HomeMy WebLinkAbout04242013 - packet CITY OF UKIAH
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
Wednesday April 24, 2013
6:00 P.M.
1. CALL TO ORDER 6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
UKIAH CIVIC CENTER, 300 SEMINARY AVENUE
2. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS CHRISTENSEN, DOBLE,
SANDERS, WHETZEL, CHAIR PRUDEN
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes from the April 10, 2013 meeting are included for review and approval.
5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS9
The Planning Commission welcomes input from the audience. In order for everyone to
be heard, please limit your comments to three (3) minutes per person and not more
than ten (10) minutes per subject. The Brown Act regulations do not allow action to be
taken on audience comments.
6. APPEAL PROCESS
All determinations of the Planning Commission regarding major discretionary planning
permits are final unless a written appeal, stating the reasons for the appeal, is filed with
the City Clerk within ten (10) days of the date the decision was made. An interested
parry may appeal only if he or she appeared and stated his or her position during the
hearing on the decision from which the appeal is taken. There are no appealable
items on this agenda.
7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION
8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE
9. PUBLIC WORKSHOP
A. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Action Plan Workshop.
Environmental Science Associates (ESA) will conduct a public workshop to report on
City of Ukiah Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the preparation of a Climate Action
Plan. As part of the workshop, ESA will: 1) present the Municipal and City-wide
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Inventories; 2) provide an overview of the
purpose and goals of Climate Action Plans (CAP); and 3) receive community input on
possible municipal and community emissions reduction strategies; challenges and
barriers to emissions reduction; and programs and policies that may be used to
reduce municipal and community emissions. The information gathered at this
Americans with Disabilities Act Accommodations. Please be advised that the City needs to be notified 72 hours
in advance of a meeting if any specific accommodations or interpreter services are needed in order for you to attend.
The City complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities
upon request. Please call (707)463-6752 or(707)463-6207 to arrange accommodations.
meeting will be used to prepare a draft municipal and community Climate Action
Plan for the City of Ukiah. The draft CAP will be presented for consideration at a
future City Council meeting.
10. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
11. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
12. ADJOURNMENT
Americans with Disabilities Act Accommodations. Please be advised that the City needs to be notified 72 hours
in advance of a meeting if any specific accommodations or interpreter services are needed in order for you to attend.
The City complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities
upon request. Please call (707)463-6752 or(707)463-6207 to arrange accommodations.
1 UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 April 10, 2013
3 Minutes
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
6 Kevin Doble Mike Whetzel
7 Linda Sanders Judy Pruden, Chair
8 Laura Christensen
9
10 STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
11 Kim Jordan, Senior Planner Listed below, Respectively
12 Greg Owen, Airport Manager
13 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
14
15 1. CALL TO ORDER
16 Chair Pruden and Vice Chair Whetzel were absent. The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning
17 Commission was called to order by Senior Planner Jordan at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the
18 Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California.
19
20 2. ROLL CALL
21
22 Senior Planner Jordan suggested the Commissioners appoint an acting chair or ask for a volunteer
23 since there was no chair or vice chair present to conduct the meeting.
24
25 Commissioner poble volunteered to serve as acting chair.
26
27 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Everyone cited.
28
29 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — The minutes from the March 27, 2013 are included for review and
30 approval.
31
32 M/S Sanders/Christensen to approve the March 27, 2013 minutes, as submitted. Motion carried (3-0)
33 with Chair Pruden and Commissioner Whetzel absent.
34
35 5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
36
37 6. APPEAL PROCESS
38
39 7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION - Confirmed by Commissioners
40
41 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE - Confirmed by Staff
42
43 9. PUBLIC HEARING
44 9A. Ukiah Municipal Airport Zoning Map Amendment and Establishment of Planned
45 Development Regulations. Planning Commission consideration and possible recommendation
46 to City Council for a Zoning Map Amendment to change the zoning of the parcels located at the
47 Ukiah Municipal Airport from Public Facilities (PF) and Manufacturing (M) to Planned
48 Development— Public Facilities (PD-PF) and to establish Planned Development Regulations and
49 a Planned Development Map for the Ukiah Municipal Airport.
