Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-03-05 Packet - Without 11b Attachments CITY OF UKIAH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Regular Meeting CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 March 5, 2014 6:00 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. PROCLAMATIONS/INTRODUCTIONS/PRESENTATIONS 4. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. Minutes of February 19, 2014, Special Meeting. b. Minutes of February 19, 2014, Regular Meeting. C. Minutes of February 26, 2014, Special Meeting. 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. Adoption of Resolution Approving Two Addenda Amending the Merit Pay Provision in the Management Unit Memorandum of Understanding. b. Award Professional Services Agreement to C. Kell-Smith & Associates, Inc. for Labor Compliance Services for Grace Hudson Project, Funded By Prop 84 Grant. 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. Page 1 of 3 Page 2 of 3 9. COUNCIL REPORTS 10. CITY MANAGER/CITY CLERK REPORTS 11. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. A Public Hearing to Revise the Boundaries and Timeline of Underground District No. 2- Perkins Street from State Street to Pomeroy and Adopt Resolution Amending Resolution 90-1 (EUD). (6:00 PM) b. Appeal of the Planning Commission's Approval of the Costco Warehouse and Fueling Station Site Development Permit (SDP). (6:15 PM) 12. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 13. NEW BUSINESS a. Discuss and Provide Direction Regarding the Storm Drain System at the Redwood Empire Fairgrounds. b. Approval of Letter in Support of Senate Bill 1014 to Require Producers of Pharmaceuticals to Create, Finance and Manage a Safe Medicine Disposal Program for California Consumers. C. Discuss and Provide Direction Regarding the Request from the Russian River Flood Control District to Forgo our Contractual Right to 800 Acre Feet of Water to Provide Drought Assistance for Other Agencies in the Ukiah Valley. 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: Electric Unit b. Conference with Legal Counsel — Existing Litigation (Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)) Name of case: Ukiah Valley Sanitation District v. City of Ukiah, Mendocino County Superior Court Case No. SCUK-CVC-13-63024 C. Conference with Real Property Negotiators (§54956.8) Property: APN Nos. 002-121-20-00, 002-121-21-00, 002-121-22-00 and 002-121-23-00 Negotiator: Jane Chambers, City Manager Negotiating Parties: Robert Gitlin Under Negotiation: Price & Terms d. Conference with Real Property Negotiators (§54956.8) Property: APN Nos. 002-101-19, 20 & 21 Negotiator: Jane Chambers, City Manager Negotiating Parties: Rural Communities Housing Development Corporation (RCHDC) and City of Ukiah Under Negotiation: Price & Terms Page 3 of 3 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 28th day of February, 2014. Kristine Lawler, City Clerk Agenda Itern 5a CITY OF UKIAH CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Special Meeting CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 February 19, 2014 5:30 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL Ukiah City Council met for a Special Meeting on February 19, 2014, which was legally noticed on February 14, 2014. Mayor Baldwin called the meeting to order at 5:33 p.m. Roll was taken with the following Councilmembers Present: Steve Scalmanini, Douglas F. Crane, Benj Thomas (arriving at 5:45), Vice Mayor Mary Anne Landis, and Mayor Phil Baldwin. Staff Present: Jane Chambers, City Manager; David Rapport, City Attorney; Karen Scalabrini, Finance Director; and Kristine Lawler, City Clerk. Also Present: Rick Haeg, Labor Consultant. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNED TO CLOSED SESSION AT 5:34 P.M. 3. CLOSED SESSION a. Conference with Labor Negotiator (§ 54957.6) Agency Representative: Jane Chambers, City Manager Employee Organization: Electric Unit No reportable action was taken on the Closed Session item. 4. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:51 p.m. Kristine Lawler, City Clerk Agenda Item 5b CITY OF UKIAH CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Regular Meeting CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 February 19, 2014 6:00 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL Ukiah City Council met at a Regular Meeting on February 19, 2014, having been legally noticed on February 14, 2014. Mayor Baldwin called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll was taken with the following Councilmembers Present: Steve Scalmanini, Douglas F. Crane, Beni Thomas, Vice Mayor Mary Anne Landis, and Mayor Phil Baldwin. Staff Present: Jane Chambers, City Manager; David Rapport, City Attorney; and Kristine Lawler, City Clerk. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. PROCLAMATIONS/INTRODUCTIONS/PRESENTATIONS 4. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. Minutes of February 5, 2014, Regular Meeting. Motion/Second: Landis/Thomas to approve the minutes of February 5, 2014, a Regular Meeting, as submitted. Motion carried by the following roll call votes: AYES: Scalmanini, Crane, Thomas, Landis, and Baldwin. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 6. RIGHT TO APPEAL DECISION 7. CONSENT CALENDAR a. Report of Disbursements for the Month of January, 2014 — Finance Department. b. . Pulled by member of public, James Houle, and moved to Item 13d. Motion/Second: Landis/Thomas to approve Consent Calendar Items 7a, as submitted. Motion carried by the following roll call votes: AYES: Scalmanini, Crane, Thomas, Landis, and Baldwin. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 8. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Public Comment: J.R. Rose. 9. COUNCIL REPORTS Presenters: Councilmember Thomas and Mayor Baldwin. Page 1 of 4 City Council Minutes for February 19, 2014, Continued: Page 2 of 4 10. CITY MANAGER/CITY CLERK REPORTS Presenters: Jane Chambers, City Manager and Tim Eriksen, Public Works Director. Public Comment: Susan Knopf. 11. PUBLIC HEARINGS (6:15 PM) a. Receive Report from the City Council Palace Hotel Ad-Hoc Committee, Hear from the Public, and Consider Adopting the Resolution Ordering the Repair or Removal of the Dilapidated Palace Hotel Structure Located at 272 North State Street — Planning and Community Services Department. Presenter: Charley Stump, Planning and Community Services Director. Property Representatives: Eladia Laines, Union Properties, Inc. President and Norman Hudson, Contractor. Motion/Second: Landis/Crane to continue the public hearing to a date certain of March 19, 2014. Motion carried by the following roll call votes: AYES: Scalmanini, Crane, Thomas, Landis, and Baldwin. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 12. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Discussion and Consideration of Three Redwood Trees in the Public Right of Way on South School Street— Community Services. Presenters: Sage Sangiacomo, Assistant City Manager and Tim Eriksen, Public Works Director. Public Comment: Pinky Kushner, Estelle Clifton, and Mike Peterson (a.k.a. Davie Crocket). Motion/Second: Landis/Scalmanini to continue this item to March 19, 2014, and directs staff to follow up with the Ukiah Daily Journal regarding their response to the three points stated in the staff report (1. assume the costs to implement the nine recommendations for trees #1 and #2; 2. certificate of liability insurance; 3. agree to indemnify and hold harmless the City from all damage that may result from the trees.) Motion carried by the following roll call votes: AYES: Scalmanini, Crane, Thomas, Landis, and Baldwin. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. b. Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute an Amended and Restated Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Petaluma Ecumenical Properties, a California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporations, for a Low and Moderate Senior Housing Development on the Former Ukiah Redevelopment Agency's Cleveland Lane Property—Administration. Presenter: Sage Sangiacomo, Assistant City Manager. Motion/Second: Crane/Landis to authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an amended and restated exclusive negotiating agreement (COU 1314-167a1) with Petaluma Ecumenical Properties, a California nonprofit public benefits corporation, for a low and moderate senior housing development on the former Ukiah Redevelopment Agency's Cleveland Lane property. Motion carried by the following roll call votes: AYES: Scalmanini, Crane, Thomas, Landis, and Baldwin. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. City Council Minutes for February 19, 2014, Continued: Page 3 of 4 C. Discussion and Possible Adoption of Resolution Granting Consent to Inclusion of Land within the Territorial Jurisdiction of the City of the County of Mendocino Community Facilities District 2012-1 (Pace: Property Assessed Clean Energy) — Administration. Presenters: Jane Chambers, City Manager and Councilmember Landis. Motion/Second: Landis/Thomas to approve adoption of Resolution (2014-05) granting consent to inclusion of land within the territorial jurisdiction of the City of the County of Mendocino Community Facilities District 2012-1 (Pace: Property Assessed Clean Energy). Motion carried by the following roll call votes: AYES: Scalmanini, Crane, Thomas, Landis, and Baldwin. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. RECESS: 7:46— 7:52 P.M. 13. NEW BUSINESS a. Consider Action to Prohibit Electronic Message Boards/Digital Signage (Or Place Moratorium on Such) in City of Ukiah —Administration. Presenter: Mayor Baldwin. Staff Comment: Charley Stump, Planning and Community Development Director. Public Comment: Pinky Kushner and Susan Knopf. Council Consensus to bring this item back to the second City Council meeting in March with alternative language to amend the sign ordinance. b. Discussion and Consideration to Amend Ordinance Adding Restaurants to Single Use Bag Ban —Administration. Presenter: Councilmember Landis. Public Comment: Mike Sweeney. Motion/Second: Landis/Thomas to bring back an Ordinance on March 19, for introduction adding restaurants to single use bag ban giving 180 days. Motion carried by the following roll call votes: AYES: Scalmanini, Crane, Thomas, Landis, and Baldwin. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. C. Approval of Acquisition of Physical File Management System, FileTrail, for Reorganization of City Files — City Clerk Department. Presenters: Kristine Lawler, City Clerk and Jane Chambers, City Manager. Staff Comment: Sage Sangiacomo, Assistant City Manager. Motion/Second: Crane/Landis to approve the acquisition of the physical file management system, FileTrail (COU 1314-179). Motion carried by the following roll call votes: AYES: Scalmanini, Crane, Thomas, Landis, and Baldwin. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 13d. Approval of Litigation: Ukiah v. California Department of Finance et al —Administration.- (From Consent Calendar Item 7b) City Council Minutes for February 19, 2014, Continued: Page 4 of 4 Presenters: David Rapport, City Attorney. (NOTE. Public member, Jim Houle, who had item pulled was no longer present.) Motion/Second: Crane/Landis to adopt City Council resolution (attachment 1) (2014-06) approving the filing of City of Ukiah v. Michael Cohen, Director, California Department of Defense, et al., Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 34-2014-80001744, and authorize Best, Best & Krieger and the City Attorney to litigate the case on behalf of the City and the Successor Agency. Motion carried by the following roll call votes: AYES: Scalmanini, Crane, Thomas, Landis, and Baldwin. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. ADJOURNED 9:19 P.M. 14. CLOSED SESSION a. Conference with Labor Negotiator (§ 54957.6) Agency Representative: Jane Chambers, City Manager Employee Organizations: Electric Unit b. Conference with Legal Counsel — Existing Litigation (Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)) Name of case: Ukiah Valley Sanitation District v. City of Ukiah, Mendocino County Superior Court Case No. SCUK-CVC-13-63024 C. Conference with Real Property Negotiators (454956.8) Property: APN Nos. 002-121-20-00, 002-121-21-00, 002-121-22-00 and 002-121-23-00 Negotiator: Jane Chambers, City Manager Negotiating Parties: Robert Gitlin Under Negotiation: Price & Terms d. Conference with Real Property Negotiators (454956.8) Property: APN Nos. 002-101-19, 20 & 21 Negotiator: Jane Chambers, City Manager Negotiating Parties: Rural Communities Housing Development Corporation (RCHDC) and City of Ukiah Under Negotiation: Price &Terms No reportable action was taken on Closed Session items. 15. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:56 p.m. Kristine Lawler, City Clerk Agenda Item 5c CITY OF UKIAH CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Special Meeting CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 February 19, 2014 5:30 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL Ukiah City Council met for a Special Meeting on February 26, 2014, which was legally noticed on February 24, 2014. Mayor Baldwin called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. Roll was taken with the following Councilmembers Present: Steve Scalmanini, Douglas F. Crane, Benj Thomas, Vice Mayor Mary Anne Landis, and Mayor Phil Baldwin. Staff Present: Jane Chambers, City Manager; and David Rapport, City Attorney. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNED TO CLOSED SESSION AT 5:31 P.M. 3. CLOSED SESSION a. Conference With Legal Counsel —Anticipated Litigation Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Gov't Code 54956.9(b) (1 case) No reportable action was taken on the Closed Session item. 4. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Kristine Lawler, City Clerk ITEM NO.: 7a MEETING DATE: March 5, 2014 l'ity (#Uk-iafi AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT ■ SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING TWO ADDENDA AMENDING THE MERIT PAY PROVISION IN THE MANAGEMENT UNIT MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Background: The Management Unit and City agreed to payment of 8% Merit Pay in the 2007-2010 Memoranda of Understanding (MOU). Merit Pay is a PERS-reportable "special compensation", and as such, must meet PERS' definition and criteria under California Code of Regulations 571(a) & (b) to be eligible. Staff has recently been informed by PERS that the 2007-2010 MOU language, as it currently exists, does not adequately define the parameters of Merit Pay as defined in the regulations, which could place future retirement applications at risk for inclusion of Merit Pay as special compensation in their retirement calculation. Discussion: Staff has worked with PERS and the Management Unit to bring the Management Unit's Merit Pay provision into compliance for PERS eligibility via a side letter Addendum (Attachment 1) which clarifies the MOU provision from 2007 through current. This Addendum complies with PERS requirements for reporting Merit Pay as special compensation, and it has been ratified by the Management Unit for Council's approval. Looking forward, the Management Unit and City have met and agreed to roll the 8% Merit Pay into base salary in exchange for eliminating Merit Pay as special compensation, effective the next full pay period beginning March 16, 2014. This Addendum (Attachment 2) has also been ratified by the Management Unit for Council's approval. Staff recommends that City Council adopt the attached Resolution approving the two Addenda to the Management Unit MOU, which amends the Merit Pay provision to 1.) comply with PERS regulations for reporting Merit Pay as special compensation retrospectively, and 2.) roll the 8% Merit Pay into each Management Unit classification's base salary in exchange for eliminating Merit Pay as special compensation, effective with the pay period beginning March 16, 2014. ■ RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Adopt Resolution approving two Addendums to the Management Unit MOU amending the Merit Pay provision. In ALTERNATIVES: Do not adopt resolution. Return to staff for additional information. Citizens advised: N/A Requested by: Melody Harris, Human Resources Director; Management Unit Prepared by: Melody Harris, Human Resources Director Coordinated with: Management Unit Representatives and Jane Chambers, City Manager Attachments: Attachment 1: Addendum to the 2013-2015 Management Unit MOU Clarifying and Defining the Merit Pay provision Attachment 2: Addendum to the 2013-2015 Management Unit MOU Eliminating the Merit Pay provision Attachment 3: Resolution Authorizing the Two Addenda to the 2013-2015 Management Unit MOU COUNCIL ACTION DATE: : ❑ Approved ❑ Continued to ❑ Other RECORDs APPROVED: ❑ Agreement: ❑ Resolution: ❑ Ordinance: Approved: Jane Chambers, City Manager AFTACI-IMENT ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF UKIAH AND THE MANAGEMENT UNIT 2013-2015 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING March_,2014 This Addendum to the 2013-2015 Memorandum of Understanding between the Management Unit and the City of Ukiah,effective on March_, 2014, is entered for the purpose of clarifying and defining the "Merit Pay" provision of the current MOU. MERIT PAY Effective with the adoption of the 2007-2010 Management Unit MOU on November 7, 2007, the City began reporting "Merit Pay" as PERS-reportable special compensation, based upon the City's performance evaluation program, which identifies goals and objectives for each Unit member as part of their annual performance evaluation. Merit Pay is earned by all Management Unit employees effective upon their date of hire. 8%of base pay is payable bi-weekly for superior performance,which is re-evaluated on an annual basis. This Addendum to the 2013-2015 Memorandum of Understanding is ratified and adopted pursuant to the recommendation of the following representatives this day of 2014. CITY OF UKIAH MANAGEMENT UNIT Le—� 1> Jane Chambers, City Manager Kim Jordan, for Planner l Mary Hor er, Pu cha in Supervisor Rick Seanor, Dep. Director of Public Works /ATTACHMENT �- ADDENDUM TO THE MANAGEMENT UNIT 2013-2015 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING This Addendum to the 2013-2015 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Management Unit (Unit) and the City of Ukiah (City), effective the pay period beginning on March 16, 2014, is entered for the purpose of eliminating the Merit Pay provision of the MOU. Whereas, the City and Unit agreed, beginning on November 7, 2007, to award and report 8% Merit Pay to PERS as special compensation each pay period, and both base salary and Merit Pay were reported to PERS as compensation; and, Whereas,the City and Unit have met and conferred regarding changing the Merit Pay provision; Resolved, the City and Unit hereby agree to an increase of 8% for each Management Unit classification's base salary schedule in exchange for eliminating Merit Pay effective the pay period beginning March 16, 2014. WHEREFORE, this Addendum to the 2013-2015 Memorandum of Understanding is ratified and adopted pursuant to the recommendation of the following representatives this_day of , 2014. CITY OF UKIAH MANAGEMENT UNIT / l Jane Chambers, City Manager Mary Hor er, r asin Supervisor Kim Jordan, 'or Planner Rick Seanor, Deputy Public Works Director 3Arnou\addnMgmtM0U2013-2015 Elim Merit Pay RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ADOPTING TWO ADDENDA TO THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THECITY OF UKIAH AND THE MANAGEMENT UNIT WHEREAS, the Employee/Employer Relations Officer and her Designee have met and conferred in good faith with representatives of the Management Unit for the purpose of amending the Merit Pay provision to comply with PERS regulations for reporting special compensation ; and WHEREAS, an Addendum to the 2013-2015 Management Unit Memorandum of Understanding, clarifying and defining the "Merit Pay" provision from 2007 through current has been agreed to by the parties; and WHEREAS, an Addendum to the 2013-2015 Management Unit Memorandum of Understanding, eliminating the Merit Pay provision effective the pay period beginning on March 16, 2014 has been agreed to by the parties; and WHEREAS, said Addenda have been presented to the City Council for its consideration, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Addenda to the Management Unit MOU are hereby adopted and the Employee/Employer Relations Officer is authorized to enter into these Agreements. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of March 2014, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Philip E. Baldwin, Mayor ATTEST: Kristine Lawler, City Clerk 3:mou\res mgmt merit pay ITEM NO.: 7b MEETING DATE: March 5, 2014 i"it f cif 7Jkiah AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT ■ SUBJECT: AWARD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT TO C. KELL-SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR LABOR COMPLIANCE SERVICES FOR GRACE HUDSON PROJECT, FUNDED BY PROP 84 GRANT Background & Discussion: The City is currently facilitating the design and construction of the Grace Hudson Nature Education Facility funded by the Proposition 84 Nature Education grant program. The grant program requires that the City retain a professional services firm to perform labor compliance services. Specifically, the selected consultant must be certified with the Department of Industrial Relations, produce a Labor Compliance Manual for the City of Ukiah, and then manage the ongoing labor compliance documentation and reporting for the Nature Education Facility construction project. Staff prepared and issued a request for proposals (RFP) for Labor Compliance Services and received four submitted proposal. Proposals were provided by The Labor Compliance Managers, Counterpoint Construction Services, C. Kell-Smith & Associates Inc., and Alameida Architecture. The proposals were evaluated and ranked by a selection committee comprised of two Museum staff, and a representative from the Museum. The committee evaluated each proposal based upon the proposed project approach, specific labor compliance experience, relevance of past projects, and proposed fees. The evaluation summary is included as Attachment #1. The committee recommended C. Kell-Smith & Associates, Inc. for the project. After conducting a reference check process, staff is recommending award of a professional services agreement to C. Kell-Smith & Associates, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $43,850. This expense has been budgeted in account 31022700 for the Grace Hudson Museum Grant Project and all expenses for the Labor Compliance Services are reimbursed by Prop 84 grant funds. FISCAL IMPACT: New Appropriation Budgeted Amount Budget Amendment in Current FY Source of Funds Account Number Required Title & No. $750,000 Museum Grant Contract Sery 31022700.52100 Yes ❑ No Continued on Page 2 ■ RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Award professional services agreement to C. Kell-Smith & Associates, Inc. for Labor Compliance Services in an amount not to exceed $43,850. ■ ALTERNATIVES: Remand to staff with direction. Citizens advised: Museum Representatives Requested by: N/A Prepared by: Katie Marsolan, Project Analyst, Mary Horger, Purchasing Supervisor, Sherrie Smith-Ferri, Museum Director Coordinated with: Sage Sangiacomo, Assistant City Manager Attachments: Evaluation Tabulation Summary COUNCIL ACTION DATE: : ❑ Approved ❑ Continued to ❑ Other RECORDs APPROVED: ❑ Agreement: ❑ Resolution: ❑ Ordinance: Approved: Jane Chambers, City Manager Attachment 1 The Grace Hudson Museum Alameida labor Compliance Labor Compliance Services Architecture C.Kell-Smith Counterpoint Managers Individual Evaluator Individual Evaluator Individual Evaluator Individual Evaluator Proposal Evaluation Summary Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking Maximum Evaluation Criteria Points #1 #2 #3 #1 #2 #3 #1 #2 #3 #1 #2 #3 Project Approach 15 10 10 10 11 15 10 12 15 10 4 15 15 Overall experience of the firm 35 26 35 20 30 35 30 30 30 20 20 35 35 Specific experience of the proposed Labor Compliance officers 30 20 30 1 25 25 1 30 25 1 25 30 20 20 30 30 Candidate's past record of performance,including control of 10 costs,quality of work,and completion in a timely manner 5 5 7 6 5 8 6 10 5 3 8 10 Consultant's fees and billing rates 10 7 5 1 8 10 5 6 8 5 5 5 9 Individual evaluator totals: 100 68 851 63 801 951 78 791 931 60 521 931 99 Combined averaged totals for each consulting firm: 43.2 50.6 46.4 48.8 FINAL RANKING: 4 1 3 2 Presentation of Fees as stated in proposal documents Phase 1: Establish Labor Compliance Program $4,800 nte* $4,420 nte* $10,500 nte* $5,000 nte* Phase 2: Conduct program,ongoing monitoring/reporting monitoring/reporting $4,000 per month $37,730 $1,500 per week $32,000 Other Misc. Fees, Reports, Reimburseables $5,000 $1,700 not provided $3,000 Hourly Rates $90-$145 per hour $55-$160 per hour $125-$185 per hour $75 per hour Proposed Total Fees $89,800 anticipated $43,850 nte* not provided $40,000 nte* nte* Not to Exceed ITEM NO.: 11a MEETING DATE: March 5, 2014 Cil.J vJ Ukiah AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT ■ CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO REVISE THE BOUNDARIES AND TIMELINE OF UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO. 2- PERKINS STREET FROM STATE STREET TO POMEROY AND ADOPT RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION 90-1 (EUD) Background: On July 5,1989, Council passed and adopted Resolution No. 90-1 creating an underground district along Perkins Street from State Street to Pomeroy. Resolution 90-1 is attached as Attachment 1. The Underground District was created in accordance with Ukiah City Code Sections 3800-3841. With the establishment of the Underground District, the utility companies are required to remove or underground overhead facilities including wires, poles and other associated equipment within a specified time schedule. The original schedule specified by Resolution 90-1 to underground the overhead facilities has since expired. A significant amount of work was completed installing conduit, vaults and conductor without significant overhead facilities being removed. In 2010 the Electric Utility began utilizing a larger portion of the District's unused but installed underground conductor. This was done to improve the electric system reliability that serves downtown Ukiah, the Hospital and surrounding medical facilities. Additional work is needed to fully utilize the installed facilities. Today the Electric Utility is operating and maintaining overhead and underground facilities along Perkins Street. Other utilities have installed conduit and vaults but little or no underground cabling is utilized. Discussion: The District formed by Resolution 90-1 obligated the property owner to pay the costs for undergrounding services to the property's service equipment as determined by the utility. The revised Resolution, Attachment 4, clarifies that the utilities will provide up to the first 100 feet of service. This significantly reduces or eliminates the property owner's cost to install their underground service. Staff is recommending the approval of revised boundaries and timeline. The updated boundaries will insure lower cost, consistent undergrounding of overhead facilities while meeting the directive to remove Continued on Page 2 • RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Approval of revised boundaries and timeline. • ALTERNATIVES: Direction from Council Citizens advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Mel Grandi, Electric Utility Director Coordinated with: Jane Chambers, City Manager, David Rapport, City Attorney Attachments: 1) Resolution 90-1 and Exhibit 2) Revised Boundary Description (Exhibit 2) and Map 3) Revised Timeline 4) Resolution COUNCIL ACTION DATE: : ❑ Approved ❑ Continued to ❑ Other RECORDS APPROVED: ❑ Agreement: ❑ Resolution: ❑ Ordinance: r' Approved: ,�696'Chambers, City Manager Page 2 of 2 overhead utilities from Perkins Street. The revised timeline will help insure a coordinated effort between the City and all utilities to remove the overhead wires and poles. FISCAL IMPACT: Budgeted Amount New Appropriation g Source of Funds Account Number Budget Amendment in Current FY Required Title & No. Yes ❑ No ❑ Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NO. 90-1 11, — RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 2 UKIAH DESIGNATING UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO. 2 3 PERKINS STREET - STATE STREET TO POMEROY 4 WHEREAS, a public hearing was called for July 5, 1989 at the hour of 5, 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the same may be heard in the Council 6i� Chambers, City Hall, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California, to ascertain 7 whether the public necessity, health, safety or welfare requires the 8 removal of poles, overhead wires and associate overhead structures and the 9 underground installation of wires and facilities for supplying electric, 10 communication or similar or associated service within that certain area of 11 the City described in the attached Exhibit "A", and 12 WHEREAS, notice of such hearing has been given to all affected 13 property owners as shown on the last equalized assessment roll and 14 utilities concerned in the manner and for the time required by law; and 15 WHEREAS, such hearing has been duly and regularly held and all 16 persons interested have been given an opportunity to be heard; 17 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Ukiah 18 hereby finds and determines that the undergrounding to be accomplished 19 will avoid or eliminate an unusually heavy concentration of overhead 20 distribution facilities, that the streets, roads or right of way in the 21 district are extensively used by the general public and carry a heavy 22 volume of pedestrian and vehicular traffic; that said streets, roads or 23 rights of way adjoin or pass through a civic area; and that the public 24 necessity, health, safety and welfare require the removal of poles, 25 overhead wires and associated structures, and the underground installation 26 of wires and facilities for supplying electric, communication, or similar 27 or associated service in Underground District No. 2, Perkins Street - 28 1 State Street to Pomeroy Avenue, as described in the attached Exhibit "A", 2 and is hereby established as Underground District No. 2, Perkins Street - 3 State Street to Pomeroy Avenue. 4 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the removal and undergrounding of 5 electrical facilities as herein provided shall apply to all of the 6 district known as Underground District No. 2, Perkins Street - State 7I Street to Pomeroy Avenue, as more particularly described in the attached 81 Exhibit "A". 9i' IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that all poles, overhead wires and associated 10'j' overhead structures shall be removed and underground installation made in 11:,' said underground utility district within the following times: 121 13 a) Underground installation of utility companies and property 14 owners and reconnections as the uses change or rezoning occurs. 15 b) Removal of poles, overhead wires and other associated overhead structures not later than August 1, 1990. 16 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk, within ten days after 17 adoption of this resolution, shall mail a copy hereof and a copy of 18 Ordinance No. 608 to affected property owners as such are shown on the 19 last equalized roll and to the affected utilities. 20 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of July 1989, by the 21 following roll call vote: 22 AYES: Councilmembers Wattenburger, Shoemaker, Hickey and Vice-Mayor 23 Schneiter NOES: None 24 ABSENT: Mayor Henderson 25 26 27 ATTES Vice-Mayor 28 y erk Resl 2 EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF UKIAH UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO. 2 BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION PERKINS STREET - STATE STREET TO POMEROY Beginning at the intersection of the Westerly right-of-way line of Main Street with the Northerly right-of-way line of Church Street; thence Westerly along the Northerly right-of-way line of Church Street to its intersection with the Easterly right-of-way line of State Street; thence Northerly along the Easterly right-of-way line of State Street to a point 40 feet Northerly from the Northerly right-of-way line of Perkins Street; thence Easterly, parallel with the Northerly right-of-way line of Perkins Street to a point in the Easterly right-of-way line of Main Street; thence Northerly along the Easterly right-of-way line of Perkins Street to the Southerly right-of-way line of Standley Street; thence Easterly along the Southerly right-of-way line of Standley Street to a point in the Easterly right-of-way line of Mason Street; thence Northerly along the Easterly right-of-way line of Mason Street to the Southwest corner of that certain parcel deeded to Daniel E. McCurry and Nellie McCurry, on December 3, 1970 in Official Records of Mendocino County, Book 833, Page 165; thence Easterly along the Southerly line of said parcel, 73.13 feet to the Westerly right-of-way line of the Northwestern Pacific Railroad; thence Southerly along said Westerly right-of-way line to a point 100 feet Northerly from the Northerly right-of-way line of Perkins Street; thence Easterly parallel to the Northerly right-of-way line of Perkins Street to a point in the Easterly right-of-way line of the Northwestern Pacific Railroad; thence Northerly along said Easterly right-of-way line to the Southwest corner of that Parcel Map filed June 28, 1978 in Map Case 2, Drawer 32, Page 77, Mendocino County Records; thence Easterly along the Southerly line of said Parcel Map and the Easterly extension of said Southerly line to its intersection with the Easterly right-of-way line of Orchard Avenue; thence Southerly along the Easterly right-of-way line of Orchard Avenue to the Northwest corner of that parcel created by that Parcel Map filed August 31, 1972, in Map Case 2, Drawer 18, Page 61, Mendocino County Records; thence Easterly along the Northerly line of said Parcel Map to the Westerly right-of-way line of U.S. Highway 101; thence Southerly along the Westerly right-of-way line of U.S. Highway 101 to the Northerly right-of-way line of Perkins Street; thence Southerly crossing Perkins Street to the Northeast corner of that Record of Survey Map filed October 3, 1986 in Map Case 2, Drawer 45, Page 2, Mendocino County Records; thence Southerly along the Easterly line of said Map to the Southeast corner thereof; thence Westerly along the Southerly line of said Map to the Easterly right-of-way line of Orchard Avenue; thence Northwesterly crossing Orchard Avenue to the Southeast corner of Parcel A, as created by that Parcel Map filed May 8, 1987 in Map Case 2, Drawer 45, Page 68, Mendocino County Records; thence Westerly along the Southerly line of said Parcel A to a point on the Easterly line of Lot 7, as shown on that Subdivision Map entitled Orchard Village Addition No. 1, filed August 13, 1954, in Map Case 1, Drawer 9, Page 172, Mendocino County Records; thence Southerly along said Easterly line to the Southeast corner of Lot 7; thence Westerly along the Southerly line of Lot 7 to the Southwest corner of Lot 7; thence Northerly along the Westerly line of Lot 7 to a point 100 feet Southerly from the Southerly right-of-way line of Perkins Street; thence Westerly, parallel with the Southerly right-of-way line of Perkins Street and crossing Warren Drive and Leslie Street to a point in the Easterly property line of that certain parcel deeded to the Cloverdale and Ukiah Railroad Company (Northwestern Pacific Railroad Company) on April 14, 1988 in Official Records of Mendocino County, Deed Book 43, Page 42; thence Southerly along said Easterly property line to a point 550 feet Southerly from the Southerly right-of-way line of Perkins Street; thence Westerly, parallel with the Southern right-of-way line of Perkins Street to a point 70 feet Easterly from the Westerly property line of said parcel; thence Northerly, parallel with the Westerly property line of said parcel to a point 100 feet Southerly from the Southerly right-of-way line of Perkins Street; thence Westerly, parallel with the Southerly right-of-way line of Perkins Street to a point in the Easterly right-of-way line of Main Street; thence Southerly along the Easterly right-of-way line of Main Street, 40 feet; thence Westerly crossing Main Street, at right angles to a point in the Westerly right-of-way of Main Street; thence Southerly along the Westerly right-of-way of Main Street to the point of beginning. ELEC4 2 f RRIS 2 HOSPI TA - DRI VF W W Q � N W it O n v I� cc ST riLL w x'� o �I f/ SL 0, �- y — 3 a W \ ST. N PEACH F Y STREET L' 0 AV =(T7- =- _ CITY OF UKIAH CLEVELAND L,, – T --- PCrfE/ins S�reef-S�`dfe SfreE-� �o �'sercy%1ve dl GATE Y�✓T —_ SHUT Iq1? /vy/C� � xa W._- _..