NCPA Project.
2.16 "Project Participation Percentage" shall mean the percentage of participation of
Contracting Member in an NCPA Project as specifically set forth in a Project Agreement.
2.17 "QRE" shall mean Qualified Reporting Entity as that term is defined by WREGIS.
2.18 "Registered Generating Unit" shall mean a generating unit that has registered its
facility with the WREGIS Director.
Renewable Energy Certificates Transfer Agreement
v.5/26/2011 Page 3 of 17
2.19 "Renewable Energy Certificate" or "REC" shall mean WREGIS Certificate as that
term is defined by WREGIS.
2.20 "Stranded Costs" shall mean all costs incurred by NCPA in providing Services to
Contracting Member under this Agreement that could not reasonably be avoided by NCPA from the
date it receives a written Notice of Termination. Such costs may include, but not be limited to,
salary and employment costs, rent, utilities, or contracts incurred to provide Services under this
Agreement.
2.21 "Uncontrollable Force" shall mean any act of God, labor disturbance, act of the
public enemy, war, insurrection, riot, fire, storm, flood, earthquake, explosion, any curtailment,
order, regulation or restriction imposed by governmental, military or lawfully established civilian
authorities or any other cause beyond the reasonable control of the Party claiming Uncontrollable
Force which could not be avoided through the exercise of Good Utility Practice.
2.22 "Unit Energy Allocation Process" or "UEA" shall mean the process used by NCPA to
allocate NCPA Project metered generation to Project Participants approved by the NCPA
Commission, as modified from time to time.
2.23 "WREGIS" shall mean the Western Renewable Energy Generation Information
System.
Section 3. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED; AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES; STANDARD
OFPERFORMANCE
3.1 This Agreement is entered into by the Parties in order for NCPA to transfer RECs to
Contracting Member as described in Exhibit A hereto ("Services").
3.2 NCPA agrees that Contracting Member has full and unfettered rights and title to its
Project Entitlement Percentage share of Project Capacity and Energy and its allocated share of
any RECs corresponding to NCPA Project generation as determined by WREGIS, and such right
and title are transferable and available for resale by Contracting Member according to the terms
and conditions of WREGIS. NCPA further agrees that, unless agreed to by Contracting Member in
a separate contract, NCPA will not sell to third parties RECs arising from Contracting Member's
share of Project Capacity and Energy.
3.3 Contracting Member agrees not to transfer, assign, sell or exchange any Project
RECs, directly or indirectly, in any manner, and shall not take or permit to be taken any other action
or actions, which would result in any of the bonds supporting NCPA Projects in being treated as an
obligation not described in Section 103(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, by
reason of classification of such bond as an "industrial development bond" within the meaning of
Section 103(b) of said Code. Should Contracting Member seek to transfer, assign, sell or
exchange any Project RECs for a term greater than three (3) years, then Contracting Member will
provide NCPA with sufficient notice of such intent to allow NCPA to secure an opinion of its bond
counsel regarding potential tax effects of such a transfer, and the costs incurred by NCPA to
secure bond counsel's opinion shall be charged to and paid by Contracting Member.
Renewable Energy Certificates Transfer Agreement
v.5/26/2011 Page 4 of 17
3.4 NCPA makes no representations as to whether any Project RECs and CVP RECs
transferred to Contracting Member under this Agreement are marketable or qualify for or meet any
renewable portfolio standards, renewable energy standards, or any other renewable type standard.
NCPA is making the Project RECs and CVP RECs available to Contracting Member AS IS. It is
the Contracting Member's responsibility to verify whether the Project RECs and CVP RECs
transferred by NCPA will qualify for California, Federal, or other renewable requirements.
3.5 If any REC transferred by NCPA to Contracting Member is later determined by
WREGIS, CPUC, or any other regulatory or enforcement agency having jurisdiction to be invalid or
inaccurate for any reason, including, but not limited to, revised meter data, QRE errors or WREGIS
errors, Contracting Member agrees to remedy the problem at Contracting Member's expense. If
the same issue also involves other Contracting Members the affected Contracting Members shall
be jointly responsible for remedying the problem at their expense.
If the invalidity or inaccuracy was created by an error by NCPA, then NCPA agrees to remedy
the problem; provided that Contracting Member nonetheless agrees to pay all costs and losses
caused by any error committed by NCPA unless the problem also involves other Contracting
Members, in which case, all costs and losses will be allocated pro rata to all impacted Contracting
Members based on the RECs in question.
3.6 The following are the Authorized Representatives of the parties for contract
administration purposes under this Agreement:
David Dockham
Assistant General Manager, Power Management
651 Commerce Drive
Roseville, CA 95678
Phone: 916-781-4256
Fax: 916-781-4252
Dave, Dockham@ncpa.com
Name of Contracting Member's Authorized Representative
Title
300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
Phone:
Fax:
Email
No Authorized Representative is authorized to amend any provision of this Agreement except in
accordance with Section 13.16.
3.7 Standard of Performance. NCPA will perform and or oversee, as applicable, the
Services using that level of skill and attention reasonably required to complete the Services in a
competent and timely manner.
Renewable Energy Certificates Transfer Agreement
v.5/26/2011 Page 5 of 17
3.8 Assignment of Personnel. NCPA shall assign only competent personnel to perform
Services pursuant to this Agreement.
3.9 Time. NCPA shall devote such time to the performance of Services pursuant to this
Agreement as may be reasonably necessary to meet the standard of performance provided in
Section 3.7, above and to satisfy NCPA's obligations hereunder.
Section 4. ALLOCATION OF RENEWABLE ENERGY CERTIFICATES
4.1 Establishing a WREGIS Account. Prior to submitting a request for NCPA to transfer
RECs from NCPA's WREGIS account to Contracting Member, Contracting Member shall establish
its own account with WREGIS and provide NCPA with documentation of its WREGIS account.
4.2 Allocation of NCPA Project RECs. RECs attributable to NCPA Project generation
shall be allocated to Contracting Member in proportion to its allocated share of metered generation
from a NCPA Project. Contracting Member's allocated share of metered generation from a NCPA
Project is calculated in accordance with the UEA process. Contracting Member's allocated share
of RECs attributable to a NCPA Project for which the metered generation from said Project cannot
be allocated in accordance with the UEA process, will be equal to Contracting Member's Project
Participation Percentage share of all RECs issued for the NCPA Project (e.g, NCPA hydro solar
project).
4.3 Allocation of CVP RECs. Contracting Member's allocated share of CVP RECs held
in NCPA's WREGIS account, if any, is equal to the total quantity of CVP RECs transferred to
NCPA from Western on behalf of Contracting Member, whose share of total CVP RECs attributable
to Central Valley Project hydroelectric generation is allocated by Western to Contracting Member
based on its Base Resource percentage.
4.4 Partial REC Accounting. WREGIS will produce and issue RECs based on
generation output. Pursuant to the Terms of Use one (1) REC will be created for each whole
megawatt -hour of renewable energy that is produced. If the total amount of metered generation
output from a NCPA Project is less than one (1) megawatt -hour for a specific vintage period a REC
will not be created and issued by WREGIS until the total accumulation of metered generation
output from a NCPA Project is equal to or greater than one (1) megawatt -hour.