50
51 Senior Planner Jordan: Gave a staff report and noted no development and no expansion of the Airport
52 are proposed as part of the proposed rezoning and establishment of PD Zoning District Regulations. All
53 development is subject to the standards and process prescribed as part of the proposed Ukiah Municipal
54 Airport Planned Development.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 10, 2013
Page 1
1 Commissioner Sanders:
2 • The environmental documents prepared for the Walmart Expansion Project and Costco Project
3 included an EPR Radius Map Report and Geotech information indicated there is contamination
4 on the Airport. Asked staff to comment on this.
5
6 Senior Planner Jordan:
7 • The State Water Resources Board 'Geotracker' website identifies sites with contamination and
8 their status.
9 • Confirmed there is one site on the Airport, City's corporation yard, that is `open and under
10 remediation.' The estimated timeframe for cleanup is five years and the City is approximately one
11 year into this cleanup.
12 • The direction of the groundwater movement runs to the southeast. To provide an example, the
13 new Sears building was affected by contamination and dealt with this as part of construction of
14 the building. The new US Cellular building located east of the Sears building was not affected by
15 any contamination.
16 • Monitoring wells are set up to test groundwater migration from known contaminated sites and are
17 shown on the Geotracker website.
18 • Demonstrated other areas on the Geotracker map that have been cited as being contaminated,
19 what sites are closed and/or open sites that are under remediation and where the monitoring
20 wells are located.
21
22 Airport Manager Owen:
23 • The City Corporation Yard is located in the Eastside North, Subarea 2.
24 • The Airport is required to follow environmental regulations and participates in a State Stormwater
25 Monitoring Program. During the wet season the Airport is required to provide outfall monitoring of
26 water that does include water sampling.
27 • The Airport must make sure water leaving the Airport is clean and that the Airport is not
28 discharging any contaminated water.
29 • The Airport even during the dry season has water in the storm drains and is required to find out
30 where this water is coming from.
31
32 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:10 p.m.
33
34 Don Albright, Airport Commission Chair:
35 • The Airport Commission worked diligently for 18 months to revise the Ukiah Municipal Airport
36 Guidelines adopted by Council to create a document that more appropriately ensures the
37 development of the Airport occurs in a manner consistent with the development standards, land
38 uses, and that the procedures included in the document are enforceable and implementable.
39 During this process, high consideration was given to present Airport operations and how future
40 operations and development can best be accomplished in order to promote/enhance/reserve the
41 economic vitality of the Airport.
42 • Recently, the Airport Commission was asked to consider and review the proposed Ukiah Airport
43 Planned Development (PD) Regulations and associated Planned Development Planning Areas
44 Map in which some revisions were recommended, as addressed in the staff report.
45 • Of primary concern during the 18-month discussion and revision of the Guideline document was
46 to ensure safety at the Airport. The Airport functions with fixed-wing aircraft and rotocraft having
47 the potential to conflict with one another. As such, the Commission spent considerable time
48 establishing/looking at areas/subareas where the different types of aircraft can best operate
49 safely. Considerable time and thought was also given to future development and identification of
50 land uses for the different planning areas that would be allowed by right, allowed with a use
51 permit or prohibited to best benefit the Airport. The Commission focused very closely on whether
52 or not a use was right/compatible for a particular area.
53 • Supports the rezoning of Airport parcels that comprise the Ukiah Municipal Airport from Public
54 Facilities (PF) and Manufacturing (M) to Planning Development (PD) — Public Facilities (PD-PF)
55 and approval of the associated PD Regulations and PD Planning Areas Map.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 10, 2013
Page 2
1 Eric Crane, Airport Commissioner:
2 • The intent of the Guideline document was to make certain it reflects the historical use of the
3 Airport facility and found the former Guidelines document had little or no resemblance in this
4 regard and/or how the Airport actually functions. It was `sort of a second document away from
5 reality.'
6 • The Commission began the process of revising the Guideline document by describing how the
7 Airport is used and how it is intended to be used moving forward.
8 • The entire east side of the Airport facility is not currently beneficial for aviation with the exception
9 of the fuel tanks. Portions of the east side are used seasonally by agencies/organizations that are
10 involved with marijuana eradication and use helicopters. As this area is hopefully developed,
11 would like to take some of the less compatible uses in other areas and transfer them to the east
12 side, particularly helicopter operations.
13 • The intent of the Guideline document presently proposed as PD Regulations was to
14 evaluate/discuss what operations/facilities the Airport currently has and what the needs/plans are
15 for the future.