- ✓/.,/j/cT.tun/LU�(/G oaAr.a Attachment 2 EXHIBIT 112"' CITY OF UKIAH UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO. 2 BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION PERKINS STREET- STATE STREET TO POMEROY Beginning at the intersection of the Easterly right-of-way line of State Street to its intersection of 40 feet North of the Northerly right-of-way line of Perkins Street; thence Easterly, parallel with the Northerly right-of-way line of Perkins Street to the intersection in the Westerly right-of-way line of U.S. Highway 101; thence Southerly to 40 feet South of the Southerly right-of-way line of Perkins Street to the intersection of the Westerly right-of-way line of Pomeroy Street; thence Wester) parallel with the Souther) right-of-way line of Perkins Street to th Y. p Y g Y e intersection of the Easterly right-of-way line of State Street; thence Northerly, to the point of beginning. A a U O 40 a E E YEEK�S ST ::...,' .a'"'� a e ,°moo ,ro,a 3 mom"'° � `�'"'• o es� ",swcst•r .. o'­,,,, LOCATION PERKINS STREET-STATE ST TO ORCHARD AVE WO NO CITY OF UKIAH 10 GRID NO ELECTRIC DESCRIPTION PREKINS STREET UNDERGROUND DISTRICT#2 SCALE NO SCALE UTILITY PROPOSED BOUNDARY AS BUILT DEPARTMENT DRAWN BY-AM-S- CHECKED BY APPROVED BY DATE 12FEB2014 Attachment 3 PERKINS STREET OVERHEAD TO UNDERGROUND CONVERSION PROPOSED TIMELINE Summer 2014 Project Design and Easement Procurement Fall 2014 City Council Award Bid Winter 2014 Underground Utility Construction Spring 2015 Ukiah Electric Utility Department install underground facilities. Summer 2015 Ukiah Electric Utility Department to remove overhead facilities. Summer 2015 AT&T and Comcast install underground facilities. Winter 2015 AT&T to remove poles. Attachment 4 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 90-1 TO REVISE THE BOUNDARIES AND OTHER PROVISIONS OF UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO. 2- PERKINS STREET FROM STATE STREET TO POMEROY WHEREAS, 1. On July 5, 1989, by Resolution No. 90-1, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1, the City Council established Underground District No. 2 in accordance with Ukiah City Code ("UCC") Sections 3800-3841; and 2. Underground District No. 2 encompasses both sides of Perkins Street between State Street and Pomeroy, as more fully described in Exhibit A to Resolution No. 90-1; and 3. Under UCC Sections 3811 and 3820, when the City Council establishes an underground district, it must fix the time within which the removal of poles, overhead wires and associated overhead structures and the underground installation of these facilities shall be completed and within which affected property owners must be ready to receive underground service; and 4. The time required by Resolution No. 90-1 for undergrounding overhead facilities in Underground District No. 2 has long since expired; and 5. Resolution No. 90-1 required utility companies and property owners to underground their facilities only when the use of their property changes or rezoning occurs; and 6. The City Council has determined that the boundaries of the District should be modified and the schedule for undergrounding overhead facilities within the district revised; and 7. A public hearing before the City Council was called for March 5, 2014, at 6:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter could be heard in the City Council chambers at 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, to consider proposed amendments to Resolution No. 90-1, including revision to the boundaries of Underground District No. 2 and the schedule for completing the undergrounding of overhead facilities and to the obligations of utilities and property owners within the District, and whether the public necessity, health, safety or welfare continues to require the removal of poles, overhead wires and associated overhead structures and the underground installation of wires and facilities for supplying electric, communication or similar or associated service within the revised boundaries, as depicted and described in the attached Exhibit 2; and 8. At least ten (10) days prior to the scheduled hearing, notice of such hearing has been given to all affected property owners as shown on the last equalized assessment roll and all affected utilities in the manner and for the time required by law; and 9. Such hearing has been duly and regularly held and all persons interested have been given an opportunity to be heard. 1 Attachment 4 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The City Council finds that: a. Perkins Street has been designated as a primary gateway into the City, is the most direct access from U.S. Highway 101 to the historic downtown business district, and accordingly passes through a civic area of unique scenic interest to the general public; b. The undergrounding to be accomplished will avoid or eliminate an unusually heavy concentration of overhead distribution facilities; c. Perkins Street is extensively used by the general public and carries a heavy volume of pedestrian or vehicular traffic; and d. The public necessity, health, safety and welfare require the removal of poles, overhead wires and associated overhead structures and the underground installation of wires and facilities for supplying electric, communication or similar or associated service within the revised boundaries of Underground District No. 2, as described in the attached Exhibit 2. 2. Based on the foregoing findings: i a. The removal and undergrounding of electrical facilities as herein provided shall apply to all of the revised District No. 2, as described in Exhibit 2. b. All poles, overhead wires and associated overhead structures shall be removed and underground installation made in Underground District No. 2 within the following times and in the following manner: (1) Underground installation by the utility companies, including the City of Ukiah Electric Department, AT&T and Comcast shall be completed by December 31, 2015; (2) Said utilities shall share equally the costs associated with undergrounding their facilities within the public right of way, including, but not limited to, the costs of removing poles and overhead wires and related facilities, furnishing and installing conduits, conductors and associated equipment, and of trenching, compacting, backfilling, and paving over said facilities; (3) With permission of the property owner, the City Electric Department and the other utilities furnishing service to the property, including AT&T and Comcast, at the expense of the utilities, will install up to 100 feet of underground service lines and related equipment from the public right-of-way for Perkins Street to the service equipment on the property. If the property owner does not consent in a form and within the time satisfactory to the Director of the Electric Department or his or her designee, the property owner shall install those facilities at his or her expense in compliance with specifications adopted by the Electric Department by no later than July 1, 2015. i 2 Attachment 4 3. By no later than 10 days after the adoption of this Resolution, the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution and a copy of Ukiah City Code Sections 3800-3855 to affected property owners as shown on the last equalized assessment role and to affect utilities. PASSED AND ADOPTED on March 5, 2014, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Mayor Philip E. Baldwin ATTEST: Kristine Lawler, City Clerk 3 Attachment 4 EXHIBIT "2" CITY OF UKIAH UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO. 2 BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION PERKINS STREET—STATE STREET TO POMEROY Beginning at the intersection of the Easterly right-of-way line of State Street to its intersection of 40 feet North of the Northerly right-of-way line of Perkins Street; thence Easterly, parallel with the Northerly right-of-way line of Perkins Street to the intersection in the Westerly right-of-way line of U.S. Highway 101; thence Southerly to 40 feet South of the Southerly right-of-way line of Perkins Street to the intersection of the Westerly right-of-way line of Pomeroy Street; thence Westerly, parallel with the Southerly right-of-way line of Perkins Street to the intersection of the Easterly right-of-way line of State Street; thence Northerly, to the point of beginning. i 3 4 11b TE: March 5, 2014 C'icy nl'TIkiali AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF THE COSTCO WAREHOUSE AND FUELING STATION SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (SDP) Summary: On January 22, 2014, the Planning Commission Voted (4-1) to approve the Costco Warehouse and Fueling Station site development permit (SDP). On February 3, 2014, a timely appeal of Planning Commission's decision was filed by Jeffrey Blankfort, Pinky Kushner, Mary Anne Miller, and Dennis Slota (attachment 1). After the filing of the appeal, the appellants submitted a request for additional specific conditions of approval (attachment 2), and Mr. Slota submitted additional lighting information (attachment 3). The Project Proponent submitted a response to the appeal (attachment 4), The appeal was scheduled for the first available City Council meeting. The purpose of this item is to conduct a public hearing and for the City Council to determine if the appeal should be upheld (overturning Planning Commission's decision), denied (upholding Planning Commission's decision), or if the decision of the Planning Commission should be modified. (See Ukiah City Code §9256: "At the close of the public hearing, the City Council may affirm, reverse, or modify the appealed decision of the Planning Commission,') Background: In 2011, an application was submitted by David Babcock and Associates on behalf of Costco requesting City Council approval of a rezoning, Planning Commission approval of a Site Development Permit, and administrative approval of reconfiguration and consolidation of all or parts of Continued on Page 2 ■ RecomMEtaoeo ACTION((): Agree with the Planning Commission approval of the Site Development Permit, but uphold the appeal in part by adding four new conditions of approval. ■ ALTERNATIVES: 1) Uphold the Appeal, thereby Overturning Planning Commission's approval of the Site Development Permit; or 2) Other Action as determined by City Council Citizens advised: Persons on the Costco interested 'Parties List, Property Owners within the Airport Industrial Park Planned Development or within 300 feet of the Costco Project Site; Adjacent Tenants; Posted on the Project Site; and Published in the Ukiah Daily Journal Requested by: Charley Stump, Planning and Community Development Director and Kim Jordan, Senior Planner Prepared by: Kim Jordan, Senior Planner Coordinated with: Charley Stump, Planning & Community Development Director, Jane Chambers, City Manager, and David Rapport, City Attorney Attachments: 1. Appeal Letter(Blankfort, Kushner, Miller, and Slota) date stamped 21312014 2. Appellants Request for Additional Conditions of Approval 3. Additional Lighting Information Provided by Appellants (Dennis Slota) 4. Project Proponent Response to Appeal Items 5. Memos from Building Official dated 215!2014 and 118/2014 6. Public Comment 7. Planning Commission 1/22/2014 Site Development Permit Staff Report(without attachments) 8. Site Development Permit Conditions of Approval 0. Planning Commission 1/22/2014 Meeting Transcript 10. Plannin2 Commission approved plans dated Janua 15, 2014 COUNCIL ACTION DATE. : ❑ Approved ❑ Continued to ❑ Other RECORDS APPROVED-. ❑ Agreement: L) Resolution: ❑ Ordinance: Approved: /1 e Chambers, City Manager Page 2 of 26 the parcels comprising the Costco Project ("Project") site to allow the construction and operation of a membership based Costco Warehouse store and fuel station on the eastside of Airport Park Boulevard south of Ken Fowler Auto Center, The Project required the preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR). On November 21, 2013, Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider certiflcation of the Final EIR. At the November 21" meeting, the Planning Commission voted 4-1 to recommend the City Council certify the Costco Wholesale EIR, At the November 215` meeting, the Planning Commission also conducted a public hearing to consider the CEQA findings of fact and statement of overriding considerations and rezoning and voted 4-1 to recommend the City Council adopt the findings and statement of overriding consideration and approve the request to rezone the Costco Project site to Retail Commercial. On December 18, 2013, the City Council completed its consideration of the EIR and voted 4-0 to certify the EIR. At the December 18`h meeting, the City Council also conducted a public hearing to consider Planning Commission's recommendation to adopt the CEQA findings and a statement of overriding consideration to approve the request to rezone the Costco Project site to Retail Commercial. The City Council voted 4-0 to adopt Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Project and to introduce an ordinance to rezone the site to Retail Commercial (Resolution 201.3-35 and Ordinance 1146) On January 15, 2014, the City Council adopted Ordinance 1146 rezoning the Costco Project site to Retail Commercial, Discussion: The appeal states that it "seeks to modify the project, not reject it. It seeks to convey to Costco that the project as proposed can be improved to benefit the greater good." The appeal further states that the "goal of this appeal is to reduce the environmental harm that such a large project will have. ... We believe that such a reduction in impacts is worth requesting because there should be a balance between what Costco has proposed and what is best for Ukiah and its setting in the Ukiah Valley. " The appeal goes on to identify 21 acts or omissions of the Planning Commission in approving the Site Development Permit, Each of the appeal items is provided below in bold text. The Project Proponent has provided a response to some of the appeal items. The responses provided by the Project Proponent are identified as "Applicant Response" and provided in italics text below the appeal item to which it responds. The Project Proponent has agreed to modify the project in response to several of the appeal items, including revising the landscaping plan to include more native species, directing downspouts to landscaping on the north and west sides of the building, and shrubs along the south property line, addressing proper pruning of trees, and locating construction staging away from the wetlands (see items 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 below). Staff has provided a response to each item raised in the appeal, The responses from staff are identified as"Staff Response" and provided in plain text. 1. Failure to give adequate consideration, or even to discuss, the environmentally superior alternative (No Gas Station) as required by CEQA. Applicant Response: This alternative dries not meet the project objectives stated in the Project Description. Staff Response: This alternative was previously considered and determined by the City Council to be infeasible as part of the CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted by the City Council on December 18, 2013. (City Council Resolution 2013-35, p. 13) This Page 3 of 26 alternative was estimated to eliminate 492 p.m. peals hour vehicle trips which would not substantially reduce vehicle trips to the Project site, since most trips to the site are finked trips in which the member purchases gas and shops at the warehouse. • The draft EIR analyzed a Reduced Project Size Alternative (No Gas Station); therefore, the assertion that the City failed to discuss a no-gas station alternative is not true. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-6 to 5-11.) The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the Draft EIR on November 21, 2013 and reviewed the entire Draft EIR, including the alternatives included in the Draft EIR. (Final EIR, p. 2-389). The City Council received public comment on the Final EIR at the December 4, 2013 public hearing. This alternative was raised as the preferred Project during public comment and was also included in the comments received on the Final EIR and was responded to in the Final EIR which was considered by City Council at the meeting. (Final EIR, p. 3-154). • The Draft EIR analyzed a Reduced Project Size Alternative (No Gas Station); therefore, the assertion that the City failed to discuss a no-gas station alternative is not true. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-6 to 5-11.) The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the Draft EIR on November 21, 2013 and reviewed the entire Draft EIR, including the alternatives included in the Draft EIR, (Final EIR, p. 2-389). The City Council received public comment on the Final EIR at the December 4, 2013 public hearing. This alternative was raised as the preferred Project during public comment and was also included in the comments received on the Final EIR and was responded to in the Final EIR which was considered by City Council at the meeting. (Final EIR, p. 3-154). • This alternative was determined to be infeasible (January 22, 2014 Planning Commission transcript pp. 200-202). Michael Gkuma of Costco also explained that Costco's standard business model for its stores now includes a gas station. The No Gas Station Alternative did not reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts (Air Quality, Global Climate Change, Transportation and Traffic) to less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-6 to 5-11). The significant and unavoidable impacts identified for the Project as a whole would remain significant and unavoidable even if the gas station were removed from the Project plans. • At the January 22, 2414 Planning Commission public hearing, several members of the public recommended the Planning Commission consider the No Gas Station Alternative (Planning Commission transcript, pp. 106-112). The Planning Commission noted that as part of the discussion at the City Council Costco had stated for the record that they no longer build Costco stores without a fuel station and City Council was comfortable with the EIR and the proposed design. (Planning Commission transcript, p. 200) The Planning Commission then asked the applicant to explain how the proposed site plan was developed and asked questions of the Project design team. (Planning Commission transcript, p. 200-221) Based on the explanation of the development of the site plan and the responses to the inquiries from the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission did not require the fuel station to be removed from the Project. (Planning Commission transcript, p. 221) • The City's CEQA Final EIR and Findings of Fact concluded the Gas Station Alternative wouldn't reduce any of the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts. Therefore, in addition to the fact that stores without gas stations are not considered by Costco to be a viable business model, there is no compelling reason under CEQA or any other law to require that the gas station component be removed from the Project.. Page 4 of 26 2. Failure to act consistently and apply the same limitations on this Costco big box retail store that were exacted from Walmart two years ago. Applicant Response: The City response should distinguish Costco from Walmart project in those aspects that Walmart was inconsistent with the General Plan. Staff Response: A discussion of the EIRs prepared for the Walmart Expansion Project and the Costco Project is provided below along with the entitlement process and outcomes for each project. Walmart Expansion Project EIR The Walmart Expansion Project EIR included mitigation measures for Aesthetics (light and glare), Air Quality, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Transportation and Traffic (bike, pedestrian and public transit), and Biological Resources that would reduce the potentially significant impacts identified in the FIR to less than significant, The FIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts to Transportation and Traffic (queuing and level of service) that could not be mitigated to less than significant (see Statement of Overriding Considerations below). Wa[mart Expansion_Project Site Development Permit The Planning Commission denied Walmart's request for approval of a site development permit to allow the expansion of the store fading that: A. The Walmart Project was not consistent the General Plan Goal ED-1 to Support a strong local economy since: 1) the Ukiah area is already served by existing conventional, discount, ethnic, and specialty grocery stores; 2) the Project may result in the closure of up to three grocery stores; 3) the differences in the wages and benefits provided by Walmart and the grocery stores that may close as a result of the Project would result is a loss of income for area residents and less money available to be spent in the local economy, resulting in less tax revenue to the City and money circulating in the local economy; 4) the Project would generate $53,615, including Measure S revenue, in additional revenue to the City which may result in a negative or neutral impact on General Fund revenue when considering the cost of providing city services to the Project; S) the Project could require additional calls for Police and Fire service which could eliminate any net increase in revenue to the General Fund; and 6) an increase in calls for police services could negatively impact police services and increase the cost of providing police services (Planning Commission Resolution 2012-01, pp. 2-4). B. The Walmart Project was not consistent with the Airport Industrial Park Planned Development requirement to provide 20% landscape coverage of the parcel and a modification to this requirement could not be granted since: 1) the project parcel is one of the largest parcels within the AIP PD; 2) the project could be revised to comply with the requirement; 3) the project is located on US 101 (a City gateway) and at a prominent intersection and the increased development of the site results in an intensity of development that requires adequate landscaping to create an attractive project and to provide adequate screening; 4) the purpose of landscaping is to address aesthetics; 5) Grasspave2 cannot be counted as landscaping since groundcovers, shrubs, and trees are preferred since they provide more visual interest and a more attractive environment and it may not withstand the regular parking of vehicles, maintenance may be an issue and the inability to delineate parking spaces. (Planning Commission Resolution 2012-01, pp, 4-6). Page 5 of 26 Since the Walmart Expansion Project was denied by the Planning Commission and not appealed to the City Council, no conditions of approval were developed for the project and nothing was "exacted"from the project. Walmart Expansion Project Statement of Overriding Considerations The Planning Commission found that the benefits of the Walmart Expansion Project did not outweigh the significant and unavoidable environmental (traffic) impacts based on the following: 1) the project could result in reduced employment opportunities due to the potential closure of three grocery stores; 2) the project could result in the loss of job diversity through the loss of a variety of job types at the grocery stores that could close with retail jobs at Walmart; 3) the project could result in a loss of shopping diversity by adding additional grocery sales which is already well served in the Ukiah area and market area by existing grocery stores and by potentially reducing the general merchandise sold at Walmart by replacing some of these items with grocery items; 4) the project could result in lower paying jobs with fewer benefits; 5) the project would not generate revenue adequate for funding City services required for the project; 6) the project would result in the diversion of sales from existing stores with the Ukiah market area rather than in the expansion of sales within the Ukiah market area; 7) the project would not contribute adequate existing additional funds for infrastructure improvements; 8) the City has existing 24 hour shopping opportunities; 9) the project could result in the loss of a full service grocery store within walking distance of a lower income neighborhood. (Planning Commission Resolution 2012-01, pp. 4-6) Costco Wholesale Project EIR The Costco Wholesale Project EIR identified the potential for the Project to result in significant impacts to Aesthetics (light and glare), Air quality (project construction), Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, and Transportation and Traffic (bike, pedestrian and public transit), and identified mitigation measures that would reduce these impacts to less than significant. (FEIR, pp. ES-3 to ES-13) The EIR also identified the potential for the Project to result in significant and unavoidable impacts to Air quality (project operation), Global Climate Change (project operation), and Transportation and Traffic (queuing and level of service). The EIR included mitigation measures that would reduce these impacts categories of impact; however, the impacts could not be reduced to less than significant. (FEIR, pp. ES-3 to E5-13) The Project Proponent is obligated to comply with the mitigation measures included as conditions of approval for the Rezoning (approved by City Council Ordinance 1146) and the Site Development Permit (approved by Planning Commission). Costco Warehouse and Fuel Station Project Site Development Permit The Planning Commission approved Costco's request for approval of a site development permit determining that the Project was consistent with the findings required for approval of a site development permit (Planning Commission Site Development Permit Staff Report attachment 1: Findings), including: A. The Costco Project was consistent with General Plan Goal ED-1 to Support a strong local economy finding that the Costco Project would: 1) further develop the Airport Industrial Park Planned Development; 2) recapture retail sales leakage; 3) enhance retail opportunities within the City of Ukiah; 4) locate local and regional serving retail within an existing commercial area in the City of Ukiah; 5) provide an opportunity for residents of the City of Ukiah and greater Page 6 of 26 Ukiah Valley to shop locally; b} create employment opportunities within the City; 7) create above minimum wage jobs with benefits within the City; 8) provide certainty as to the number and types of jabs created with the development of the project site; 9) generate tax revenue for the City allowing the City to fund needed services; and 10) generate additional revenue for Mendocino County, local school districts, and other special districts. (Planning Commission 1/22/2014 Costco Site Development Permit Staff Report, pp. 13-14 and City Council Resolution 2013-35, pp. 14-18) B. The Costco Project was consistent with the AIP PD requirements, including the requirement to provide a minimum of 20% landscape coverage of the parcel. (attachment 7, Planning Commission 1/22/2014 Costco Site Development Permit Staff Report, p. 40 and attachment 10, Costco Approved Site Development Project Plans dated January 15, 2014, sheet 22) Costco Warehouse and Fueling Station Project Statement of Overriding Considerations The City Council adopted Resolution 2013-35 making a Statement of Overriding Considerations that the benefits of the Costco Project outweighed the potential significant and unavoidable environmental (air quality, global climate change, and transportation and traffic) impacts of the Project. The Planning Commission relied on the Statement of Overriding Considerations made by the City Council as the appropriate statement of overriding considerations for the site development permit. The findings for the statement of overriding considerations included: 1) furthering the development of the Airport Industrial Park Planned Development; 2) recapturing retail sales leakage; 3) enhancing retail opportunities within the City of Ukiah; 4) locating local and regional serving retail within an existing commercial area in the City of Ukiah; 5) providing an opportunity for residents of the City of Ukiah and greater Ukiah Valley to shop locally; G) helping to fulfill the City's role as a regional retail center and reducing the number of vehicle trips to retail centers in Sonoma County and thereby reducing regional air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions; 7) creating employment opportunities within the City of Ukiah; 8) creating above minimum wage jobs with benefits within the City of Ukiah; 9) providing certainty as to the number and types of jobs that would be created with development of the project site; 10) generating tax revenue for the City of Ukiah allowing the City to fund needed services; 11) generating additional revenue for Mendocino County, local school districts, and other special districts; 12) contributing funds to needed infrastructure improvements; 13) improving pedestrian circulation and expanding the use of public transit; and 14) using energy conserving measures in building construction and operation. (City Council Resolution 2013-35, pp. 14-18 and attachment 9, 1/22/2014 Planning Commission meeting transcript, pp. 293-294) 3. Stated support for future big-box franchise stores despite lack of study in the EIR of cumulative impacts from additional stores. Applicant Response: No response provided. Staff Response: • There have been no applications received for any other "big box" franchise stores and the Walmart Site Development Permit (the only other "big box" store) was denied (see above), so there were no other reasonably foreseeable similar projects to be considered as part of the Costco EIR analysis. • The Costco Wholesale Project EIR analyzed the potential for the Project to result in impacts to Aesthetics, Air Quality, Urban Decay, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Page 7 of 26 Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Public Services and Utilities, Transportation and Traffic, Global Climate Changes, Biological Resources, Population and Housing, and Cultural Resources. The cumulative impacts for each environmental topic analyzed in the EIR are included as the last area of analysis in the specific environmental topic analyzed. (DEIR Aesthetics, pp. 3.1-11; Air Quality, pp. 3.2-16 and 17; Urban Decay pp. 3.3- 20 to 3.3-22; Geology and Soils, p. 3.4-15; hazards and Hazardous Materials, p. 3.5-16; Hydrology and Water Quality, pp. 3.6-21 and 22; Land Use and Planning, pp. 3.7-12 and 13; Noise, pp. 3.8-21 and 22; Public Services and Utilities, p. 3.9-15; Transportation and Traffic, pp. 3.10-29 to 3.10-38; Biological Resources, p. 3.12-13; Population and Housing, p. 3.13-5; Cultural Resources, p.3.14-11 and 12) 4 Consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15130, the Draft EIR used a list approach to evaluate the reasonably foreseeable projects that would contribute to cumulative impacts (DEIR, pp. 4- 2 to 4-4). The potential for the Project to result in a cumulative impact was analyzed in the section for each individual environmental topic as described above. In addition, the significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts were summarized in section 4.3: Significant and Unavoidable Impacts (DEIR pp. 4-4 to 4-5). Any future "big box" franchise would be required to obtain approval by the City as required by the AIP PD Ordinance and/or the zoning ordinance and would be subject to its own discretionary project and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It is unclear what "support" was stated as part of the Project public hearing process. The Project is limited to the rezoning and development (Site Development Permit) of the Costco Project site as shown on the Project plans. (attachment 10, Project plans dated January 15, 2014) Appellants do not identify any specific statements by staff, the Planning Commission or City Council members indicating the alleged "support"for any as-yet unreceived applications for future big box stores. 4. Failure to align the start of construction of the stare with the completion of the transportation improvements anticipated on Talmage and thus allowing the store to be entirely built before the transportation and access improvements are in place and ready for use. Applicant Response. The impacts of construction traffic do not require the roadway improvements; those are required to support the traffic generated by the trips of persons shopping at the Costco site. If Costco should choose to start construction before the roadway improvements are complete, it beats the risk that it naay have to wait to open until they are complete, but it may not open until then and there will be no significant traffic impacts from the built but dark Costco project. Staff Response: The EIR included Traffic and Transportation mitigation measure 3.10.1 which was adopted as a mitigation measure as part of City Council Resolution 2013-35 (Exhibit A, mitigation measure 3.10.1) and as a condition of approval of rezoning Ordinance 1146 (p. 5, condition 10), and as a condition of approval of the Site Development Permit approved by the Planning Commission (condition 96). This mitigation measure/condition of approval requires traffic mitigation measures to be completed before Costco is issued a certificate of occupancy. Page 8 of 28 • Changing the timing of this mitigation measure to prohibit construction of the project before completion of the interchange would be inconsistent with this adopted mitigation, and moreover, appellants have provided no substantial evidence justifying the requested change to the mitigation, There is no evidence in the record indicating that allowing construction, but not opening and operation, of the project to proceed prior to completion of the interchange could result in any unmitigated significant impacts occurring. • The agreement between the City and Costco requires the financing for the constrLiCtion of the traffic improvements to be approved by Costco and the plans and specifications to be approved by Caltrans before Costco purchases the property. The City and Costco have agreed to a Schedule of Performance that requires the traffic improvements to be completed before the store opens. 5. Failure to protect the threatened wetlands. Applicant Response: There has been sufficient evidence prodded as part of the record (EIR, Rezoning, and Site Development Permit) that the wetlands are protected. Refer to Project plans, applicant presentation, Gas Station information submitted JVovernher 2013, transcript. Staff Response: ■ The EIR analyzed the potential for the Project to result in impacts to hydrology and water quality. The EIR included mitigation measures that would reduce any impacts to hydrology and water quality to less than significant levels, (DEIR, Hydrology and Water Quality, pp. 3,6- 1 to 3.6-23) In response to the comments received on the Draft EIR, the Final EIR included a Master Drainage Response that addressed hydrology and water quality, including the water quality measures related to the gas station, Preliminary Drainage flan (Appendix 8), and Hydrology and Hydraulics Study (Appendix C). (Final EIR, pp. 3-14 to 3-18) In addition, the Project is required to obtain approval from the Water Board for modifications to the existing outfalls and construction of a new outfall on the parcel located to the south of the Project site. Review and permitting from other agencies may also be required for work on the existing outfalls and construction of a new outfall. • There are no wetlands on the Project site and the Project would not fill any offsite wetlands. No evidence has been provided that the Project would damage the wetlands. In response to public comment on the potential for the gas station to damage the wetlands, the Project Proponent submitted information about the safety measures included in the design of the gas station, the permits required for the gas station, and information on the design and construction of the fuel tanks. (Costco Wholesale Fuel Facility Information date stamped 11/25/2013) The Project plans approved by the Planning Commission include a Concept Gas Plan (sheet 7) and Fuel Facility Safety sheet (sheet 7.2) (attachment 10). The Fuel Facility Safety sheet identifies many of the safety features for the gas station, the code requirements to which the facility is subject, the permitting/reviewing agencies, and distance between the gas station and the wetlands. The Project plans and conditions of approval for the Project require runoff from the site to be treated prior to being released offsite and include conditions of approval to protect water quality, (attachment 10, Planning Commission approved plans, sheet C2 and attachment 8 Site Development Permit, Planning Commission condition of approval 19H, Public Works conditions of approval 43-47) The Project is also subject to review and permitting by the Page 9 of 26 North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board and conditions of approval were applied to the Site Development Permit requiring the Project to obtain all required permits and approvals from the Regional Board prior to commencement of on-site activities. (Site Development Permit, Planning Commission condition of approval 83.) The improvements included in the approved Project plans and conditions of approval for the Site Development Permit would prevent damage to the wetlands. (attachments 9 and 10). • At the January 22, 2014, Planning Commission meeting, testimony was provided by a gas station expert who explained the safety measures for the gas station, the civil engineer who explained site drainage and water treatment, and a representative of Costco who explained the alarm system for the gas station in the event of a release. (attachment 9, Planning Commission meeting transcript, pp. 17 — 30, 66 - 91). Based on the information provided, there is no evidence that the Project would result in damage to the wetlands. The design of the drainage and storm water improvements for the Project is based on and supported by drainage and hydrology studies prepared by licensed engineers. The improvements are subject to review by the Public Works Department and Regional Water Quality Control Board. Conditions of approval and mitigation measures have been applied to the Project to ensure that water quality, the wetlands/drainage area to the south of the site are adequately protected. ■ The Project is required to comply with California Green Building Code requirements, including requirement for stormwater pollution prevention and Best Management Practices (BMPs) (attachment 5). Appellant Recommended Conditions of Approval: Staff's response to this item addresses many of the recommended stormwater conditions of approval (attachment 2, conditions b-d and o-s). 