4.4.1 If the total metered generation output from a NCPA Project is less than one (1)
megawatt -hour for a specific vintage period, NCPA will track the total metered generation output
from a NCPA Project in NCPA's WREGIS account until the total accumulation of metered
generation output from a NCPA Project is equal to or greater than one (1) megawatt -hour. Once
the total accumulation of metered generation output from a NCPA Project is equal to or greater
than one (1) megawatt -hour, WREGIS will produce and issue a REC, and such REC will be
allocated to Contracting Member in accordance with Section 4.2.
4.4.2 In accordance with the Terms of Use, NCPA may only transfer a whole number, or
positive integer, of RECs from NCPA's WREGIS account to Contracting Member's WREGIS
account. If resulting from the allocation of NCPA Project RECs as specified in Section 4.2, or the
allocation of CVP RECs as specified in Section 4.3, Contracting Member is allocated a quantity of
Renewable Energy Certificates Transfer Agreement
v.5/26/2011 Page 6 of 17
Project RECs and/or CVP RECs for a specific vintage period, and from a specific source, that
includes a fractional quantity of RECs (e.g. 1.5 RECs), the fractional quantity of RECs allocated to
Contracting Member will be held in NCPA's WREGIS account on behalf of Contracting Member
until Contracting Member is allocated additional fractional quantities of RECs provided from the
same source so that the summation of such fractional quantities is equal to a whole number of
RECs. Once a whole number of Contracting Member's RECs has accumulated in NCPA's
WREGIS account, such quantity of RECs will be made available for transfer from NCPA to
Contracting Member.
Section 5. TERM AND TERMINATION
5.1 Authorization to Perform Services. NCPA is not authorized to perform any Services
or incur any costs whatsoever under the terms of this Agreement until its receipt of a written
resolution and/or other appropriate/applicable authorization from Contracting Member's governing
body confirming Contracting Member's authority to enter into this Agreement and confirming that
the Contracting Member has allocated funds for and approved contract payments to NCPA under
this Agreement.
5.2 Term. The term of this Agreement shall begin on the Effective Date and shall end
when terminated by either Party upon two (2) years written notice or upon such date prior to two (2)
years as mutually agreed upon by all Parties ("Notice of Termination"). Contracting Member shall
pay NCPA for all fees and costs required under this Agreement through the effective date of its
Notice of Termination plus all Stranded Costs. Upon payment of the above amounts, neither Party
shall have any further obligations under this Agreement except as otherwise set forth in Section 6.7
regarding the survival of defense and indemnity obligations.
Section 6. INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE
6.1 Limitation of NCPA's Liability.
6.1.1 Except as provided in this section 6.1, NCPA shall not at any time be liable for any
injury or damage occurring to Contracting Member or any other person or property from any cause
whatsoever arising out of this Agreement.
6.1.2 The provisions of section 6.1.1 shall not apply where the injury or damage
occurring to Contracting Member is caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of NCPA or of
any employee, agent or contractor of NCPA, and provided that any liability under this subsection is
limited to the extent of the actual coverage and coverage limits of the insurance policies described
in this Section 6.
6.1.3 Contracting Member Liable for NCPA's Deductibles and or Self -Insured
Retentions. Notwithstanding Section 6.1.2 above, the Contracting Member agrees to reimburse
NCPA, in a timely manner, for all deductibles and/or self-insured retentions payable for any claim,
liability or damage arising out of this Agreement.
Renewable Energy Certificates Transfer Agreement
v.5/26/2011 Page 7 of 17
6.2 Indemnification of NCPA. Except as specified in Section 6.1.2 above, Contracting
Member shall, at its sole cost and expense, indemnify and hold harmless NCPA and all associated,
affiliated, allied, member and subsidiary entities of NCPA, now existing or hereinafter created, and
their respective officers, boards, commissions, employees, agents, attorneys, and contractors
(hereinafter referred to as "Indemnitees"), from and against any and all liability, obligation,
damages, penalties, claims, liens, costs, charges, losses and expenses (including, without
limitation, reasonable fees and expenses of attorneys, expert witnesses and consultants), which
may be imposed upon, incurred by or be asserted against the Indemnitees arising out of this
Agreement.
6.3 Defense of Indemnitees. In the event any action or proceeding shall be brought
against the Indemnitees by reason of any matter for which the Indemnitees are indemnified
hereunder, Contracting Member shall, upon reasonable prior written notice from any of the
Indemnitees, at Contracting Member's sole cost and expense, resist and defend the same with
legal counsel mutually selected by Indemnitee and the Contracting Member, unless mutual
selection of counsel is expressly prohibited by an applicable insurance policy; provided however,
that neither Indemnitee nor Contracting Member shall admit liability in any such matter or on behalf
of the other without express written consent, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or
delayed, nor enter into any compromise or settlement of any claim for which Indemnitees are
indemnified hereunder without prior express written consent. The Contracting Member's duty to
defend shall begin upon receipt of a written notice identifying with specificity the allegations that
give rise to this duty to defend.
6.4 Notice. The Parties shall give each other prompt notice of the making of any claim
or the commencement of any action, suit or other proceeding covered by the provisions of this
Section 6.
6.5 Insurance. During the term of the Agreement and prior to beginning any work under
this Agreement, NCPA shall maintain, or cause to be maintained, in full force and effect, and at its
sole cost and expense, the types and limits of liability insurance as are annually approved by the
Commission. The types and limits of liability insurance that are applicable to this Agreement are
evidenced in policy summaries, which are attached hereto as Exhibit D. NCPA warrants and
represents that the types of liability insurance and coverage limits shown in Exhibit D are in full
force and effect and shall remain so during the term of this Agreement unless NCPA gives prior
written notification (of not less than 30 days) of modification, cancellation or rescission of such
coverage.
6.6 Contracting Member's Acknowledgment of Option to Secure Additional Insurance.
The Contracting Member acknowledges that there are limitations on NCPA's liability to the
Contracting Member under this Section 6 and that the Contracting Member may need to purchase
additional insurance of its own to cover the additional risks and the potential additional liabilities it is
assuming under this Agreement. Contracting Member agrees that it will cause, with respect to any
additional insurance it obtains or which is otherwise available to Contracting Member, its insurers
to issue an endorsement providing a waiver of subrogation rights as to Indemnitees.
6.7 Survival of Obligations. The defense and indemnity obligations of Section 6 shall
survive the termination of this Agreement,
Renewable Energy Certificates Transfer Agreement
v.5/2612011 Page 8 of 17
Section 7. COMPENSATION, CHARGES & REIMBURSEMENTS
7.1 Contracting Member hereby agrees to pay NCPA for its allocated share of all costs
NCPA incurs for providing Services to Contracting Member. Such costs include REC transfer fees,
direct costs associated with the management and transfer of RECs, NCPA management costs set
forth in NCPA's then current Annual Budget, and any other reimbursable expenses incurred in
performing the Services. All costs NCPA incurs for providing Services to Contracting Member will
be allocated as set forth in Exhibit C and NCPA's then current Annual Budget. The Annual Budget
will be updated and approved by the NCPA Commission, as it deems necessary, but not less than
each year in connection with NCPA's Annual Budget process. Such approved updates will reflect
NCPA's then current estimated annual cost for performing such continuing Services. Contracting
Member shall pay NCPA for Services rendered pursuant to this Agreement at the time and in the
manner set forth herein. The payments specified herein shall be the only payments from
Contracting Member to NCPA for Services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. NCPA shall
submit all invoices to Contracting Member in the manner specified herein.