16
17 Acting Chair poble:
18 • Understands and appreciates how hard the Airport Commission worked on the Guideline
19 document.
20 • Page 10, Table 1: Eastside Uses and Permit Requirements, Professional offices — Aviation
21 related and Professional offices — non aviation related and questioned why the use differential for
22 aviation related and non-aviation related activities for professional office?
23 • Also, the warehouse and distribution use provided for in the adopted guideline document was not
24 included in the revised guideline document and/or proposed PD Regulation document. Asked
25 why this is?
26
27 Eric Crane:
28 • The intent with regard to Professional Office and separating aviation related from non-aviation
29 related involved a discussion and analysis of `what if.' In the best interest of the Airport the intent
30 for aviation related uses for professional office is they be allowed by right in the appropriate
31 designated planning area and non-aviation related uses for professional office require a use
32 permit in the appropriate designated zones and this is because the uses should be related to
33 Airport functions/activities to make certain the Airport has a future. Therefore, the preference is
34 for uses to be aviation-related.
35 • Related to warehouse and distribution uses, the intent is to discourage someone from building a
36 warehouse that would be used as such. On the other hand, if someone wanted to construct a
37 building that could be used for aircraft in the future, but the demand at this time was for a
38 warehouse more thought would be given as to how this would transition in the future.
39
40 Acting Chair poble:
41 • Related to warehouse and distribution use, what about a product such as wine that is
42 manufactured somewhere else but a space for distribution is needed and the interest for this
43 space happens to be on the Airport?
44
45 Eric Crane:
46 • If the product is not being distributed by air, the preference would be to have distribution
47 elsewhere because the use does not involve aviation. There are many areas where a building
48 can be constructed for warehouse and distribution purposes. There are very few places where a
49 building can be constructed to accommodate aircraft.
50 • The intent is to discourage those uses that can be done elsewhere.
51 • Available space is somewhat limited at the Airport. The concern is that the building would be
52 used for a non-aviation related purpose which would displace the ability to have a hangar
53 constructed.
54 • The Airport is a City facility and corresponding enterprise fund where construction of a hangar or
55 any type of construction must be at prevailing wage. This is very expensive per square foot. The
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 10, 2013
Page 3
1 Airport does not have the cash flow to really fund the building of hangars so it important hangars
2 be preserved for aviation related uses and that available space for any type of construction be
3 reserved for aviation related uses as well.
4 • The FED-EX building is a land lease (ground lease) situation. The land is owned by the Airport
5 and the building is owned by FED-EX, but at some point when the lease expires and/or is not
6 renewed, the building would revert to Airport ownership. The building could be leased back to
7 FED-EX or to someone else. When the FED-EX building was initially designed, it did not include
8 the ability to house aircraft. At that time in the 1990s, the Airport Commission said since the
9 structure would be located on the flight line the structure must be built to accommodate aircraft.
10 FED-EX does use the building to store aircraft and does distribute by air.
11 • If someone wants to store wine, for instance, and is willing to build a structure for the City and it is
12 built to include a door that can accommodate aircraft, the Airport would be fine with leasing
13 ground for this purpose because at some point, the building will revert to City ownership.
14 • People desiring to construct a building at the Airport must consider whether or not they want to
15 make a significant financial investment in a building when at some point the building will revert to
16 Airport ownership.
17
18 Acting Chair poble:
19 • Understands the Airport does not necessarily want to discourage warehouse and distribution
20 uses per se, but rather require a structure be built to accommodate aircraft for future use even
21 though the immediate and/or intended use would be for warehousing and distribution purposes.
22 The Airport would like to have some oversight/authority about how the aforementioned scenario
23 would be implemented.
24
25 Eric Crane:
26 • The Airport does not want warehouse and distribution to be a use allowed by right. A use that
27 best benefits the Airport is one that is aviation related or has an aviation related use component
28 for future use as an aviation related use.
29
30 Staff:
31 • To explain how a warehousing and distribution use could occur at the Airport. If a use is
32 proposed that is not listed in the use tables or for some other reason/exception, a request for
33 Determination of Appropriate use could be requested. This request would be referred to the
34 Airport Manager and scheduled for consideration by the Airport Commission. The Airport
35 Manager and Planning Director would determine if the use was appropriate at the Airport and, if
36 so, make the required findings supporting the Determination.