6. Failure to consider moving the location of the fuel station from the sensitive location covering the former and still existing wetlands. Applicant Response: • See Response #5 above and additional information presented below. • The fueling facility wetland setback (approximately 120 feet) and underground storage tanks (USTs) wetland setback(approximately 950 feet) is acceptable. The fueling facility is designed to be both liquid and vapor tight. The double wall containment system and redundancy in leak detection monitoring reduces the potential of an unauthorized system release. A detailed description of Costco's design and operating features was presented during the EIS,' and Site Development Permit process. These design and operating features allow for the placement of Costco's fueling facility in areas of high groundwater and in close proximity to water bodies without1eopardy to those areas. • Installation of the fueling facility will require approvals from local, regional, and state agencies. Additional regional, state, and federal registration and ongoing compliance testing and record keeping must also be satisfied. ,These agencies provide oversight to ensure the facility meets all regulatory requirements and that the facility is maintained properly. For a listing of the local, state, and federal permits, registrations, and inspections required for the installation of the fueling facility, see attachment 4, pp. 2-3. Staff Response: Page 10 of 26 • See also response to #5 above. • During the public hearing, several speakers expressed concern that the gas station would damage the wetland located to the south of the site; however, no evidence was presented as to how this would occur. (attachment 9, 1/22/2014 Planning Commission meeting transcript, pp. 108-110, 119, 128-130, 136, 148) No evidence was provided at the hearing that locating the gas station closer to Airport Park Boulevard and further from the wetlands would avoid damage to the wetlands in event of a spill or leak. • The applicant provided information identifying the gas station operational and design features and regulatory agencies, regulations, and permits for the gas station. (Costco Wholesale Fuel Facility Information date stamped 11/25/2013). The site development permit plans included a Concept Gas Plan (sheet 7) and Fuel Facility Safety sheet (sheet 7.2) that identified the permitting agencies and regulatory agencies with authority over the gas station (attachment 10). At the January 22, 2014 Planning Commission meeting, Matt Cyr of Barghausen Engineering explained the gas station safety features, including plans displayed during the applicants' Project presentation, and specifically addressed proximity of the gas station to the wetlands (attachment 9, 1/22/2414 Planning Commission meeting transcript, pp. 17 — 30, 66 - 91). The Planning Commission asked specific questions about the gas station, including the safety features and location on the site. (attachment 9, 1/22/2014 Planning Commission meeting transcript, pp. 65-71, 89, 212-221). • At the Planning Commission meeting, the Costco Project team explained the development of the site plan that resulted in the fuel station being located in the southeast corner of the site, that Costco now constructs all new stores with gas stations, and that Costco is going through the necessary process(es) to expand existing gas stations with 12 pumps to 16 pumps at locations where there is an existing warehouse store without a gas station. (attachment 9, 1/22/2014 Planning Commission meeting transcript, pp. 212-221) • The Planning Commission discussed the various options related to the fueling station at the public hearing, including the No Fuel Station Alternative and an alternate the location for the fuel station. (attachment 9, 1/22/2014 Planning Commission meeting transcript, pp. 200-224) After hearing an explanation of the site planning alternatives for the Project, the benefits of the proposed site plan over other alternatives, and an explanation of water quality and fuel facility safety features, site drainage and water treatment, it was the decision of the Planning Commission to accept the site plan as proposed, including the location of the gas station. (attachment 9, 1/22/2414 Planning Commission meeting transcript, pp. 17 — 30, 65 — 91, 212- 221) • The Project is required to comply with California Green Building Code requirements, including requirement for stormwater pollution prevention and Best Management Practices (BMPs) (attachment 5). Appellant Recommended Conditions of Approval: Staff's response to this item addresses many of the recommended stormwater conditions of approval (attachment 2, conditions b-d and O-s). 7. Failure to consider fewer fuel pumps. Applicant Response: Page 11 of 26 • The Costco business model for a fuel facility is only feasible with a minimum of 4 pump islands and 16 dispensers. Providing a fuel station with fewer fuel pun7ps would not lessen the environmental impact of the project from a traffic or air quality perspective. Data from Costco fuel stations around northern California and elsewhere in the western United States indicates that fuel stations with fewer fuel pumps do not generate significantly fewer trips than those proposed for the site in Ukiah. Smaller Costco fuel stations (those with 12 fueling positions verses 16 or 26 as is proposed in Ukiah) only generate about 10 fewer new weekday p.m. peak hour vehicle trips. As such, reducing the size of the fuel station would not decrease the project's transportation impacts by any significant amount. Furthermore, those fuel stations with fewer fueling positions experience significantly longer queues and wait times at the fuel stations because there are fewer pumps to process the peak demands. As such, reducing the number for fuel pumps will not decrease the amount of cars coming to the site but would likely increase queues, wait times, and vehicle idling at the fuel station thus likely having a more significant environmental impact than the project currently proposed. • The design of the fuel facility as discussed in #6 above is governed by a variety of local. State, and Federal agencies that +mill be responsible for reviewing the design and construction and regular inspections of the facility to ensure that the standards and environmental qualities are met. Providing additional setback and buffer will not increase the environmental protections that have been designed as part of the fuel facility. to addition. the fuel facility has been designed with a number of design features to further protect the wetlands • For a summary of the required and additional design features that have been incorporated into the design, see attachment 4, pp. 44 Staff Response: • The Planning Commission did discuss the idea for fewer fuel pumps. (attachment 9, Planning Commission meeting transcript, pp. 202-204) It was the decision of the Planning Commission not to require the Project to reduce the number of pumps for the fueling station. • The City Council's previously adopted CEQA findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations determined that the no gas station alternative is infeasible. See item #1, bullet #1 ,above, • Having no fuel station or a smaller fuel station would not reduce the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts to less than significant. As explained above and elsewhere in the record, there is no substantial evidence that the fuel station as proposed and designed poses a risk of a significant impact to the wetlands on the adjacent property; therefore, there is no environmental basis for requiring a smaller fuel station. B. Failure to implement the Airport Business Park Master Plan goals to develop a balanced spectrum of uses, making it appear that from now on, Ukiah will welcome more large-scale franchise big box retail, and thereby amending the particular emphasis of the Airport Business Park on industrial uses and possible residential uses. Applicant Response: No response provided. Staff Response: • There is no adopted City plan titled Airport Business Park Master Plan; therefore, the reference to such plan is unclear. The Airport Industrial Park Planned Development (AIP Pd) is regulated by the Airport Industrial Park Planned Development Ordinance. Page 12 of 26 The AIP PD ordinance: (1) identifies the purpose of the amendment to the ordinance (in this case, to rezone the Costco site to Retail Commercial); (Z) the purpose of the AIP PD, and the land use designations and amount of land area within each designation, (3) provides a history of the AIP use permit, ordinance and ordinance amendments; (4) identifies the various land use designations and development requirements for each; and (5) identifies the discretionary review process. The purpose of the AIP PD ordinance is to "... provide for a coordinated development of compatible industrial, office, and commercial land uses. It details both allowed and permitted uses within each land use category, regulates nuisances, and provides development standards and design guidelines. The AIP Planned Development is consistent with the "Master Plan" land use designation for the property contained in the Ukiah General Plan." (AIP PD Ordinance 1098, p. 1 and AIP PD Ordinance 1146, p. 1) The project approval is limited to the Costco site. The rezoning revised the text of the ATP PD ordinance to reflect the change to the land use designation of the 15.3-acre Costco site to Retail Commercial from Light Manufacturing/Mixed Use and to revise the AIP PD Land Use Designations Map to also reflect this rezoning. No other changes were made to the land use designations or Land Use Designations Map and no changes were made to the purpose of the AIP PD ordinance. AIP PD Ordinance amended only as needed to update the acreage of the various land use designations within the PD, to describe the purpose of the rezoning amendment for the Costco Project, and to update the land use designation map to change to designation of the Costco Project site to Retail Commercial. The Site Development Permit also is limited to the Costco Project site. There is nothing in these approvals that somehow reduces the planning and review hurdles for any future big box retail proposals or encourages more such proposals. Any such proposals, none of which have been presented to the City yet, would be subject to an independent, project-specific discretionary review under CEQA and the City's plans and regulations. • Any future development proposal would have to obtain approvals as required by the AIP PD ordinance. Most of the remaining vacant land in AIP PD is designated Light Manufacturing/Mixed Use. The purpose of this land use designation is to ... "provide for a compatible mix of light industrial activities, commercial land uses, professional offices, and limited low-density residential uses. The intent is to provide an opportunity for a diversity of land uses to locate near each other that would typically be viewed as incompatible, but because of creative site planning and design, they can function in harmony without adversely impacting each other." (AIP PD Ordinance 1998, p. 5-6 and AIP PD Ordinance 1146, p. 10). The uses allowed within this land use designation require approval of a use permit. This is the only land use designation within the AIP PD that allows residential uses. 9. Providing convenient access for automobile users but failure to create convenient access to pedestrians, particularly those protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act, who, as now approved, will have to walk about 1,000 feet from the public transportation bus-stop to the store entrance, Applicant Response: There was discussion regarding placing a pathway frorn the driveway to the east of the Bus Stop crossing in front of the receiving area by the planning commission, They acknowledged that the distance was far but that there were overriding issues. 1) the location of the bus stop was already determined by the MTA. 2) As mentioned below, the idea of placing a Page 13 of 26 crosswalk in front of the receiving area could potentially increase the chances of pedestrian/truck conflicts. Staff Response: The development of the site plan was discussed at length at the Planning Commission public hearing, and the Planning Commission asked the applicant to explain the development of the proposed site plan. (attachment 9, Planning Commission meeting transcript, pp. 213-221.) Considerations for development of the site plan included building massing when viewed from US 101, site access and circulation, reducing conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians, and providing separate access points for delivery vehicle and member vehicles. • As part of staff's review of this appeal, the Building Official reviewed the approved Project plans for compliance with ADA accessibility requirements. As part of his review, the Building Official identified the code requirements that apply to the Project and determined that the ADA accessibility provided by the Project is consistent with applicable code requirements. (attachment 5.) • Throughout staff's review of the Costco Project, Planning, Public Works, and Building staff and the applicant reviewed and discussed the possibility of providing a designated pedestrian pathway from the bus stop on the north side of the site to connect to the sidewalk on the east side of the store. Such a pathway would result in pedestrians walking behind the loading dock. Providing this pathway can make pedestrians feel safer and more protected resulting in them paying less attention to their surroundings and assuming that drivers of delivery vehicles will be aware of their presence since they are using a dedicated connection/pathway. In staffs' opinion this would result in an unsafe condition; therefore, such a pathway was not included as a condition of project approval. This specific issue was addressed in the January 22, 2014 Costco Site Development Permit Planning Commission staff report (p, 48) and discussed by the Planning Commission during the public hearing. (attachment 9, Planning Commission meeting transcript, pp, 187-192, 259- 262) The distance from bus stop to the building entry was estimated to be similar to the distance from the bus stop that serves Walmart to the Walmart store entry. The Commission acknowledged that the distance was not ideal, but to provide a sidewalk or other designated crossing behind the loading area could create an unsafe condition for pedestrians. The applicant also explained the different options for the layout of the site and explained that the site plan proposed provided benefits related to reduced building massing from US101, better site access and circulation, separated access for delivery vehicles and member vehicles, and reduced the potential of pedestrian and vehicle conflicts (attachment 9, Planning Commission meeting transcript pp. 212-221). • The lack of a designated pathway from the bus stop to connect to the sidewalk on the east side of the building does not preclude people from walking behind the loading dock to access the sidewalk on the east side of the building. This was determined to be a safer condition than providing a designated pathway (as discussed above and in the January 22, 2014 Planning Commission staff report) since it would encourage pedestrians to be more aware of their surroundings when walking in behind the loading dock and would not create the false sense of safety that can result from using a designated pathway. It may also result in people using the pedestrian connection that is provided from the bus stop to the store entry (attachment 10, Approved Project Plans, sheets 6 and 8). Page 14 of 26 Appellant Recommended Conditions of Approval: Staff's response to this item addresses, in part, the lighting conditions of approval requested by the appellants (attachment 2, conditions f-h). 10.Failure to orient the building entrance toward Airport Business Park, and instead accepting Costco's desire to orient toward the freeway far away from Ukiah`s street. Applicant Response: There was a lengthy discussion of the warehouse location based on the recommendation of the Design Review Board to create a gateway to the City and to reduce the massing of the building by moving it away from Highway 109 and locating near Airport Park Boulevard. It was further discussed that the current location of the warehouse also reduces conflicts with on-site vehicle circulation, and increases pedestrian safety by not having additional ,pedestrian crossings in the parking field. The transcript of the meeting provides a more thorough discussion of the warehouse location. Staff Response: • At the meeting, the Commission asked the applicant to explain how the location of the building and gas station were decided (attachment 9, Planning Commission meeting transcript p. 212). The Costco Project team explained the various considerations and issues which helped to determine the site plan being considered by the Planning Commission, including massing and aesthetics, site circulation for delivery vehicles, member vehicles, pedestrians, and bikes and separating the various types of circulation allowing conflicts to be avoided or reduced (attachment 9, Planning Commission meeting transcript, pp. 212 - 221). The Costco Project Team explained various aspects of the site plans. It was explained that moving the building farther away from US 101 reduces the mass of the building when viewed from US 101 and then landscaping is used to soften and screen the building. This also allowed the "back of house" area that all uses of this nature have to be located in an area that is not visible from US 101 (unlike the other uses along US 101 where the loading areas, outdoor storage, trash, palettes, etc. are visible from US 101). There were also considerations related to the slope of the site and the location of the sewer. The site, layout proposed, and multiple access points allow circulation for the gas station to be separated from circulation from the store. The site layout allows vehicles to be kept away from the entry which is the busiest part of the site in terms of pedestrians. Vehicles can enter the site and then park in several different parking rows before getting to the store entry. ■ The location of the Costco store is consistent with direction of the Planning Commission, Design Review Board, and staff to locate buildings close to the street frontage and the parking associated with the building to the rear and/or side of the building. As discussed in the January 22, 2014 Costco Site Development Permit Planning Commission staff report, this is also consistent with General Plan goals and policies related to the location and prominence of parking areas (p. 26) and the ATP PD requirement to not locate buildings in the middle of large parking lots (p. 30). The location of the building in the northwest corner of the site and the fueling station at the south end of the site allows the remainder of the site to remain "open,"allowing views through the site and to maintain views of the western hills. • The location of the building entry facilitates safe and functional site access for pedestrians and vehicles. The location of the building entry reduces conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles by locating the areas of heaviest vehicle use (driveway ingress/egress to the site) farther away from the store entry which is the area of highest pedestrian traffic. Locating the entry facing Airport Park Boulevard would require shoppers to walk farther to the entry after Page 15 of 26 parking their vehicle and would increase the conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians by requiring shoppers to enter close to the access driveway to the site. This also has the potential to back vehicles onto Airport mark Boulevard as vehicles entering the site wait for pedestrians to get through the drive aisle and enter the store. • Another consideration in the location of the building entry is providing adequate and separate site circulation for member vehicles, fuel station delivery vehicles, delivery trucks using the loading dock on the east side and north sides of the vehicles. Locating the building in the northwest corner of the site allows two entry driveways to be provided into the site for members. The northernmost driveway on Airport Park Boulevard would be used primarily by members. Appellant Recommended Conditions of Approval; Staff's response to this item addresses, in part, the lighting conditions of approval requested by the appellants (attachment 2, conditions f-h). 