NCPA and Contracting Member acknowledge and agree that compensation paid by
Contracting Member to NCPA under this Agreement is based upon NCPA's estimated costs of
providing the Services required hereunder, including salaries and benefits of employees and
subcontractors of NCPA, if any. Consequently, the parties further agree that compensation
hereunder is intended to include the costs of contributions to any pensions and/or annuities to
which NCPA and its employees, agents, and subcontractors may be eligible. Contracting Member
therefore has no responsibility for such contributions beyond compensation required under this
Agreement.
7.2 Reimbursements. Contracting Member agrees to reimburse NCPA for NCPA's
reasonable costs (including attorney's fees) to respond to any investigation by WREGIS, CPUC, or
any other regulatory or enforcement agency having jurisdiction as to the validity of any transferred
Project REC and CVP REC under this Agreement by NCPA to Contracting Member. If more than
the Contracting Member's Project REC and CVP REC transfers are being investigated, NCPA
agrees that all such costs shall be proportionately allocated among the applicable Contracting
Members based upon the total number of Project RECs and CVP RECs under investigation.
Contracting Member further agrees to reimburse NCPA for NCPA's reasonable costs
(including attorney's fees) of responding to any claim brought by a non-regulatory/non-enforcement
third party concerning the RECs transferred under this Agreement from NCPA to Contracting
Member. NCPA agrees that Contracting Member may independently appear in such proceeding
and cooperate in the defense of any such claim if the Contracting Member so elects.
Section 8. BILLING AND PAYMENT
8.1 Invoices. NCPA shall submit invoices in the form of the All Resources Bill, based on
the cost for Services performed and reimbursable costs incurred prior to the invoice date. Invoices
shall be accompanied with adequate and proper supporting information and documentation for the
Services performed, if and as applicable. For example:
Renewable Energy Certificates Transfer Agreement
v.5/26/2011 Page 9 of 17
Volume of Project RECs and CVP RECs transferred to Contracting Member
8.2 Monthly Payment. Contracting Member shall make payments, based on invoices
received, for Services satisfactorily performed, and for authorized reimbursable costs incurred as
specified herein.
Payments shall be remitted directly to:
Northern California Power Agency
651 Commerce Drive
Roseville, California 95678
Attn: Accounts Receivable
Except for an "Uncontrollable Force" as described in Section 10 hereof, any amount due and
payable but not paid by Contracting Member on the invoice due date set forth on the invoice shall
bear interest at the per annum prime rate (or reference rate) of the Bank of America NT & SA, then
in effect, plus two percent per annum computed on a daily basis until paid. NCPA will mail all
invoices within 24 hours of the invoice date thereon.
The postmark date on the envelope containing payment by check shall be used to determine
timeliness of payment, except that payments received later than seven (7) days after the due date
shall be declared late without regard to postmark date. An invoice coming due on a Friday,
holiday, or weekend shall be due on the next following nationally recognized working day.
8.3 Billing Dispute. If all or any portion of a bill is disputed by Contracting Member, the
entire amount of the bill shall be paid when due, and NCPA's Authorized Representative shall be
concurrently provided written notice of the disputed amount and the basis for the dispute. NCPA
shall reimburse any amount determined to have been incorrectly billed, within ten (10) days after
such determination.
8.4 Total Payment. Contracting Member shall pay for the Services to be rendered by
NCPA pursuant to this Agreement. Contracting Member shall not pay any additional sum for any
expense or cost whatsoever incurred by NCPA in rendering Services pursuant to this Agreement
other than the payments provided for herein unless the Agreement has been modified by a
properly executed amendment in accordance with Section 13.16 this Agreement.
8.5 Payment of Taxes. NCPA is solely responsible for the payment of employment
taxes incurred under this Agreement and any similar federal or state taxes.
8.6 Payment upon Termination. In the event that Contracting Member or NCPA
terminates this Agreement pursuant to Section 5, Contracting Member shall compensate NCPA for
all outstanding costs and reimbursable expenses incurred for work satisfactorily completed as of
the date of written notice of termination. NCPA shall maintain adequate logs and timesheets in
order to verify costs incurred to that date.
Section 9. STATUS OF NCPA; FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
Renewable Energy Certificates Transfer Agreement
v.5/26/2011 Page 10 of 17
9.1 Independent Contractor. At all times during the term of this Agreement, NCPA shall
be an independent contractor and shall not be an employee of Contracting Member. Contracting
Member shall have the right to control NCPA only insofar as the results of NCPA's Services
rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Contracting Member shall not have the right to control the
means by which NCPA accomplishes Services rendered pursuant to this Agreement.
Section 10. UNCONTROLLABLE FORCES
10.1 Obligations of the Parties, other than those to pay money when due, shall be
excused for so long as and to the extent that failure to perform such obligations is due to an
Uncontrollable Force; provided, however, that if either Party is unable to perform due to an
Uncontrollable Force, such Party shall exercise due diligence to remove such inability with
reasonable dispatch. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed as requiring a Party
to settle any strike, lockout, or labor dispute in which it may be involved, or to accept any permit,
certificate, contract, or any other service agreement or authorization necessary for the performance
of this Agreement which contains terms and conditions which a Party determines in its good faith
judgment are unduly burdensome or otherwise unacceptable.
10.2 Each Party shall notify the other promptly, by telephone to the other Party's
operating personnel and Authorized Representative identified in Section 3.6, upon becoming aware
of any Uncontrollable Force which may adversely affect the performance under this Agreement. A
Party shall additionally provide written notice in accordance with Section 13.8 to the other Party
within 24 hours after providing notice by telephone. Each Party shall notify the other promptly,
when an Uncontrollable Force has been remedied or no longer exists.
Section 11. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
11.1 Governinq Law. The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement,
without regard for the choice of law doctrine.
11.2 Compliance with Applicable Laws. NCPA and any subcontractors shall comply with
all laws applicable to the performance of the Services hereunder.
11.3 Other Governmental Regulations. To the extent that this Agreement may be funded
by fiscal assistance from another governmental entity, NCPA and any subcontractors shall comply
with all applicable rules and regulations to which Contracting Member is bound by the terms of
such fiscal assistance program.
11.4 Licenses and Permits. NCPA represents and warrants to Contracting Member that
NCPA and its employees, agents, and any subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications,
and approvals of whatsoever nature that is legally required to practice their respective professions.
NCPA represents and warrants to Contracting Member that NCPA and its employees, agents, any
subcontractors shall, at their sole cost and expense, keep in effect at all times during the term of
this Agreement any licenses, permits, and approvals that are legally required to practice their
respective professions.
Renewable Energy Certificates Transfer Agreement
v.5/26/2011 Page 11 of 17
11.5 Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity. NCPA shall not discriminate, on the basis
of a person's race, religion, color, national origin, age, physical or mental handicap or disability,
medical condition, marital status, sex, or sexual orientation, against any employee, applicant for
employment, subcontractor, bidder for a subcontract, or participant in, recipient of, or applicant for
any services or programs provided by NCPA under this Agreement, NCPA shall comply with all
applicable federal, state, and local laws, policies, rules, and requirements related to equal
opportunity and nondiscrimination in employment, contracting, and the provision of any services
that are the subject of this Agreement, including but not limited to the satisfaction of any positive
obligations required of NCPA thereby.
NCPA shall include the provisions of this Subsection in any subcontract approved by
Contracting Member's Contract Administrator or this Agreement.