37 • The requirement that the Determination be reviewed by the Airport Commission was added at the
38 April 2, 2013 meeting to allow the Commission to consider and have input on uses that are not
39 listed in the table and their ability to benefit the Airport or not.
40 • The Airport Commission spent considerable time reviewing and determining the uses that should
41 occur and the uses should be encouraged at the Airport. Typically, aviation uses that support the
42 Airport and should be encouraged were allowed by right. Uses that were non-aviation related
43 and may not be the best use of limited Airport resources require a Use Permit.
44
45 Acting Chair poble:
46 • How would a restaurant apply to specific uses? For restaurants, Table 1: Eastside Uses and
47 Permit Requirements require a use permit for Eastside North, Subarea 1 and 2, but prohibited in
48 Eastside North, Subarea 3, Eastside South, Subarea 1 and 2; For restaurants, Table 2: Westside
49 Uses and Permit Requirements, a use permit is required for Westside North, is allowed by right
50 in Westside Central, prohibited in Westside South and allowed with a use permit in Westside
51 Mixed South/Central.
52 • Would the public use a restaurant that is on an airport?
53
54 Eric Crane:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 10, 2013
Page 4
1 • How restaurants work for airports is pilots fly to an airport for lunch. It is called the $100
2 hamburger.
3 • Restaurants located near airfields attract transient aircraft. It is not about the airport, but rather
4 the pilots.
5 • The public could also use a restaurant located on the airport, particularly if people can dine and
6 watch planes come and go with a commanding view of the flight line. This is the case in at many
7 airports, including Petaluma.
8
9 Commissioner Sanders:
10 • Sees that Community Gardens related to Table 1: Eastside Uses and Permit Requirements are
11 prohibited in Eastside North, Subareas 1, 2, & 3, allowed with approval of a use permit in
12 Eastside South, Subarea 1 and prohibited in Eastside South, Subarea 2. Table 2: Westside Uses
13 and Permit Requirements, prohibited in Westside North, Central, South and Westside Mixed
14 South/Central and inquired about the reason they are discouraged?
15 • Table 1, page 10, picnic area/primitive parking and requested information more about this use.
16 According to the table this use is prohibited in Eastside North Subareas 1, 2, & 3 and requires
17 use permit approval to operate in Eastside South, Subareas 1 and 2. Also, questioned the reason
18 for the note that states, `only when allowed by FAA.'
19
20 Eric Crane:
21 • Someone specifically came to the Airport Commission and asked that the Commission consider
22 allowing gardens at the Airport.
23 • The Airport Commission had several discussions about a proposed Community Gardens at the
24 Airport and it was determined there was no real suitable location other than possibly Eastside
25 South, Subarea 1 because some aircraft still use lead fuel and this would not be a healthy
26 approach to grow food in possible contaminated soil. Other issues included problems with having
27 water that is easily accessible for the garden and/or other issues such as safety associated with
28 garden activities and people working in the vicinity of aircraft.
29 • Related to `Picnic area/Primitive parking, after the September 11 tragedy there was a big push to
30 fence airports and with keeping the public off of property and places where airplanes operate.
31 There was also some discussion about not allowing camping at rural airports and with airports
32 having more security precautionary measures in place. Related to the note, `only when allowed
33 by FAA' acknowledges this is the environment associated with picnic/primitive parking use so that
34 if the FAA says something about this use, it is documented the Airport must appeal to a higher
35 authority. The Airport Commission determined Eastside South, Subareas 1 and 2 would be
36 suitable for use as a picnic area and/or for primitive parking (camping).
37
38 Duell Parks:
39 • Is a pilot of both helicopters and fixed wing aircraft.
40 • Has questions concerning the proposed PD Regulation document as it relates to rotocraft and
41 fixed wing aircraft uses and locations.
42 • It will be a long time before rotocraft uses are permanently relocated to the east side of the
43 Airport.
44 • Acknowledged there are times when pilots that operate helicopters and fixed wing aircraft
45 miscommunicate and this becomes a safety issue. Supports the Airport look closely at the uses
46 and locations for rotocraft and fixed wing aircraft operations to make certain such aircraft do not
47 conflict by operating in close proximity with one another.
48
49 Airport Manager Owen:
50 • The way it is now rotocraft uses are still allowed in the Westside until which time the east side can
51 be developed with the proper infrastructure to accommodate a helipad and helicopters.
52 • The Airport is in the process of looking at FAA grant funding for a study to look at potential
53 development of the east side of the Airport relative to compatibility and future funding to develop
54 the east side.