11.Failure to give adequate consideration to the drought of now three years standing in California, especially in respect to Gov. Brown's call for "serious groundwater management"and the need for"wetlands and watershed restoration." Applicant Response: • We have designed the infiltration planters as large as passible along the north side of the building with approximately 18% of the roof has been directed to discharge directly into the landscape area. Any additional water discharged into the infiltration planter depicted on Sheet C2 would inundate the landscaping and would cause poor growing conditions during the winter months. Cue to the pitch of the roof and site topography, roof drains are not feasible to discharge to the west planting area along Airport Park Boulevard. • Per the Current Cal Green Code under the Water efficiency and conservation f Indoor water use; Costco qualifies for a Tler2 (Voluntary) classification for 35% savings. (plumbing fixtures and fittings that will reduce the overall use of potable water by 35va) • The landscape plan has been designed with a low water use planting palette and the irrigation system utilizes water efficient spray heads and low t7ow paint source drip and bubbler systems to avoid excess water application. The irrigation system will also be designed to meet the Model California Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. As part of the landscape maintenance specification for the project, the irrigation system will be inspected regularly to ensure the system is functioning properly, sprinkler heads are adjusted properly and not over spraying, and there are no leaks or broken sprinkler heads that would cause additional water use. Staff Response:. • All of the plant species are low or moderate water use (attachment 10, Approved Project Plans, sheet 19) • The Project is required to comply with the State's model Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance which is intended to reduce water use for landscape projects. (Site Development Permit, condition of approval #5a. • The Project is required to comply with the California Green Building Code which includes requirements for water conservation. The Building Official prepared a list of some of the requirements with which the Project is required to comply. This information was included in Page 16 of 26 the Planning Commission staff report for the Project and is included as part of attachment 5 of this ASR. Since the discharge into the infiltration planters is shown on sheet C2 of the approved plans, this would not need to be included as a condition of approval. In order to provide more certainty to the appellants, staff recommends City Council include the following condition of approval: Plans submitted for building permit shall demonstrate that runoff from the roof is dralned via the downspouts to the landscape area located on the north side of the building that downspouts, to the maximum extent feasible. The plans submitted for building are subject to staff review and approval. im The City Council could also require that the items included in Bullet 3 above from the applicant are required as a condition of approval. 12.Failure to require Costco to locate all construction staging area away from the wetlands. Applicant Response: A general staging area wiN be established in the future parking field in front of the proposed tire center which is approximately 250' from the existing wetlands to the south. The use of this area for staging of materials and equipment will be kept to a minimum as it is Costco's general practice to minimize the amount of time that material sits on the site before it is being used to construct the warehouse. It is the intent of the General Contractor and Costco to schedule the delivery of equipment and materials on an "`as needed"basis. Staff Response: The location of construction staging would typically be required to be shown on the building permit plans and subject to staff review and approval. To provide certainty to the appellants that this would occur for this Project, staff recommends City Council require the following condition of approval: Plans submitted for building permit shall be revised to include a construction staging plan that shows the location of construction equipment and material staging, and locates the staging area a minimum of 250-feet from the existing offsite wetlands. Tl?e construction staging plan is subject to staff review and approval. Appellant Recommended Conditions of Approval: Staffs response to this item addresses, in part, the lighting conditions of approval requested by the appellants (attachment 2, condition e)- 13.Failure to direct rainwater down-spouts toward irrigating the landscaped areas. Applicant Response: We have designed the infiltration planters as large as possible along the north side of the building with approximately 18010 of the roof has been directed to discharge directly into the landscape area, Any additional water discharged into the infiltration planter depicted on Sheet CZ would inundate the landscaping and would cause poor-growing conditions during the reinter months. Due to the pitch of the roof and site topography, roof drains are not feasible to discharge to the west planting area along Airport Park Boulevard. Staff Response: • At the hearing the Commission asked about directing the downspouts to the landscape area and the applicant indicated that there was inadequate landscape area to accomplish this. (attachment g, Planning Commission meeting transcript, pp. 75-77). Based on this information, the Planning Commission did not require the Project to be revised to require all rainwater runoff from the roof to be directed to landscape areas via the downspouts. Page 17 of 26 Since the discharge into the infiltration planters is shown on sheet C2 of the approved plans, this would not need to be included as a condition of approval. In Order to provide more certainty to the appellants, staff recommends City Council include the following condition of approval: Plans submitted for building permit shall demonstrate that runoff from the roof is drained vla the downspouts to the landscape area located on the north side of the building that downspouts, to the maximum extent feasible. The plans submitted for building are subject to staff re view and approval. Appellant Recommended Conditions of Approval. Staff's response to this item addresses, in part, the lighting conditions of approval requested by the appellants (attachment 2, condition e). 14.Failure to adopt conditions that would assure that the southeast triangle is planted with regionally occurring native plant materials, despite considerable discussion; and that landscaping that is proposed be maintained and retained without dumping and without intrusion of paving, mechanical installation or other hardscape in the future. Applicant Response: The area for fuel facility expansion and the southern portion of the site will he planted with a variety native shrubs and ground covers and trees to compliment the existing wetland vegetation within the drainage area. Costco will coordinate with staff to remise the landscape design for the southern portion of the site with a native planting palette that is acceptable to City Planning Staff Staff Response: • See Response to #15 below, • Landscape maintenance was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting and the applicant explained that it is Costco's practice to have a Landscape Maintenance Manual developed for the landscaping by the landscape architect for all of their projects and that the Plan is developed for and customized for the site (attachment 9, Planning Commission meeting transcript, pp. 81-88). The conditions of approval require the Landscape Maintenance Manual developed for the site to be submitted for staff review and approval. (attachment 8, condition #SB). Proper landscaping maintenance is required as a standard condition of approval for all site development permits and includes the staff approved Landscape Maintenance Manual (attachment 8, condition #18), • In order for the Project to remain consistent and in compliance with the approved site development permit, the landscaping is required to be maintained as required by the conditions of approval and retained consistent with the approved landscape plan as revised by the conditions of approval (attachment 10, Approved Project plans, sheet 19 and attachment 8, conditions of approval #19C-E). Any modifications to the approved landscape plans and any associated conditions of approval, such as removal of landscaping, intrusion of paving, mechanical installation or other hardscapes as noted in the appeal, would require review and approval of an amendment to the Site Development Permit. The level of the amendment (minor or major) would depend on the extent of the changes. Staff recommends that the City Council include the following condition of approval related to the planning of native species: The landscaping plan submitted with the building permit plans shall be revised to remove non-native planting within the southeast area of the site and to replace the non-native species removed with native species. The revised landscaping plan is subject to staff review and approval. Page 18 of 26 15. Failure to require nature plants in the southeastern end of the site, to eliminate all non-native plants and to refer to biologist-recommended for plant species and ACA Native Plant Society's list. Applicant Response: Costco would be supportive of revising the punting along southern property fine parallel with the wetland drainage with a native understory planting to complement the Valley Oaks. Costco will coordinate with staff to revise the landscape design for this portion of the site with a native planting palette that is acceptable to City Planning Staff. Staff Response: • The City Council has adopted Required Tree Lists for street trees and parking dots. The Parking Lot Tree List does not include any species native to Mendocino County. The Street Tree List includes only one species that is native to Mendocino County (Black Oak), The applicant was directed by staff to select tree species for the parking lot and street tree from the respective City Council approved Tree List. Alternative species may be approved by the decision making body as part of a discretionary permit, such as the Site Development Permit required for this project, Areas of the landscape plan that are not subject to the Required Parking Lot Tree List or Required Street Tree List may be planted with any tree proposed by the applicant and approved by the decision maker. The tree species were discussed at the meeting and the Planning Commission required only one tree species to be replaced with a different species as noted above. (attachment 9, Planning Commission meeting transcript, pp. 242-259). • The landscape plan includes the native shrubs rnanzanita, ceanothus, and sugar bush. These are planted in the southeastern end of the site along with other species that are non-native (attachment 10, Approved Project Plans, sheet 19). This area also includes native trees (California Sycamore, Valley Oak, Soquel Redwood). Native trees (Valley Oak and Interior Live Oak) are planted along the east property line (along with non-natives) and a condition of approval was added by the Planning Commission requiring the Pink Dawn Chitalpa planted along the south property line to be replaced with Valley Oak (attachment 8, condition #19#). The native shrubs noted above are planted on other locations on the site and the landscape plan also includes the use of a California Native Wildflower mix. • Landscaping was discussed at length by the Commission during the public hearing and Planning Commission received and considered the public comment received requesting modifications to the planting palette to increase the use of native plants. A condition of approval was added by the Planning Commission requiring the Pink Dawn Chitalpa planted along the south property line to be replaced with Valley Oak (attachment 8, condition #19#), • The Commission discussed the use of natives versus non-natives. Commissioner Pruden stated that while she likes the use of natives in commercial settings, they often do not perform well. (attachment 9, Planning Commission meeting transcript, pp, 242-259) The Commission discussed and considered the planting of native species and chose not to require the planting of additional native species for the Project. This does not preclude the applicant from proposing to plant additional native species as part of the Project if the landscaping plan remains in substantial conformance with the landscape plan approved by Planning Commission and the conditions for the natives are appropriate, • The illative Plant Society provided comments and recommendations on the landscaping proposed for the Project. These comments were received at the end of the day on the day of Page 19 of 26 the hearing and provided to Planning Commission on the day of the public hearing and referenced in staff's presentation to the Commission. (attachment 9, Planning Commission meeting transcript, p. 61) Mr. Williams spore during public comment as a representative of the Native Plant Society and made specific comments on the landscaping plan, including recommending specific native species (attachment 9, Planning Commission meeting transcript. pp. 130-136). The recommendations were considered by the Commission and a condition of approval was applied to the Project by the Commission requiring the Pink pawn Chitalpas located on the south side of the site to be replaced with Valley Oaks. • during the public hearing, David Babcock, the landscape architect for the project provided an overview of the landscaping plan, including the plant selection. (attachment 9, Planning Commission meeting transcript, pp. 39-48). Mr. Babcock stated that considerations for plant selection include the ability to survive a retail setting, to grow and flourish, to not be a maintenance problem, to not use a lot of water, and to meet or exceed the minimum requirements. ■ Staff recommends that the City Council include the following condition of approval: The landscaping plan included with the building permit plans shall be revised to include the planting of native understory shrubs and groundcovers under the Walley Oaks to be planted along the south property line. The revised landscaping plan is subject to staff review and approval. 16. Failure to require a condition that Costco present for Planning Commission review any major future landscape modifications such as tree removal, tree replacement, or major tree pruning. Applicant Response: A performance standard will be developed with an arborist to ,prepare a ,pruning maintenance program that will be included with the maintenance manual prepared as part of the landscape plans so that shrubs and trees are properly pruned to maintain the landscape in a more natural appearance. Staff Response: • Modifications to the approved Project, including the Site Development Permit plans and the conditions of approval, would require review by Planning staff and application for and approval of an amendment to the Planning Commission approved Site Development Permit. This requirement applies to modifications to the landscaping plan which is typically a significant part of any development project. Tree removal and tree replacement if not consistent with the approved landscaping plan and conditions of approval would require approval of an amendment to the Site Development Permit. Tree removal or replacement consistent with the approved plans (such as to replace a tree that had died or removing a diseased tree) would be consistent with the approved plans if replaced with the same tree species identified on the approved landscape plan. • Landscape maintenance was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting and it was the decision of the Planning Commission not to include additional conditions of approval related to landscape maintenance, (attachment 9, Planning Commission meeting transcript, pp. 27, 42, 81-88) • Staff recommends that the City Council include the following condition of approval: The Landscape Maintenance Manual required by condition of approval #SB shall include pruning Page 20 of 25 standards/procedures developed by a certified arboni5t. The Landscape Maintenance Manual is subject to staff review and approval. 