Section 12. KEEPING AND STATUS OF RECORDS.
12.1 NCPA's Books and Records. NCPA shall maintain any and all ledgers, books of
account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and other records or documents evidencing or
relating to charges for Services or expenditures and disbursements charged to the Contracting
Member under this Agreement for a minimum of three (3) years, or for any longer period required
by law, from the date of final payment to NCPA pursuant to this Agreement.
12.2 Inspection and Audit of Records. Any records or documents that Section 12.1 of this
Agreement requires NCPA to maintain shall be made available for inspection, audit, and/or copying
at any time during regular business hours, upon oral or written request of the Contracting Member.
Under California Government Code Section 8546.7, if the amount of public funds expended under
this Agreement exceeds TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10,000.00), the Agreement shall be
subject to the examination and audit of the State Auditor, at the request of Contracting Member or
as part of any audit of the Contracting Member, for a period of three (3) years after final payment
under the Agreement.
12.3 Confidential Information and Disclosure. During the term of this Agreement, either
party ("Disclosing Party") may disclose confidential, proprietary or trade secret information (the
"Information"), to the other party ("Receiving Party"). All such Information made available in a
tangible medium of expression (such as, without limitation, on paper or by means of magnetic
tapes, magnetic disks or other computer media) shall be marked in a prominent location to indicate
that it is the confidential, proprietary and trade secret information of Disclosing Party at the time of
disclosure to Receiving Party. Receiving Party shall hold Disclosing Party's Information in
confidence and shall take all reasonable steps to prevent any unauthorized possession, use,
copying, transfer or disclosure of such Information. Receiving Party shall not attempt to reverse
engineer or in any manner create any product or information which is similar in appearance to or
based on the Information provided by Disclosing Party. Receiving Party shall not disclose
Disclosing Party's Information to any person other than Receiving Party's employees, agents,
contractors and subcontractors who have a need to know in connection with this Agreement.
Receiving Party's confidentiality obligations hereunder shall not apply to any portion of
Disclosing Party's Information which:
Renewable Energy Certificates Transfer Agreement
v.5/26/2011 Page 12 of 17
(a) Has become a matter of public knowledge other than through an act or omission of
Receiving Party;
(b) Has been made known to Receiving Party by a third party in accordance with such
third party's legal rights without any restriction on disclosure;
(c) Was in the possession of Receiving Party prior to the disclosure of such
Information by Disclosing Party and was not acquired directly or indirectly from the other party or
any person or entity in a relationship of trust and confidence with the other party with respect to
such Information;
(d) Receiving Party is required by law to disclose; or
(e) Has been independently developed by Receiving Party from information not
defined as "Information" in this Agreement, as evidenced by Receiving Party's written records.
Receiving Party shall return or destroy Disclosing Party's Information (including all copies
thereof) to Disclosing Party promptly upon the earliest of any termination of this Agreement or the
Disclosing Party's written request. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Receiving Party may retain one
copy of such Information solely for archival purposes, subject to the confidentiality provisions of this
Agreement. The parties understand that each party is a public entity and is subject to the laws that
may compel either to disclose information about the other's business.
Section 13. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
13.1 Attorneys' Fees. If a Party to this Agreement brings any action, including an action
for declaratory relief, to enforce or interpret the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing Party
shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees in addition to any other relief to which that Party may
be entitled, The court may set such fees in the same action or in a separate action brought for that
purpose.
13.2 Venue. In the event that either party brings any action against the other under this
Agreement, the Parties agree that trial of such action shall be vested exclusively in the state courts
of California in the County of Placer or in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California.
13.3 Severability. If any provision of this Agreement shall be determined by a court of
competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, or if any provision of this Agreement is
rendered invalid or unenforceable by federal or state statute or regulation, but the remaining
portions of the Agreement can be enforced without failure of material consideration to any Party,
then the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect. To that end, this Agreement is
declared to be severable. Provided, however, that in the event any provision is declared to be
invalid, void or unenforceable, either Party may terminate this Agreement upon ten (10) days
written notice given within five (5) days of receipt of notice of final entry of judgment.
13.4 No Implied Waiver of Breach. The waiver of any breach of a specific provision of
this Agreement does not constitute a waiver of any other breach of that term or any other term of
this Agreement.
13.5 Successors and Assigns. The provisions of this Agreement shall inure to the benefit
of and shall apply to and bind the successors and assigns of the Parties.
Renewable Energy Certificates Transfer Agreement
v.5/26/2011 Page 13 of 17
13.6 Use of Recycled Products. NCPA shall endeavor to prepare and submit all reports,
written studies and other printed material on recycled paper to the extent it is available at equal or
less cost than virgin paper.
13.7 Conflict of Interest. NCPA shall not employ any Contracting Member official or
employee in the work performed pursuant to this Agreement. No officer or employee of
Contracting Member shall have any financial interest in this Agreement that would violate California
Government Code Sections 1090 et seq.
13.8 Notices, Unless this Agreement requires otherwise, any notice, demand or request
provided for in this Agreement, or served, given or made shall become effective when delivered in
person, or sent by registered or certified first class mail, to the persons specified below:
David Dockham
Assistant General Manager, Power Management
651 Commerce Drive
Roseville, CA 95678
With a copy to:
Michael Dean
General Counsel
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200
Sacramento, CA 95814
Name of Contracting Member's Notice Contact
Title
Address
City, State Zip Code
With a copy to:
David Rapport
City of Ukiah Attorney
405 W. Perkins Street
Ukiah, CA 95482
Whenever it is required, permitted, or desired in this Agreement that written notice or demand be
given by any Party to any other Party, such notice or demand may be either personally served or
sent by United States Mail, or facsimile. Notice shall be deemed to have been given when
personally served, when deposited in the United States Mail, certified or registered with postage
prepaid and properly addressed, or when transmitted by facsimile provided however, notices
delivered by facsimile shall only be effective if delivered during regular business hours on a day
that is considered a regular business day for NCPA by the involved Parties.
Renewable Energy Certificates Transfer Agreement
v.5/26/2011 Page 14 of 17
13.9 Integration; Incorporation. This Agreement, including all the Exhibits attached
hereto, represents the entire and integrated agreement between Contracting Member and NCPA
relating to the subject matter of this Agreement, and supersedes all prior negotiations,
representations, or agreements, either written or oral. All Exhibits attached hereto are incorporated
by reference herein.
Exhibit A — Scope of Services
Exhibit B — NCPA Registered Generating Units
Exhibit C — Allocation of Costs and Fees
Exhibit D — NCPA Summaries of Liability Insurance
Exhibit E — Renewable Energy Certificates Transfer Request
13.10 Dispute Resolution. If any dispute arises between the Parties that cannot be settled
after engaging in good faith negotiations, Contracting Member and NCPA agree to resolve the
dispute in accordance with the following:
13.10.1 Each Party shall designate a senior management or executive level
representative to negotiate any dispute;
13.10.2 The representatives shall attempt, through good faith negotiations, to resolve the
dispute by any means within their authority.
13.10.3 If the issue remains unresolved after ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY (120)
days of good faith negotiations, despite having used their best efforts to do so, either Party may
pursue whatever other remedies may be available to it.
13.10.4 This informal resolution process is not intended to nor shall be construed to
change the time periods for filing a claim or action specified by Government Code § 900, et seq.
13.11 Other Agreements. This Agreement is not intended to modify or change any other
agreement between any of the Parties, individually or collectively.