55 • It will take time to develop a plan and a design for potential development of the east side.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 10, 2013
Page 5
1 • During the process of revising the Guideline document, the Commission looked at what exists
2 presently at the Airport and what would benefit the Airport by way of expansion.
3
4 Lori Brodosky:
5 • Owns a hangar at the Airport and has problems renting it.
6 • The City has a beautiful Airport and would like to see new businesses come to the Airport.
7
8 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 6:28 p.m.
9
10 PUBLIC HEARING REOPENED: 6:29 p.m.
11
12 Commission:
13
14 ATTACHMENT 1
15 Paqe1, Sections 1,2,3
16
17 Asked about the blank spaces that reference ordinance and exhibit numbers.
18
19 Staff: The blank spaces are placeholders that will be filled in later.
20
21 No other questions/comments.
22
23 Page 2, Section 3 continued. Section 4, Section 5, Section 6, Section 7
24 No questions/comments.
25 Page 3, Section 7 continued
26 No questions/comments.
27 Paqe 4, Section 7 continued
28 No questions/comments.
29 Paqe 5, Section 7 continued
30 No questions/comments.
31 Paqe 6, Section 7 continued
32 No questions/comments.
33 Paqe 7, Section 7 continued
34 No questions/comments.
35 Paae 8, Section 8
36 No questions/comments.
37 Paqe 9, Table 1: Eastside Uses and Permit Requirements
38 No questions/comments.
39 Paqe 10, Table 1 continued
40
41 Acting Chair poble:
42 • Related to Professional Offices, aviation related and non-aviation related, appears to have a
43 different standard for both.
44 • Related to professional office, aviation related use is allowed by right while a non-aviation related
45 use requires a use permit.
46 • Would like to know how the Commissioners view possibly making these uses equal.
47
48 Commissioner Sanders:
49 • The intent of the Airport Commission was to preserve/protect as much space as possible at the
50 Airport for aviation-related uses.
51 • Is of the opinion if the use is broadened this could negatively compromise aviation related
52 business opportunities because of competition for space. Competition for space does not appear
53 to be a problem currently at the Airport, but it could be in the future. The intent is to protect the
54 space for aviation related uses.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 10, 2013
Page 6
1 • Related to professional office, understands the rationale for separating aviation related from non-
2 aviation related uses so as to preserve as much space as possible for future aviation related
3 purposes.
4 • Would like to hear more comments about the importance of making the uses equal.
5
6 Acting Chair poble:
7 • Business opportunities can happen around the Airport.
8 • There are many airports that have professional offices of all types and sorts which are leased and
9 generate revenue for the airports.
10 • To make a discretionary process more restrictive for one type of professional office versus
11 another seems to deter the potential for business development opportunities.
12 • Business development opportunities are highly important and a good thing for the City whether
13 located at the Airport or somewhere else.
14 • Is of the opinion it is restrictive to separate aviation related from non-aviation related use for
15 professional offices and to require different types of permitting.
16 • Asked if the Airport Commission has a comment about professional office and the difference in
17 how aviation and non-aviation are treated.
18
19 Don Albright:
20 • Worked for the Saving Bank of Mendocino County for 20 years and noticed as a matter of
21 banking policy that if someone wanted to construct professional offices it is highly beneficial if the
22 building/land is privately owned in terms of getting financing, down payments, etc. because the
23 bank then has some collateral in the event of a default on a loan and/or for other reason.
24 • Cited examples of privately owned buildings on the Airport that are typically aviation related as
25 opposed to non-aviation related uses because the owners understand such buildings/hangars
26 will eventually revert back to City ownership such that the cost of the investment to construct a
27 building must be financially worthwhile as opposed to, for instance, leasing a building for a non-
28 aviation related use. It is likely more cost effective to own the building and operate as an
29 aviation-related use than to risk of the same as a non-aviation related use because the function
30 of an airport is for aviation purposes.
31
32 Acting Chair poble:
33 • So the incentive for someone from a financing perspective for an aviation business at the Airport
34 is going to be greater if the particular business owns the building and land as opposed to a non-
35 aviation related use that likely rents space.
36
37 Don Albright:
38 • Most of buildings are not really customized or designed to accommodate professional office
39 uses.
40
41 Acting Chair poble:
42 • Questioned what type of aviation related professional office uses are we specifically talking
43 about?