17.Failure to give adequate consideration to measures that diminish greenhouse gases: Staff Response: The Costco Wholesale Project EIR analyzed the potential for the Project to result in impacts to global climate change. This analysis identified the greenhouse gas emissions that would result from the construction and operation of the Project (DEIR, pp. 3.11-1 to 3.11-18). The DEIR determined that the Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts on global climate change due to operational emissions with the majority of the emissions the result of mobile sources associated with the Project (DEIR, pp. 3.11-16 to 3.11-18). The EIR identified mitigation measures (DEIR, pp. 3.11-18 and City Council adopted those mitigation measures in its Mitigation Monitoring Report Program. Air Quality Mitigation Measures 3.2.2a - 3.2.2c) that would reduce the greenhouse gases generated by the Project. Implementation of these mitigation measures would not, however, reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. As noted in the EIR, vehicle trips would need to be reduced to just 2110 of the estimated project trips in order to render the impact less than significant. That level of trips is not consistent with a viable Project. (FEIR, pp. 3-75 to 3-76) a. by not requiring photovoltaic panels on the roof to generate zero-emission electricity on the site, thereby diminishing the site's use of remotely generated electricity and accompanying greenhouse gases. Applicant Response: Costco may consider the installation of solar power within two years of the opening of the warehouse depending upon the permitting process and the rebates a vailable from the utility pro viders. Costco does not install solar panels with the construction of the building due to delays in the duration of the construction of the warehouse and due to possible damage to the panels and the logistics with installation during the building construction. The roof will be structurally designed to accommodate future installation of solar panels and major electrical infrastructure when they are determined to be feasible. Staff Response: The Project does not include the installation of photovoltaic panels on the roof of the warehouse building. However, condition of approval #5A requires the plans submitted for building to demonstrate that the building is designed to structurally support rooftop photovoltaic panels in the future if Costco ultimately decides to install them (attachment 8), b. by not requiring the fueling station to include diesel Fuel. Staff Response: The Project proposed a gas station. The staff report intentionally referenced the facility as a "fuel station" as an acknowledgement that the type of fuel sold may change over time, all possible types of fuel available in the future may not be known, and to not preclude the sale of other types of fuel at the facility. So long as the type of fuel sold can be sold at the facility as designed and approved as part of the Site Development Permit, other types of fuel including diesel may be sold at the facility. The conditions of approval for the Project do not re uire the sale of diesel fuel, however, should the applicant want to sell diesel fuel or bio-diesel at the fuel station facility, this would be consistent with the approved Site Development Permit. It has not been the practice, nor is it within the Page 21 of 26 purview of a Site Development Permit, to require the sale of specific products. Costco's decisions regarding the range of fuel types to be offered at its gas station would be driven by the market, just as the rest of its offered products and services are. ■ The Site Development Permit is the discretionary review and approval process for development and physical layout of the site and it is not related to the use(s) of the site. Requiring the sale of a specific item is not within the purview of the Site Development Permit and is not supported by any of the findings required for approval of a Site Development Permit. 18.Failure to give adequate consideration to emergencies when and if fuel from distant refineries is not available: a. by not requiring photovoltaic panels to power on-site utilities, such as air conditioning when the grid is unavailable, and to power multiple electric vehicle charging stations so electric vehicles can be used to deliver emergency goods and services, to power the pumps for at the on-site fuel station. Applicant Response: • The gas station is on a separate power source and transformer from the warehouse and will not have conduits to provide solar power from the warehouse to the fuel facility. • The Clty of Ukiah is ultimately responsible for providing services in the event of an emergency. Costco being a business in the community would cooperate with the City in an emergency when requested. Beyond that, the U41 role is to assure that public health and safety concerns are addressed; if a private business chooses to reduce Operations rather than provide backup power sources is not the City`;position to second-guess that determination. Staff Response: The alleged impact or problem as it relates to the Site Development Permit is unclear, and no evidence has been provided in support of identifying an impact or problem resulting from the Project, b. by not requiring the fueling station to include diesel fuel, for which locally made biodiesel fuel may be substituted. Applicant Response: It is not the role of the City to require the sale of a specific product; that is up to the merchant based on competitive market forces. Staff Response: See response to #17b above. c. Failure to encourage the use of zero emission vehicles by not requiring multiple charging stations for such vehicles and by not requiring preferred panting for such vehicles. Applicant Response: No response provided. Staff Response: • The Project is required to comply with the California Green Building Code which requires designated parking for Clean Air/Van pool/Electric Vehicles at 8% of total parking spaces (attachment 5). Page 22 of 26 Site Development Permit Condition #71 from the Mendocino County Air Quality Management District requires the installation of two electric vehicle charging stations. Air Quality Mitigation Measure 3.2.2b requires the applicant to implement certain two or more items intended to reduce emissions and, thereby, improve air-quality. One of the items on the list is the instailation of one charging station. 19.Failure to mare a substantial reduction in the height of parking lot light poles and approving 34-toot light standards which are double the height suggested in the public hearing. Applicant Response: Costco has reviewed the casts and benefits of the lighting comments and options raised in the appeal. Costco has decided to move forward with the fighting a fixtures as approved in the Slte Development Permit approval, 34-foot pole fixture heights with metal halide fixtures. Staff Response: • The Draft FIR identified the potential to result in a significant light and glare impact. The EIR included Aesthetics (light and glare) mitigation measure 3.1.2 which would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Mitigation measure 3.1.2 was adopted as a mitigation measure as part of City Council Resolution 2013-35 (Exhibit A, mitigation measure 3.1.2), as a condition of approval of rezoning Ordinance 1145 (Exhibit C, p. 1, condition of approval #1), and as a condition of approval of the Site Development Permit approved by the 'Planning Commission (attachment 8, condition of approval #87). This mitigation measure/condition of approval has been agreed to by the Project Proponent. Mitigation measure 3.1.2 is provided below: All outdoor light fixtures shall be located, aimed or shielded so as to minimize stray light trespassing across property boundaries. Fixtures shall be fuil cut-off and nighttime friendly, consistent with LEED goals and Green Glebes criteria for light pollution reduction. The project applicant/project proponent will be required to prepare a photometric plan demonstrating that lighting will not spillover onto adjacent properties. Furthermore, the Project will adhere to all City regulations relating to sgnage and the shielding of light in order to reduce any potential negative effects from new light sources (per Building Code Sections §3225, §3226, §3227). The revised light plan shall demonstrate an average light level no greater than 4 footcandle (fc) at grade (ground surface), and shall not exceed 10 fc in any location. tight trespass onto adjacent private property shall not exceed 6.2 fc (at the property line). Light trespass onto adjacent public rights of way or private roadway easements shall not exceed 4.2 fc measured at the centerline of the right of way. Pole- mounted parking lot lighting shall be turned off one hour after the store closes. Alternatively, 50% of pole-mounted lighting may be turned off if the City or store operator requests additional security lighting. These standards shall be included in the Project conditions of approval as well as the mitigation monitoring and reporting program ljD Prior to final inspection and the grant of occupancy. • At the Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Slota provided a Power Point presentation to the Planning Commission and requested modifications be made to the lighting, including a reduction in the height of the parking lot pole mounted lighting. In addition to the presentation made at the meeting, Mr. Slota also submitted written comments and recommended conditions of approval (including a reduction in the height of the pole mounted lighting) to the Planning Commission, which were provided to the Planning Commission prior to the meeting for its consideration. (1/22/2014 Planning Commission meeting staff report attachment 7 and Mr. Slota's recommended conditions of approval dated 1/22/20314) Page 23 of 26 One of the purposes of lighting is to provide adequate security and safety. One member of the public expressed the need for adequate lighting in the AIP PD to ensure that safety and security. (attachment 9, Planning Commission meeting transcript, pp. 137-138) The mitigation measure above requires pole-mounted parking lot lighting to be turned off one hour after store closing unless there is a need for lighting at night to provide adequate safety and security. The area in which the Project is located is known to be an area of transient populations and security has been an issue for some businesses and properties within the AIP PD. The mitigation measure was specifically designed to reduce light and glare impacts to a less than significant level while also providing adequate safety and security. Adequate site light at night is often a topic of discussion for development projects and night time lighting is typically requested by the Project applicant, recommended by the Police Department, and allowed by Planning Commission in order to provide adequate safety and security for employees, customers, and the public. - During the Planning Commission meeting, several members of the public requested the height of the parking lot pole lighting be reduced. (attachment 9, Planning Commission meeting transcript, pp. 106-107, 117-118, 15, 125). The Planning Commission asked the applicant about reducing the pole height and was told that an increase in the number of poles would be required if the pole height was reduced, in order to achieve the same minimum level of adequate lighting for safety and security, due to the narrower ground spread of light form shorter poles. (attachment 9, Planning Commission meeting transcript, pp. 230-236) It was the decision of the Planning Commission to reduce the height of the parking lot pole lighting, so as not to exceed the maximum height of the building, which occurs at the building entry and is 34-feet. (attachment 9, Planning Commission meeting transcript pp. 230-236). Appellant Recommended Conditions of Approval: Requested condition #k regarding no spillage of light over the property line is specifically addressed by the mitigation measure for light and glare. tight has to cutoff at the east property line and south property line (wetlands/drainage area). Light may spillover onto Airport Park Boulevard and the access easement at the north side of the site not to exceed 0.2 foot candle at the center line. Staffs response to this item addresses, in part, the lighting conditions of approval requested by the appellants (attachment 2, conditions I —j). 20.Failure to adequately limit light reflection into the night sky by not requiring that artificial lighting have minimall spectrum of light; and thus failing to implement the local Dark Sky Program and International Dark Sky standards. Applicant Response: All fixtures are International Dark Skye (IDS) and cutsheets have been provided to the City. Staff Response: The Draft EIR identified the potential of the Project to result in a significant light and glare impact. The EIR included Aesthetics (light and glare) Mitigation Measure 3.4.2 which would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 3.1.2 was adopted as a mitigation measure as part of City Council Resolution 2013-35 (Exhibit A, mitigation measure 3.1.2), as a condition of approval of rezoning Ordinance 1146 (Exhibit C, p. 1, condition of approval #1), and as a condition of approval of the Site Development Permit approved by the Planning Commission (attachment 8, condition of approval #87). This mitigation measure/condition of approval has been agreed to by the Project Proponent. Mitigation measure 3.1.2 is provided below: Page 24 of 26 All outdoor light fixtures shall be located, aimed or shielded so as to minimize stray light trespassing across property boundaries. Fixtures shall be full cut-off and nighttime friendly; consistent with LEED goals and Green Globes criteria for light pollution reduction. The project applicant/project proponent will be required to prepare a photometric plan demonstrating that lighting will not spillover onto adjacent properties. Furthermore, the Project will adhere to all City regulations relating to signage and the shielding of light in order to reduce any potential negative effects from new light sources (per Building Code Sections §3225, §3225, §3227). The revised light plan shall demonstrate an average light level no greater than 4 footcandie (fc) at grade (ground surface), and shall not exceed 10 fc in any location. Light trespass onto adjacent private property shall not exceed 0.2 fc (at the property line). Light trespass onto adjacent public rights of way or private roadway easements shall not exceed 0.2 fc measured at the centerline of the right of way. Pole- mounted parking lot lighting shall be turned off one hour after the store closes. Alternatively, 50% of pole-mounted lighting may be turned off if the City or store operator requests additional security lighting. These standards shall be included in the Project conditions of approval as well as the mitigation monitoring and reporting program. Timing Prior to final inspection and the grant of occupancy. • One of the purposes of lighting is to provide adequate security and safety. One member of the public expressed the need for adequate lighting in the AIP PD to ensure that safety and security. (attachment 9, Planning Commission meeting transcript, pp. 137-138) The mitigation measure above requires pole-mounted parking lot lighting to be turned off one hour after store closing unless there is a need for lighting at night to provide adequate safety and security. The area in which the Project is located is known to be an area of transient populations and security has been an issue for some businesses and properties within the AIP PD. The mitigation measure was specifically designed to reduce light and glare impacts to a less than significant level while also providing adequate safety and security. Adequate site light at night is often a topic of discussion for development projects and night time lighting is typically requested by the Project applicant, recommended by the Police Department, and allowed by Planning Commission in order to provide adequate safety and security for employees, customers, and the public. • The lighting under the gas station canopy would be LED (attachment 7, 1/22/2014 Planning Commission staff report, attachment 3D and attachment 10 and attachment 10 1/22/2014 Approved Project plans, sheets 16, P1 and P2) which according to the information provided by the appellant would have a minimal light spectrum, there would be no sign located on the wetlands (south) side or north side of the gas station canopy, and therefore no lighting for the sign, mitigation measure 3.1.2 (above) prohibits light trespass onto adjacent property (adjacent parcels to the south that include the wetlands/drainage areas). ■ At the Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Slota provided a Power Point presentation to the Planning Commission and requested modifications be made to the lighting, including a reduction in the height of the parking lot pole mounted lighting. In addition to the presentation made at the meeting, Mr. Slota also submitted written comments and recommended conditions of approval (including a reduction in the height of the pole mounted lighting) to the Planning Commission, which were provided to the Planning Commission prior to the meeting for its consideration. (1/22/2014 Planning Commission meeting staff report attachment 7 and Mr. Slota's recommended conditions of approval dated 1/22/2014) During the Planning Commission meeting, several members of the public requested the lighting be modified and reduced. (attachment 9, Planning Commission meeting transcript, pp. 106-107, 117-118, 15, 125). It was the decision of the Planning Commission not to require the application to revise the Project to remove the metal halide fixture for the Page 25 of 26 parking lot lighting. • During the Planning Commission meeting, the lighting concerns identified in this appeal item were raised by Mr. Slota (attachment 9, Planning Commission meeting transcript, pp. 113-124), discussed and considered by the Planning Commission, (attachment 9, Planning Commission meeting transcript, pp. 120-124, 183-184, 224-236), and Project Proponent explained the site lighting, provided photo examples of site lighting, provided photometric plans (attachment 10, Approved Project plans, sheets P1 and P2), and responded to the lighting concerns raised at the meeting (attachment 9, Planning Commission meeting transcript, pp.36-38, 230-235). It was the decision of the Planning Commission to not require modifications to the lighting as requested by the appellant. ■ The City of Ukiah has not adopted the IDS standards and does not have a local Dark Sky Program. The only adopted lighting standards that apply to the Project are included in the AIP PD Ordinance and in Aesthetics Mitigation Measure 3.1.2 (light and glare). Appellant Recommended Conditions of Approval: • Requested condition #k regarding no spillage of light over the property line is specifically addressed by the mitigation measure for light and glare. Light has to cutoff at the east property line and south property line (wetlands/drainage area). Light may spillover onto Airport Park Boulevard and the access easement at the north side of the site not to exceed 0.2 foot candle at the center line. • Staff's response to this item addresses, in part, the lighting conditions of approval requested by the appellants (attachment 2, conditions I —j). 