13.12 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of
which shall be an original and all of which together shall constitute one agreement.
13.13 Obligations Several. The duties, obligations and liabilities of the Parties are
intended to be several and not joint or collective. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall ever
been construed to create an association, trust, partnership or joint venture or to impose a trust or
partnership duty, obligation or liability on or with regard to either Party. Each Party shall be
individually and severally liable for its own obligations under this Agreement.
13.14 Effect of Section Headings. Section headings and subheadings appearing in this
Agreement are inserted for convenience only and shall not be construed as interpretation of text.
13.15 Authority of Signatories. The signatories hereby represent that they have been
appropriately authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Party for whom they sign.
Renewable Energy Certificates Transfer Agreement
v.5/26/2011 Page 15 of 17
13.16 Amendments.
13.16.1 Deemed Approved Amendments. It is understood and agreed by the Parties
that any NCPA Commission approved update to the then current NCPA Annual Budget rates and
charges related to Services to be performed under this Agreement is deemed an approved
amendment to this Agreement not requiring the consent of Contracting Member. Likewise, the
addition of a Registered Generating Unit in Exhibit B hereto, or revisions to the form of Exhibit E by
NCPA hereto are deemed an approved amendment to this Agreement not requiring the consent of
the Contracting Member. A copy of any revised Exhibit B and Exhibit E will be provided to
Contracting Member within thirty (30) days of such revision. Any such amendments to Exhibit B or
Exhibit E shall not affect any completed REC transfers.
13.16.2 WREGIS Amendments. As of the execution date of this Agreement all Project
RECs and CVP RECs that have been issued or transferred to NCPA are held in NCPA's WREGIS
account, and the WREGIS Terms of Use are used as the standard for issuance, storage and
transfer of RECs. If at some point after the execution date of this Agreement an alternative third
party certifying entity is created and replaces WREGIS, or is used in addition to WREGIS for
matters relating to RECs, or if the WREGIS Terms of Use are changed by WREGIS in a manner
affecting this Agreement, NCPA and Contracting Member agree to amend this Agreement, as
necessary, to reflect such change, and will make such amendments in good faith.
13.16.3 Authorized Representatives and Addresses for Notice. Either Party may, by
providing written notice to the other party, modify either the identity or address for its Authorized
Representative as identified in section 3.6, or may amend its address for notice as provided in
Section 13.8.
13.16.4 Amendments in General. Except as otherwise provided in Section 13.16, the
Parties may amend this Agreement only by a writing signed by all the Parties following each
Party's receipt of written resolution/authorization from their governing bodies, which
resolutions/authorizations shall be condition precedents to any amendments of this Agreement and
shall be attached as Exhibits to this Agreement.
The Parties have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date.
Northern California Power Agency
JAMES H. POPE, General Manager
Attest:
Contracting Member
Jane Chambers, City Manager
Attest:
Assistant Secretary of the Commission David Rapport, City Attorney
Renewable Energy Certificates Transfer Agreement
v.5/26/2011 Page 16 of 17
Approved as to Form: Approved as to Form:
General Counsel
[Name/Title]
Renewable Energy Certificates Transfer Agreement
v.5/26/2011 Page 17 of 17
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF SERVICES
NCPA shall perform the following Services on behalf of Contracting Member pursuant to the
Agreement between the Parties:
1. Contracting Member may direct NCPA to electronically transfer into Contracting
Member's WREGIS account its allocated share, in whole megawatts -hours, of the RECs
attributable to NCPA Project generation and CVP RECs as specified in Section 4 by completing
and submitting to NCPA the Renewable Energy Certificates Transfer Request attached to this
Agreement as Exhibit E. Such Renewable Energy Certificates Transfer Request must be
executed and submitted by Contracting Member's Authorized Representative.
2. Such transfer shall be completed by the transfer of RECs as electronically recorded in
NCPA's WREGIS account to the WREGIS account of the Contracting Member and will be
considered final upon acknowledgement and acceptance of the transfer by Contracting Member
in accordance with the WREGIS Terms of Use. Should any regulatory or other entity require
additional or alternative means to evidence the transfer of the Project RECs or CVP RECs to the
Contracting Member, NCPA will cooperate to meet that entity's reasonable requirements.
Renewable Energy Certificates Transfer Agreement Exhibit A-1
EXHIBIT B
NCPA REGISTERED GENERATING UNITS
The Following is a list of all NCPA Projects that are recognized by WREGIS as Registered
Generating Units:
- Geothermal 1—Unit 1 — Geothermal 1
- Geothermal 1 Unit 2 — Geothermal 1
- Geothermal 2 Unit 3 — Geothermal 2
- Geothermal 2 Unit 4 — Geothermal 2
- COLVIL 7 PL1X1 —Collierville Powerhouse
- COLVIL 7 PL1 X2 — Collierville Powerhouse
- Spicer-1—Units — Spicer Meadow Project
- Hydro—Solar — Hydro_Solar1
Renewable Energy Certificates Transfer Agreement
Version No. 1.1
Effective Date: 05/26/2011 Exhibit B-1
EXHIBIT C
ALLOCATION OF COSTS AND FEES
Costs and expenses resulting from Services provided under this Agreement will be allocated to
Contracting Member as follows:
REC Transfer Fees
All volumetric costs and fees associated with Contracting Member's request for the transfer of
Project RECs and CVP RECs will be charged directly to Contracting Member.
NCPA Management Costs
All costs associated with NCPA's management of this Agreement and/or costs associated with the
management of Services provided under this Agreement (e.g. staff time and resources), if any, will
be allocated to Contracting Member as set forth in NCPA's then current Annual Budget.
CVP REC Costs
All costs specifically and distinctly attributed to CVP RECs, except volumetric costs associated with
the transfer of CVP RECs as described in Exhibit C, will be allocated to Contracting Member based
on Contracting Member's allocated share, if any, of the total quantity of CVP RECs transferred to
NCPA from Western.
Other Costs and Fees
All costs and fees incurred by NCPA while performing Services under this Agreement for which a
cost allocation method is not defined herein will be allocated to Contracting Member based on the
principle of cost causation.
Renewable Energy Certificates Transfer Agreement Exhibit C-1
EXHIBIT D
NCPA SUMMARIES OF LIABILITY INSURANCE
See the attached Summaries of the following insurance coverage:
Workers' Compensation & Employer's Liability
2. Automobile Liability & Physical Damage
3. Excess Liability
4. Professional Liability
Renewable Energy Certificates Transfer Agreement Exhibit D-1
EXHIBIT E
RENEWABLE ENERGY CERTIFICATES TRANSFER REQUEST
This document constitutes a "Renewable Energy Certificates Transfer Request", as described in
the RENEWABLE ENERGY CERTIFICATES TRANSFER AGREEMENT ("Agreement"), dated as
of . This Renewable Energy Certificates Transfer Request shall supplement and form
part of the Agreement and shall be subject to the terms and conditions specified therein.
The undersigned Contracting Member and Project Participant hereby requests NCPA to
electronically transfer into Contracting Member's WREGIS account Renewable Energy Certificates
sourced from NCPA Project Capacity and Energy.