44
45 Don Albright:
46 • Examples of professional office aviation related uses include: flight schools, car rentals and the
47 like such that these uses have a reason to purchase fuel at the Airport.
48 • Fuel sales represent the highest source of revenue generation for the Airport so it is important to
49 have uses that have a need to purchase fuel and these are mostly aviation related uses.
50
51 Acting Chair poble:
52 • Flight school and restaurants are already listed uses in the Use Tables in the regulations.
53 • Is looking for examples of aviation-related uses for professional office.
54
55 Eric Crane:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 10, 2013
Page 7
1 • Related to professional offices, aviation related versus non-aviation related uses, the problem
2 when the Airport Commission looked at this use is not knowing what someone might propose so
3 rather than allow whatever use someone might propose, the Commission wanted to have the
4 ability to look more closely at a particular proposed use on a case by case basis if the use is not
5 directly related to the Airport.
6 • If someone comes in with a use that actually works with the Airport, this would be great. But, if a
7 dentist were to express an interest in renting a space in the main terminal area for a dental office,
8 for instance, and then a car rental agency also expressed an interest, would rather see that space
9 leased to the car rental agency because that is an aviation related use and supports the function
10 of the Airport. Does not want to see space locked in by a non-aviation use when that space could
11 be used for an aviation related use.
12 • Cited as an example the small saw/engine shop that operates on Airport property (Westside
13 North) that this non-aviation use is appropriate because the business is located in an area with
14 access from State Street and no direct access to the Airport, making aviation-related uses at this
15 site unlikely. Therefore, the use can be whatever it needs to be, non-aviation or otherwise. It is a
16 space that brings in revenue for the Airport.
17 • The closer one gets to the flight line and the closer one gets to the center of the Airport, the more
18 important it is to have checks and balances in place in terms of the allowed uses in order to
19 protect from potential displacement of a use that is aviation related and valuable to the Airport.
20
21 Acting Chair poble
22 • Would like an example(s)of aviation-related professional office uses.
23
24 Staff:
25 • The uses named in the use table are those that have been specifically identified and
26 acknowledged there are those uses that remain unnamed because they are unknown.
27 • Related to professional offices, aviation related and non-aviation related, the Commission
28 essentially wanted a placeholder. An aviation-related professional office would be determined
29 when someone requested to use space at the Airport.
30 • To speak why the two uses are treated differently, i.e., allowed by right versus a use permit, the
31 Airport Commission spent considerable time looking at the amount of space that is available at
32 the Airport versus what is available Citywide for businesses. The Commission really wanted to
33 preserve space at the Airport for aviation related uses. Someone could build or find tenant space
34 in the City and/or County rather than utilize space at the Airport that would take away from an
35 aviation related use and use limited Airport resources.
36 • Separating the two uses into allowed by right or use permit required encourages the aviation-
37 related use at the Airport and provides an incentive for non-aviation related uses to consider
38 locations other the Airport.
39
40 Acting Chair poble:
41 • Again, the separation of uses for professional offices provides for a prescriptive allowed use by
42 right for aviation related professional office use, but there is no description about what this may
43 be and this aspect is of concern.
44
45 Eric Crane:
46 • Other examples of an aviation related professional office uses are: aviation photography
47 business, repossession of airplanes, a doctor's office that does flight physicals, a consulting firm
48 that is aviation related that does the same work that the City hires out for to name a few uses.
49
50 Airport Manager Owen:
51 • Some aviation related professional offices businesses that operate on the Airport include: 1) an
52 FAA office; 2) a courier service office; 3) an aviation consultant who did aircraft appraisals that
53 operated in an office at the Airport for approximately a year; 4) Smith Air formerly operated a
54 charter air service at the Airport. The point is there are aviation related office functions at the
55 Airport.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 10, 2013
Page 8
1 Acting Chair poble:
2 • It appears the two different professional uses can be defined and/or clearly broken out as to what
3 uses are aviation related.
4 • If both aviation-related and non-aviation related uses require a use permit, questions what
5 parameters would be used to identify their functions in terms of how the use benefits the Airport.
6 • The fact that an aviation-related professional office use does not require a use permit and can
7 essentially get started by right, there needs to be some sort of clear definition how such a use can
8 be helpful to the Airport if this is the reason for having two different use categories for
9 professional office. For instance, an engineering firm could have one aeronautical engineer on
10 staff at the Airport and questioned if this would qualify as an aviation-related professional office
11 use?