21. f=ailure to accommodate and encourage citizen participation in local democracy by requiring reasonable access to customers by public petitioners. Applicant Response: This will be a stand-alone warehouse that dues not share its parking lot with any other users. Courts have confirmed that Costco s stand-alone warehouses are not public forums that would require Costco to permit expressive activity on its property. (Costco Companies v. Gallant(2002) 96 CA 4r`' 740, 756) Staff Response: • This is not a CEQA, Rezoning, or Site Development Permit issue; therefore it was not addressed as part of the EIR, Rezoning, or Site Development Permit, • It is expected that Costco would have to abide by whatever constitutional minimums state or federal case law has created, Public Notice and Public Comment: Notice of this public hearing was provided as noted in the Citizens Advised section of this ASR. on page 1. The comments received in response to the public notice are included in attachment 6. Conclusion: The CEQA process for the preparation and certification of the Costco Wholesale Environmental Impact Report and the entitlement process for Site Development Permit provided opportunities for thorough public review and comment on the Costco Project, including the following: • Scoping meeting to identify the areas to be addressed in the EIR: • Notice of Preparation of the EIR; or Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR; Wage 26 of 26 • Planning Commission public hearing on the draft EIR; • Planning Commission public hearing and recommendation to the City Council on the Final FIR, CEQA Findings, and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Rezoning; • City Council public hearing for of the Final EIR: • City Council public hearing for CEQA Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations and Rezoning; and • Planning Commission public hearing for the Site Development Permit. Most of the items raised in the appeal have been discussed throughout the review of the EIR and discretionary review of the Project. The Planning Commission did not agree with the appellants' position on many of the issues. Subsequent to the Planning Commission approval of the Project and the filing of the appeal, Costco has offered to: modify the landscaping plan to include more natives in the southeast area of the site, modify the landscaping plan to include the planting of native groundcovers and shrubs under the Valley Oaks along the south property line; to have proper pruning procedures developed by an arborist; and to locate construction staging a minimum of 250-feet from the offsite wetlands. Staff supports the Planning Commission's approval of the Project, but is recommending upholding the appeal in limited part by adding the following conditions of approval as described above in items 11, 13, 14, 15, and 16: • Plans submitted for building permit shall demonstrate that runoff from the roof is drained via the downspouts to the landscape area located on the north side of the building, to the maximum extent feasible. The plans submitted for building permit are subject to staff review and approval. • Plans submitted for building permit shall be revised to include a construction staging plan that shows the location of construction equipment and material staging, and locates the staging area a minimum of 250-feet from the existing offsite wetlands. The construction staging plan is subject to staff review and approval. • The landscaping plan submitted with the building permit plans shall be revised to remove non- native planting within the southeast area of the site and to replace the non-native species removed with native species. The revised landscaping plan is subject to staff review and approval. • The Landscape Maintenance Manual required by condition of approval #513 shall include pruning standards/procedures developed by a certified arborist. The Landscape Maintenance Manual is subject to staff review and approval. FISCAL. IMPACT: Budgeted Amount New Appropriation Budget Amendment in Current FY source of Funds Account Number Title& No.) Required Yes ❑ No ❑ ITEM NO.: 13a MEETING DATE: March 5, 2014 -i ty a 4J/�itafi AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: DISCUSS AND PROVIDE DIRECTION REGARDING THE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM AT THE REDWOOD EMPIRE FAIRGROUNDS Background The Redwood Empire Fairgrounds "Fairgrounds" storm drain system "System" conveys storm water originating from City streets as well as storm water internal to the Fairgrounds. Public Works staff has responded to several storm drain concerns at the Fairgrounds over the years with documented incidents of storm drain failure in January 2011. Street maintenance staff has completed interim repairs to the drain system, however, it is now apparent that a permanent long term solution is needed. The City Engineer has been resistant to take responsibility for the System because it is unclear what agency constructed the System. The System was, likely, constructed and maintained by Caltrans when State Street was Hwy 101. However, City staff has not found any evidence of this. Also, Staff cannot find any easements or a maintenance agreement that would clarify who's responsible for this System. Staff does know that the system definitely carries drainage from City rights of way. The City needs to perfect this system for certain access to transport our storm water in a safe and responsible manner. In February 2014, staff met with Jennifer Seward, Fairgrounds Manager, to discuss possible solutions to the drainage system. Staff has identified a storm drain project which will address the recent drain failures at the Fairgrounds. Staff believes that construction of this project will alleviate storm drain concerns of the City and the Fairgrounds. Fiscal Impact: L-1 Budgeted FY 13/14 ❑X New Appropriation Not Applicable Budget Amendment Required Amount Budgeted Source of Funds (title and #) Account Number Additional Appropriation Requested $289,853 CIP — Public Works 25124220.80230 (Continue on Page 2) Recommended Action(s): 1.Direct Staff to proceed with the storm drains system including obtaining an easement, negotiating a maintenance agreement, select a design professional to prepare plans, specifications and estimates and then obtaining bids for the construction of the system; 2. Approve budget amendment. Alternative Council Option(s): Provide direction to staff regarding the storm drain system at Redwood Empire Fairgrounds Citizens advised: None. Requested by: Tim Eriksen, Director of Public Works/ City Engineer Prepared by: Tim Eriksen, Director of Public Works / City Engineer Coordinated with: Jane Chambers, City Manager Attachments: None. Approved: Jane Chambers, City Manager / Discussion: The drainage system that is proposed will isolate the City's system from the Fairgrounds system. The Fairgrounds will then be responsible for the infrastructure that services their facilities. The system that the City constructs will be identified with and easement and maintained in a manner described by a maintenance agreement that will be negotiated and agreed to by both parties. This approach has been initially agreed upon by the Fairgrounds Manager as well as the Director of Public Works. The cost of the design and construction of the system is approximately $150,000. This was not a budgeted item and the costs could vary significantly from staff's initial estimate. If the council gives direction to staff to continue the council would be asked to make all the approvals, (design contract, approval of plans and specifications, award of construction contract), as is common in any construction project. ITEM NO.: 13b MEETING DATE: March 5, 2014 City of 7lkiah AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF LETTER IN SUPPORT OF SENATE BILL 1014 TO REQUIRE PRODUCERS OF PHARMACEUTICALS TO CREATE, FINANCE AND MANAGE A SAFE MEDICINE DISPOSAL PROGRAM FOR CALIFORNIA CONSUMERS Background: Pharmaceuticals are collected in Sonoma and Mendocino Counties through the Safe Medicine Disposal Program. Funding for the Program is provided by RRWA, the City of Santa Rosa's subregional system, and the Sonoma County Water Agency and Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority. Partnering agencies provide ongoing staff support for the Program's outreach coordination and events. Since the Program's inception in 2007, over 54,000 pounds of pharmaceuticals have been collected. The collection totals have increased every year, so it is logical to project that the collection totals will continue to increase. The cost to manage the program and conduct outreach and education is also projected to increase year to year. Discussion: Several Senate Bills have been introduced in the past and more are expected to be introduced in the future which will require producers of pharmaceuticals, as defined, to create, finance and manage an extended producer responsibility system for California consumers to safely and conveniently dispose of expired and unwanted pharmaceuticals. Approval of this letter will allow the City of Ukiah to support any Senate Bill which will mandate producers of pharmaceuticals to implement a collection program Fiscal Impact: New Appropriation Not Applicable Budget Amendment Required ❑ Budgeted FY 13/14 Amount Budgeted Source of Funds (title and #) Account Number Addit. Appropriation Requested Recommended Action(s): Approve of Letter in Support of Senate Bill 1014 to Require Producers of Pharmaceuticals to Create, Finance and Manage a Safe Medicine Disposal Program for California Consumers and Authorize Staff to Submit Letters Supporting Such Legislation, Alternative Council Option(s): Do not approve and return to staff for further recommendations Citizens advised: Requested by: Tim Eriksen, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Prepared by: Jarod Thiele, Public Works Project Analyst Coordinated with: Mary Anne Landis, Council Member Attachments: 1) Letter of Support Approved: J e Chambers, City Manager Attachment 1 March 5, 2014 Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson State Capitol, Room 5080 Sacramento, CA 95814 Sent by Fax: (916)-651-4919 SUBJECT: SENATE BILL 1014 (JACKSON)–SAFE MEDICATION MANAGEMENT-SUPPORT Dear Senator Jackson: The City of Ukiah strongly supports Senate Bill (SB) 1014(Jackson),which asks producers of pharmaceuticals, as defined,to create, finance and manage a collection system for California consumers to safely and conveniently dispose of expired and unwanted pharmaceuticals —a system structured after the existing program in Canada which the industry has efficiently operated for 15 years. Pharmaceuticals are collected in Mendocino County through the Safe Medicine Disposal Program. Funding for the Program is provided by the Russian River Watershed Association (RRWA)and Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority in Mendocino County. Partnering agencies provide ongoing staff support for the Program's outreach coordination and events. Since the Program's inception in 2007, over 54,000 pounds of pharmaceuticals have been collected in Sonoma and Mendocino Counties.The collection totals have increased every year, so it is logical to project that the collection totals will continue to increase.The cost to manage the program and conduct outreach and education is also projected to increase year to year. The City of Ukiah Department of Public Works, as a member agency of the Russian River Watershed Association(RRWA) has participated in Safe Medicine Disposal outreach and collection events. On September 21, 2012 the RRWA hosted a safe medicine collection event where 41.6 pounds of medicine were safely collected and disposed of.The annual cost to the City of Ukiah for this program is$7,666 for fiscal year 2013-2014. The Problem: Prescription drug abuse has skyrocketed in recent years,'as have hospitalizations for drug overdose S.2 One of the four top recommendations of the National Strategy on Preventing Prescription Drug Abuse is to have a safe and convenient method of disposal for prescription, over the counter drugs and vet medicines we have in our homes. In addition,the lack of safe and convenient disposal options ensures that consumers choose less than desirable options including home storage,flushing medications down the toilet or throwing them in the garbage. 1 California State Task Force on Prescription Drug Misuse.(2009,March 30). Summary Report and Recommendations on Prescription Drugs:Misuse,Abuse and Dependency.Retrieved from State of California Alcohol and Drug Programs: www.adp.ca.gov/director/pdf/Prescription Drug Task Force.pdf 2 O'Callaghan,T.(2010,April 6).More people hospitalized for prescription drug overdose.Retrieved from Time: http://healthland.time.com/2010/04/06/more-people-hospitalized-for-prescription-drue-overdose/#ixzz2fklm3 CMT Attachment 1 For too long, municipal governments have cobbled together local collection options that fail to meet public demand for safe disposal, draw resources from other vital government functions, creates a patchwork of regulations and fails to realize the efficiency that would come from a statewide program. The Solution: SB 1014 springboards off of the good work already being done by pharmaceutical companies in Canada and Europe. SB 1014 is a free-market approach that allows manufacturers to design the program in whatever way is most cost effective—with minimal oversight from state regulators.We know that this program will work because of the public surveys in Canada demonstrating the public awareness and use of the program,the volumes collected and the fact that 96%of the pharmacies host collection bins. SB 1014 is the right solution to this pressing problem because it creates a privately managed and financed system to allow consumers to properly and conveniently dispose of their unwanted pharmaceuticals. . Y' For these reasons, the City of Ukiah supports SB 1014. If you have any questions about our position, please contact Jarod Thiele, at 707-463-6755 orjthiele @cityofukiahcom Sincerely, v g Philip E. Baldwin Mayor �' Y t cc:Senator Kevin de Leon,fax: (916)651 4922 .; Senator Jerry Hill,fax: (916) 651-4913? Assembly member Wesley Chesbro,fax: (707)463-5773 Senator Noreen Evans,fax: (707),468-8931 �y k ' 4 ITEM NO.: 13c MEETING DATE: March 5, 2014 i ci e y a/'it ki fii AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: DISCUSS AND PROVIDE DIRECTION REGARDING THE REQUEST FROM THE RUSSIAN RIVER FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT TO FORGO THE CITY OF UKIAH CONTRACTUAL RIGHT TO 800 ACRE FEET OF WATER TO PROVIDE DROUGHT ASSISTANCE FOR OTHER AGENCIES IN THE UKIAH VALLEY Background On February 12, 2014 City Staff received a letter (Attachment 1) from the Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control and Water Conservation Improvement District (District), requesting the City to forgo the 800 Acre-Feet (AF) of water that the City of Ukiah contracts for from the Lake Mendocino Project (Project). The City has contracted for this water for many years as a drought protection measure. The price of this water is $37,600 each year. The current contract requires the City to purchase this water each year to retain its contractual rights to the Project water. The water is diverted by the City's Ranney Collector at the Water Treatment Plant location. By forgoing use of this water, the City is taking direct action to retain water in Lake Mendocino for the benefit of the Ukiah Valley later in the summer. It is important to remember that the City is not using any water from the Russian River at this time and has not used water from the river this calendar year. Discussion The City's contractual share of Project water will go to other water districts in the Ukiah Valley, should the City Council approve this request made by the District. For comparison, 800AF is approximately 3MGD over three summer months. This means that the City of Ukiah will rely on its source of water from ground water wells (Wells). These Wells produce about 2 Million Gallons per Day (MGD), throughout the summer months. Since 2 MGD is the amount used by the City's water utility customers during the winter, the net effect of approving this request is to give up the City's guarantee of 3MGD to augment summer time usage. If the Council Directs staff to negotiate this release of water to the other Ukiah Valley water districts, City Staff along with the City Attorney will negotiate the actual language to forgo the contractual right and guarantee that the water is available for the City in the coming years. Fiscal Impact: 1-1 Budgeted FY 13/14 New Appropriation Not Applicable Budget Amendment Required Amount Budgeted Source of Funds (title and #) Account Number Additional Appropriation Requested Recommended Action(s): Discuss and provide direction regarding the request by the Flood Control District to forgo the contractual amount of 800AF of water from the Lake Mendocino Project Alternative Council Option(s): N/A Citizens advised: None. Requested by: Tim Eriksen, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Prepared by: Tim Eriksen, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Coordinated with: Jane Chambers, City Manager Attachments: 1. Letter from the Flood Control District Approved: a� J l�e Chambers, City Manager Attachment 1 Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control &Water Conservation Improvement District 151 Laws Avenue Suite D, Ukiah,CA 95482 (0) 707.462.5278 (F) 707.462.5279 rrfe@saber.net February 12,2014 Tim Eriksen City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah CA 95482 Dear Tim: Thank you for meeting with me yesterday. This year's water supply situation is truly extraordinary. As we discussed,Willow and Millview County Water Districts will be particularly hard hit this year due to low river levels and mandatory bypass flow conditions on their primary water rights. Without some form of relief,these two District will likely face supply Reductions in excess of 75%. In order to more equitably distribute the burden,we would like to request that the City forgo its 800 acre foot contract for 2014. Redistributing the City's allotment will greatly reduce the impact to both Willow and Millview. Thank you for considering this request. Sin er y can bite General Manager President Vice President Treasurer Trustee Trustee Paul Zellman Richard Shoemaker Alfred White Lee Howard Judy Hatch