Registered Generating Units & CVP RECs
Select the Registered Generating Unit, or combination of units, and/or CVP RECs from which
Contracting Member requests the transfer of Renewable Energy Certificates:
Registered Generating Units
❑ - Geothermal 1_Unit 1 - Geothermal 1; Fuel Type - Geothermal Energy
❑ - Geothermal 1_Unit 2 - Geothermal 1; Fuel Type - Geothermal Energy
❑ - Geothermal 2_Unit 3 - Geothermal 2; Fuel Type - Geothermal Energy
❑ - Geothermal 2_Unit 4 - Geothermal 2; Fuel Type - Geothermal Energy
F-1- COLVIL_7_PL1 X1 - Collierville Powerhouse; Fuel Type - Hydroelectric Water
F-1- COLVIL_7_PL1 X2 - Collierville Powerhouse; Fuel Type - Hydroelectric Water
❑ - Spicer _1_Units - Spicer Meadow Project; Fuel Type - Hydroelectric Water
F-1- Hydro_Solar - Hydro_Solar1; Fuel Type - Solar
CVP RECs
❑ - CVP RECs
Renewable Energy Certificate Transfer Account & Vintage Information
Provide the following information:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Registered Account Holder:
Active SubAccount:
Begin Vintage:
End Vintage:
a. Enter "Continuous" as End Vintage if Contracting Member chooses to have Renewable Energy Certificates
transferred as available on a forward basis
b. If Contracting Member has previously requested a "Continuous" transfer of RECs as specified above, but
chooses to stop the automatic transfer of RECs for future vintage periods, Contracting Member must provide a
Renewable Energy Certificate Transfer Request with a stated End Vintage date for which Contracting Member
chooses to halt the automatic transfer of RECs on a forward basis
Renewable Energy Certificate Transfer Quantity
Select one of the following to specify the quantity of Renewable Energy Certificates requested:
Renewable Energy Certificates Agreement
Version No. 1.1
Effective Date: 05/26/2011 Exhibit E-1
❑ - Total Contracting Member's Allocated Share of NCPA Project RECs (Section 4); As Applicable
❑ - Total Contracting Member's Allocated Share of CVP RECs (Section 4); As Applicable
❑ - Fixed Amount (MWh)
If Fixed Amount selected above list requested amount for each Registered Generating Unit below:
- Geothermal 1—Unit 1 — Geothermal 1:
MWh
- Geothermal 1 Unit 2 —Geothermal 1:
MWh
- Geothermal 2 Unit 3 — Geothermal 2:
MWh
- Geothermal 2 Unit 4 — Geothermal 2:
MWh
- COLVIL 7 PL1X1 —Collierville Powerhouse:
MWh
- COLVIL 7 PL1 X2 —Collierville Powerhouse:
MWh
- Spicer-1—Units — Spicer Meadow Project:
MWh
- Hydro—Solar — Hydro—Solar1:
MWh
- CVP RECs: MWh
Those persons executing this Renewable Energy Certificates Transfer Request on behalf of
Contracting Member hereby warrant that they are the "Authorized Representative" of Contracting
Member as provided in the Agreement and are authorized to do so.
Member
Authorized Representative
Date
Renewable Energy Certificates Agreement
Version No. 1.1
Effective Date: 05/26/2011 Exhibit E-2
ATTACHMENT 12
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF CITY OF UKIAH
Approving Execution of the Renewable Energy Certificates Transfer Agreement
WHEREAS, City of Ukiah ("City") is a member of Northern California Power Agency ("NCPA"),
and has full and unfettered rights and title to its Project Entitlement Percentage of the Capacity and
Energy attributable to NCPA project generation, as specified in the respective NCPA Project
Agreements; and
WHEREAS, such project Capacity and Energy includes, but is not limited to, all renewable and
environmental attributes associated with the production of electricity from a renewable energy
resource, including Renewable Energy Certificates ("RECs"); and
WHEREAS, City is also eligible to receive RECs made available to the customers of the
Western Area Power Administration's Sierra Nevada Region ("Western") attributable to Western Base
Resource hydroelectric generation; and
WHEREAS, NCPA has established an account with the Western Renewable Energy
Generation Information System ("WREGIS"), and has been, and will continue to be, issued RECs by
WREGIS sourced from NCPA's Registered Generating Units; and
WHEREAS, such RECs are initially issued to and are held by NCPA in its WREGIS account;
al
WHEREAS, NCPA may, on behalf of City, be transferred RECs from Western attributable to
City's share of Western Base Resource hydroelectric generation, consistent with City's assignment of
its Western Base Resource percentage to NCPA; and
WHEREAS, City may utilize RECs to satisfy its compliance with renewable energy standards,
and RECs may have certain monetary value; therefore it is in the interest of City to request NCPA to
transfer City's share of RECs attributable to its Project Entitlement Percentage of NCPA project
generation and Western Base Resource hydroelectric generation held by NCPA to City, and
WHEREAS, in order for NCPA to transfer to City its share of RECs held in NCPA's WREGIS
account, City is required to 1) execute the Renewable Energy Certificates Transfer Agreement with
NCPA and 2) establish an account with WREGIS; and
WHEREAS, the Renewable Energy Certificates Transfer Agreement solely provides for the
transfer of RECs and does not include services from NCPA to sell or market RECs on behalf of City;
and
WHEREAS, by executing the Renewable Energy Certificates Transfer Agreement, City agrees
not to transfer, assign, sell or exchange any RECs sourced from NCPA project generation, directly or
indirectly, in any manner, and shall not take or permit to be taken any other action or actions, which
would result in any of the bonds supporting NCPA project generation in being treated as an obligation
not described in Section 103(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended; and
WHEREAS, the Renewable Energy Certificates Transfer Agreement is structured so that City
accepts a limited insurance based recourse against NCPA, and includes the option that City may
procure additional insurance at its sole expense; and
WHEREAS, the fiscal impact to City for executing the Renewable Energy Certificates Transfer
Agreement includes costs resulting from REC transfer fees, direct costs associated with the
management and transfer of RECs, NCPA management costs set forth in NCPA's then current
Annual Budget, and any other reimbursable expenses incurred by NCPA in performing services on
behalf of City pursuant to the Renewable Energy Certificates Transfer Agreement, and
WHEREAS, the environmental impact is addressed in Staff Report #ABC; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of City of Ukiah delegates authority to
City Manager to execute the Renewable Energy Certificates Transfer Agreement so that City may
request NCPA to transfer City's share of RECs attributable to its Project Entitlement Percentage of
NCPA project generation and Western Base Resource hydroelectric generation held by NCPA to
City.
Resolution No. -2-
ITEM NO.:
PYR MEETING DATE:
City nf-T-1kiafx
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
13a
July 6, 2011
SUBJECT: AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR RIVERSIDE PARK PHASE ONE TRAIL AND
REVEGETATION PROJECT SPECIFICATION NO. 11-09 AND ANY NECESSARY
BUDGET AMENDMENTS.
Summary: Staff is requesting that the City Council award the contract for Riverside Park Phase One
Trail and Revegetation Project, Specification No. 11-09.
Background: The City of Ukiah received $810,000 for Riverside Park from the California Resources
Agency River Parkways Grant Program. The grant project or "Phase 1" includes improvements to the
entry area, construction of the top -of bank trail and one river access trail. The improvements will restore
the riparian habitat by removing invasive vegetation and replanting native species. Phase 1 will include
approximately 2,500 linear feet of trail and 1,200 linear feet of river bank riparian restoration.