12
13 Airport Manager Owen:
14 • An aviation-related use would apply if the business is doing aeronautical activities.
15
16 Acting Chair poble:
17 • Is of the opinion some `gray area' exists when it comes to clearing defining/distinguishing aviation
18 related from non-aviation related uses for professional office. In this regard, the process is
19 considered discretionary. In which case, there are procedures/rules in place concerning the
20 process.
21 • It is important any time a particular use is allowed outright, the parameters related to the use
22 need to be clearly defined for the purpose of good decision making.
23 • Is of the opinion a distinction needs to be made about the two use types for professional office.
24
25 Commissioner Sanders:
26 • Asked Acting Chair poble if he is requesting non-aviation and aviation uses be allowed by right or
27 for both uses to be better defined.
28
29 Acting Chair poble:
30 • Is not advocating non-aviation uses be allowed by right, but rather the use types for professional
31 office be defined because the process is basically ministerial. It is for this reason, the category of
32 businesses for professional offices needs to be defined that fit under this ministerial process and
33 for a person to understand how to proceed.
34 • The process could involve: 1)defining the use; or 2) make all professional offices an allowed use.
35
36 Staff:
37 • Is not sure whether it is necessarily possible to come up with a definition for the uses.
38 • Is concerned with the process of just listing examples because this may not be
39 practical/productive or a process that can be done properly/accurately.
40 • What typically occurs for planning projects/business licenses is staff asks the applicant for a
41 written description of the project that explains the business operations and functions. Staff will
42 then review the project description to see if the use is allowed or not or allowed with approval of a
43 use permit for a particular zoning district.
44 • In the case of the Airport, what would occur for a proposed professional office use is it would be
45 reviewed by the Airport Manager to see if the use is aviation related and if it is and does not meet
46 the definition of a professional office non-aviation related use, the use would be allowed as an
47 aviation-related professional office.
48 • During the Guideline revision process, the Commission was not able to define the use types for
49 professional office.
50 • After working closely with the Airport Commission on the Guidelines document, making all
51 professional offices an allowed use was not the intent of the Commission.
52 • The Planning Commission is a different body so the Planning Commission can recommend
53 defining and/or making all professional offices an allowed use if this is its preference. However, it
54 was made very clear by the Airport Commission the approach of making all professional office an
55 allowed use was never the intent.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 10, 2013
Page 9
1 Commissioner Christensen:
2 • Questioned how cumbersome it would be to just require a use permit for all professional office
3 use types because with this process, you would not be differentiating between the two uses.
4
5 Staff:
6 • The way in which the Airport Commission dealt with the use tables was to first look at what the
7 Airport currently has operationally, ask the question where the Airport wants be in the future and
8 if the use being evaluated will effectively get the Airport to the place it wants/needs to be in the
9 future and is this use aviation related and will it further the needs of the Airport.
10 • The aviation-related professional office use was one of those uses that could clearly enhance
11 the needs of the Airport and the Airport Commission's preference was to make those
12 professional office uses that are aviation related allowed by right if the use was found
13 compatible with Airport functions and require a use permit for those professional office uses that
14 were not aviation related.
15 • The Planning Commission could require a use permit for all professional office uses, but this is
16 contrary to what the Airport Commission wants to see. Again, the Planning Commission is a
17 different body and if it is the Commission's preference to make all professional offices require a
18 use permit the Commission has the authority to do this.
19
20 Commissioner Sanders:
21 • The use tables contain some examples of services/businesses such as Calstar, Reach, and
22 under rotocraft maintenance there is repair, service, painting etc., and inquired if is it possible to
23 add examples of aviation related uses for professional offices with a few potential uses?
24
25 Acting Chair poble:
26 • Is there an Airport Commissioner that can clarify what an aviation-related professional office use
27 might be?
28
29 Carl Steinmann, Airport Commissioner:
30 • Related to an example of a professional office use, are you looking at an office for a person to
31 set up in or a complex?
32
33 Acting Chair poble:
34 • The professional office use could be just a small office or a complex.
35
36 Carl Steinmann:
37 • The Airport and FAA have regulations related to height, width, trees, parking, and type of activity
38 that occurs near the runway.