Discussion: Staff worked with Warren McClung ASLA in collaboration with Ann Baker Landscape
Architecture and RRM Design Group to prepare the construction documents and specifications. The
project work generally consists of selective removal of non-native invasive plants, site grading,
construction of stabilized aggregate trails, native plant restoration, landscaping, site furnishings, and
signage. This work is budgeted in the Park Development Fund and is reimbursed by the River
Parkways Grant Program.
Following direction from Council on June 1, 2011, the Purchasing Department began advertising the
project. Sealed proposals will be received and opened by the City Clerk on July 5, 2011. Staff is
seeking Council approval for award of the contract based on the outcome of the bid opening. A bid
tabulation sheet will be provided to the Council and the public at the meeting.
Fiscal Impact:
x I Budgeted FY 11/12 [:::] New Appropriation F—] Not Applicable F—] Budget Amendment Required
Amount Budgeted Source of Funds (title and #) Account Number Addict. Appropriation Requested
$569,597 Park Development: Riverside Park 140.6050.930.006 $
Recommended Action(s): Award contract for Riverside Park Phase One Specification No. 11-09 to the
lowest responsive, responsible bidder based on bids submitted on July 5, 2011, and approve any
necessary budget amendments.
Alternative Council Option(s): Remand to staff with direction.
Prepared by: Katie Marsolan, Community Services, Mary Horger, Purchasing Supervisor
Coordinated with: Warren McClung, ASLA, Ann Baker Landscape Architecture
Attachments: N/A
Approved:
Jan hambers, City Manager
City of Ukiah
To: Members of the City Council
From: Katie Marsolan, Communtiy Services Administrator
cc: JoAnne Currie, City Clerk
Date: July 6, 2011
Re: ITEM 13a — Meeting of July 6, 2011, Award of Contract for for Riverside Park
Phase One Specification No. 11-09
Attachment "A" for your review is the Bid Tabulation sheet for the above referenced project.
The bid opening occurred at 2:00 PM Tuesday, July 5, 2011. One bid was received from Siri
Grading and Paving with a base bid of $559,945.50. Staff is recommending that the City
Council award the contract for the base bid amount.
Attachment "B" is a statement from Siri Grading and Paving regarding a signature error on the
bid submittal. Staff is recommending that Council waive this irregularity and accept the bid.
This project is funded through the CA Resources Agency River Parkways Grant Program with
$810,000 in grant funds. This contract is the final component of the Phase 1 project. In fiscal
year 2010-2011 there were anticipated expenses and purchase orders that were not fully
expended. Those funds are available for the remaining project work during this fiscal year. For
that reason staff is recommending that Council authorize a budget amendment in the amount of
$52,600.
Fiscal Impact:
FY
BudgeFY
I11/12
❑ New Appropriation 11Not
Applicable X❑
ment
BudgRequired
qui ed
Amount Budgeted
Source of Funds (title and #)
Account Number
Addict. Appropriation
$569,597
Park Development: Riverside Park
140.6050.930.006
$52,600
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1) Waive irregularity of bid submittal from Siri Grading and Paving and award the construction
contract for Riverside Park Phase One Specification No. 11-09 in the amount $559,945.50.
2) Authorize budget amendment for $52,600 for fiscal year 2011-2012, from funds previously
budgeted for FY 2010-2011.
0
Riverside Park Phase One Trail and Revegetation Project, Spec 11-09
Owner: City of Ukiah
Bid Opening: 07/05/11
Sir! Grading & Paving
Base Bid
PO Box 3638
Santa Rosa, CA 95482
Item #
I Item Description
Quantity
UOM
Unit Price
Item Total
1
CONSTRUCTION ITEM 1.01, SITE CLEARING AND DEMOLITION
1
LS
$59,000.00
$59,000.00
2
CONSTRUCTION ITEM 1.02, ERADICATION OF INVASIVES
1
LS
45,000.00
45,000.00
3
CONSTRUCTION ITEM 1.03, SWPPP COMPLIANCE
1
LS
40,000.00
40,000.00
4 CONSTRUCTION ITEM 1.04, TREE PRUNING
1
LS
10,000.00
10,000.00
5
CONSTRUCTION ITEM 2.01, GRADING
1
LS
26,000.00
26,000.00
6
CONSTRUCTION ITEM 7.01, PAVING TYPE 1: MULTI -USE TRAIL
13300
SF
$7.50
$99,750.00
7
CONSTRUCTION ITEM 7.02, PAVING TYPE 2: OVERLOOK TRAIL
3625
SF
8.50
$30,812.50
8
CONSTRUCTION ITEM 7.03, PAVING TYPE 3: TERRACE TRAIL
1505
SF
$13.00
19,565.00
9
CONSTRUCTION ITEM 7.04, NOT USED
0
LS
0.00
$0.00
10
CONSTRUCTION ITEM 7.05, BOULDER: 2-4 TON, SIZE, QTY AND LOC.
147
TN
$105.00
$15,435.00
11
CONSTRUCTION ITEM 7.06, CRIB STEPS
1
LS
34,000.00
34,000.00
12
CONSTRUCTION ITEM 8.01, FENCE TYPE 1: CHAIN LINK, 8'
18
LF
125.00
2,250.00
13
CONSTRUCTION ITEM 8.02, ENTRY GATE
2
EA
9,700.00
19,400.00
14
CONSTRUCTION ITEM 8.03, BOLLARD TYPE 1: REMOVABLE
1
EA
1,500.00
1,500.00
15
CONSTRUCTION ITEM 8.04, HAND RAIL
60
LF
$150.00
$9,000.00
16
CONSTRUCTION ITEM 9.01, BENCH
4
EA
$1,700.00
$6,800.00
17
CONSTRUCTION ITEM 9.02, PICNIC TABLE
2
EA
T4 000.00
$8,000.06
18
CONSTRUCTION ITEM 9.03, TRASH RECEPTACLE
4
EA
1,300.00
5,200.00
19
CONSTRUCTION ITEM 9.04, BIKE RACK
1
EA
1,400.00
1,400.00
20
CONSTRUCTION ITEM 9.05, PARK SIGN
1
EA
12,000.00
12,000.00
21
CONSTRUCTION ITEM 9.06, PROP. 50 SIGN
1
EA
$1,800.06
1,800.00
22
CONSTRUCTION ITEM 9.07, WAY -FINDING SIGN
2
EA
800.00
1,600.00
23
CONSTRUCTION ITEM 10.01, IRRIGATION SYSTEM
1
LS
$47,500.00
47,500.00
24
CONSTRUCTION ITEM 11.01, NOT USED
0
LS
$0.00
$0.00
25
CONSTRUCTION ITEM 11.02 NOT USED
0
LS
0.00
0.00
26
CONSTRUCTION ITEM 11.03, TREE, T -POT
67
EA
$45.00
3,015.00
27
CONSTRUCTION ITEM 11.04, SHRUB, D -POT
69
EA
$18.00
1,242.00
28
CONSTRUCTION ITEM 11.05, SHRUB, 1 -GAL
87
EA
21.00
1,827.00
291
1CONSTRUCTION ITEM 11.06, SHRUBS, TREE BAND
2724
EA
4.75
12,939.00
30
1CONSTRUCTION ITEM 11.07, NOT USED
0
LS
0.00
$0.00
31
CONSTRUCTION ITEM 11.08, PLUG PLANTING
5900
EA
$2.401
$14,160.00
32
CONSTRUCTION ITEM 11.09, SEEDING
61250
SF
$0.20r12,250.00
33
CONSTRUCTION ITEM 11.1, NOT USED
0
LS
$0.00
$0.00
34
CONSTRUCTION ITEM 11.11, PLANT ESTABLISHMENT PERIOD ONE
11
LS
518,500.00
$18,500.00
Bid List
$559,945.50
ADD ALTERNATE 1
Item #
Item Description
I Quantityl UOM
Unit Price
Item Total
1
ADDITIVE ALTERNATE 1, CANOE LANDING
1
LS
19,000.00
19,000.00
Bid List
$19,000.00
ADD ALTERNATE 2
Item #
Item Description
Quantity
I UOM
Unit Price H
item Total
11
JADDITIVE ALTERNATE 2, STEPS AT OVERLOOK
11
L5
18,000.00
18,000.00
Bid List
I
I 1 1
$18,000.00
ADD ALTERNATE 3
Item #
Item Description
Quantity
UOM
Unit Price
Item Total
11
JADDITIVE ALTERNATE 3, PLANT ESTABLISHMENT PERIOD TWO
1
LS
$35,000.001 1
35,000.00
Bid List
$35,000.00
Total Bid Amount
$631,945.50
Listed Subs
1
Ahlborn Fence & Steel
Santa Rosa, CA
handrails
Atlas Tree
Santa Rosa, CA
Tree Pruning
Baelin, Inc.
11528 Occidental Road
Sebastopol, CA 95472
Irrigation & Landscaping
MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 3638 SANTA ROSA, CA 95402
3289 REGIONAL PARKWAY SANTA ROSA, CA 95403
July 5, 2011
Mary Horger, Purchasing Manager
City of Ukiah
411 West Clay Street
Ukiah, CA 95482-5400
RE: Riverside Park Phase One — Trail and Revegetation Project Spec. 11-09
Ms Horger,
PHONE (707) 579-2141
FAX (707) 569-1418
This letter is to serve as confirmation that by placing our business stamp in the signature block on page 34 of
the bid was intended as our signature on the bid, and that Siri Grading & Paving, Inc. is bound by the bid. This
faxed copy of will be followed by the original in the mail.
Thank You,
Richard J. Owens, V.P.
Siri Grading & Paving, Inc.
ITEM NO.: 13b
MEETING DATE: July 6, 2011
City of- -Z-1ki cxfz
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
FOR EMPLOYEE BARGAINING UNIT— MISCELLANEOUS UNIT
Background:
The City Manager and representatives of the Miscellaneous Unit (Operating Engineers Local No. 3) have
met regularly over the past several months to discuss negotiation items for a new contract. The proposed
Memorandum of Understanding has been submitted for Council's review under separate cover for Closed
Session, if necessary, and has previously been discussed in Closed Session with the City Manager.
Staff recommends approval of the Miscellaneous Unit's Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and
adoption of the Resolution approving the MOU for the term of October 1, 2010 through June 30, 2012.
Fiscal Impact:
Budgeted FY 10/11 1-1New Appropriation � Not Applicable Budget Amendment Required
Amount Budgeted
I Source of Funds (title and #)
Account Number
Addit. Appropriation Requested
$
$
Recommended Action(s):
Adopt resolution approving Memorandum of Understanding for the Miscellaneous Unit (Operating
Enaineers Local No. 3).
Alternative Council Option(s)
1.Do not adopt resolution
2. Refer to Staff for amendment
Requested by: Miscellaneous Unit
Prepared by: Melody Harris, Human Resources Director
Coordinated with: Jane Chambers, City Manager
Attachments: Resolution for Adoption of Miscellaneous Unit Memorandum of Understand
Approved: IA&A
Ja Chambers, City Manager
ATTACHMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH
ADOPTING MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE
CITY OF UKIAH AND THE MISCELLANEOUS UNIT
WHEREAS, the City Manager has met and conferred in good faith with
representatives of the Miscellaneous Unit (Operating Engineers Local No. 3); and
WHEREAS, a Memorandum of Understanding for the term of October 1, 2010 —
June 30, 2012 has been arrived at with the Unit; and
WHEREAS, said Memorandum of Understanding has been presented to the City
Council for its consideration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Memorandum of Understanding
is hereby adopted and the City Manager is authorized to enter into this Agreement.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of July 2011, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
JoAnne Currie, City Clerk
3:mou\resmou
Mari Rodin, Mayor
Resolution No. 2006 -
Page 1 of 1
July 5, 2011
Director Ron Chapman, MD, MPH
California Department of Public Health
MS 0500
P.O. Box 997377
Sacramento, CA 95899-7377
Dear Dr. Chapman:
It is with great enthusiasm that the City of Ukiah provides its support for the California Department of Public
Health's (CDPH) grant application in response to the Public Prevention Health Fund.- Community Transformation
Grants (CTG) (CDC -RFA -DPI 1-1 103PPHFI 1) funding opportunity announcement. For the past two
decades the City of Ukiah has supported efforts to promote tobacco free living, active living and healthy
eating by providing healthy and safe physical environments.
Ukiah is a leader in implementing a Health in All Policies approach to land use planning. We are in the
process of adopting a form -based code for Ukiah's downtown that encourages vertical mixed-use
development, pedestrian -orientation, walkable block perimeters and incentives for non -motorized
transportation facilities. The code will also enhance access to healthy foods by allowing farmers' markets and
community gardens more easily. We are engaging in traffic calming measures, and trail and bike facility
construction to promote walking and biking. We recently completed a guide to urban walking routes. We
have had a health representative on the Technical Advisory Committee and now have a health professional
appointed to the Planning Commission. We have council members that participate in the Food Policy
Council and the Action Communities for Health, Innovation and Environmental Change (ACHIEVE)
initiative facilitated by the Mendocino County Health & Human Services Agency. Ukiah is partnering with
the Health & Human Services Agency in the Sustainable Communities Planning & Incentive Award/Prop 84,
through which we will write a Climate Action Plan and Health & Human Services will conduct a health
impact assessment of how the proposed changes in the Plan may affect health in the community.
Ukiah was recognized in 1994 with a Smoke -Free Cities Leadership Award for establishing one of the first
smoke-free workplace ordinances in the state. The City adopted a smoke-free park ordinance in 2008 and a
Tobacco Retailer Licensing Ordinance in 2004.
The City of Ukiah supports the strategic direction of your grant application which is to: 1) advance policies to
reduce environmental exposure to the toxic effects of tobacco smoke, tobacco smoke residue, and cigarette
butts and other tobacco product waste; 2) decrease sweetened beverage consumption and increase healthy
beverage consumption; 3) increase accessto healthy food through retail, procurement opportunities,
reduction of high sodium processed food, and farm to fork. strategies; 4) promote healthy living through the
use of community planning and design to ensure access to safe, attractive, and affordable environments; and
5) improve the clinical disease management of high blood pressure and high cholesterol through adoption of
systems change and linkages to community-based services such as walking programs and cessation services.
The City of Ukiah is committed to collaborating with CDPH and the Mendocino County Health & Human
Services Agency on the goals of the CTG initiative. We are already partnering on the ACHIEVE initiative
that has very similar objectives, and looking forward to implementing policy, systems and environmental
changes to improve the health of all Ukiah residents.
Sincerely,
Mari Rodin, City of Ukiah Mayor
300 SEMINARY AVENUE UKIAH, CA 95482-5400
Phone# 707/463-6200 Fax# 707/463-6204 Web Address: www.cityofukiah.com