39 • There is room in the entrance to the Airport for professional buildings, but the footprint of the
40 Airport is `pretty compact.'
41 • The east side of the Airport is not really a possibility at this time for professional buildings other
42 than Eastside North where the former lumber company operated.
43
44 Eric Crane:
45 • Referred to Attachment 2 (Airport PD Planning Area Map) to demonstrate the location of flight
46 lines and building restriction lines for the east side of Airport where construction is restricted or
47 prohibited. Concurred that the Eastside South is not conducive for professional office uses at this
48 time.
49 • Talked about the Westside North/Central where FBOs such as FED EX, Featherlite, T & M
50 Aviation operate and where the large hangars are located, including where the building
51 restriction lines for this side of the Airport are located. The Airport does not really have a lot of
52 space for office buildings/complexes because much of the space is built out and/or used for
53 aviation related activities, such as Calstar, Cal Fire and/or aviation related businesses that
54 operate from hangar buildings that also house aircraft and/or helicopters. Demonstrated space
55 on the west side that could be used for office space provided consideration is given to the flight
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 10, 2013
Page 10
1 line and/or other building restriction areas. Talked about Westside Mixed South/Central and
2 Westside South having the potential for non-aviation related uses and noted where the flight
3 school and City-owned hangars are located.
4
5 Carl Steinmann:
6 • Again, there is office space available in the front entrance of the Airport where the Calstar
7 administrative buildings were formerly located. There are other office buildings in this location.
8 The Old Flight Service Station where Airport staff operates from has office space available for
9 small professional office uses.
10 • The Airport does not have the footprint for someone to build a two-story building with 25 offices,
11 for instance.
12 • FED EX is a nice professional office building that can be used as a hangar building in the future.
13
14 Eric Crane:
15 • The Airport has privately owned hangars, City-owned hangars that are leased and FBO hangars
16 that businesses operate from and demonstrated the location. Hangars are not really built to
17 accommodate professional office uses.
18 • Acknowledged that professional offices that are aviation related are allowed by right in Eastside
19 North, Subareas 1, 2 & 3 and Eastside South, Subarea 2 and Westside North, Central, South and
20 Westside Mixed South/Central with a use permit. As such, the Airport Commission is okay with
21 someone constructing a building that has offices that are in support of aviation related uses.
22
23 Acting Chair poble:
24 • It appears the Airport Commission does not support the need to clarify and/distinguish between
25 aviation related and non-aviation related uses for professional office in the proposed PD
26 Regulation document.
27 • Related to the warehouse and distribution use, is not clear why this use was addressed in the
28 original Guideline document but not in the revised Guideline/PD Regulations document. From a
29 business development standpoint, the opportunity to have some kind of warehouse or distribution
30 by aircraft should be available as a use.
31 • Related to the proposed new code document a warehouse/distribution use can only be
32 considered if there is a request for a Determination of Appropriate Use because it is not listed in
33 the use table as an allowed or permitted use, which is of concern from a business development
34 standpoint.
35 • Is of the opinion there should be at least a warehouse and distribution use category requiring a
36 use permit like other use categories so this use type can be fairly/reasonably evaluated.
37
38 Eric Crane:
39 • Warehouse and distribution should be a minimum consideration because one way airports die
40 and go away is non-aviation related uses move into `cheap' buildings on airports and displace
41 airplanes that drive fuel sales and support the infrastructure of airports. What happens is that
42 airports end up being `strangled to death.'
43
44 Acting Chair poble:
45 • Understands the Airport Commission's job is to advocate for the good of the Airport. The Planning
46 Commission's job is to advocate for business development throughout the City.
47 • Is of the opinion there should at least be a category in the use table for warehouse and
48 distribution. These uses would then have to go through a process just like all the other uses. Is of
49 the opinion, this could be a win-win situation. Warehousing/distribution was a use in the original
50 Guideline document and it is not in the proposed code document.
51
52 Eric Crane:
53 • The Airport Commission discussed and considered the Guideline document very
54 comprehensively and the product that came about is the document the Airport Commission
55 supports.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 10, 2013
Page 11
1 • Accordingly, if someone wants to do something that is not in the use category, it needs to be
2 evaluated.
3
4 Commissioner Sanders:
5 • The Airport Commission is skilled and knowledgeable about matters that concern the Airport and
6 its operation.
7 • Does not want to require the Airport Commission to further review the Guideline document that is
8 now the proposed code document after spending 18 months looking at how the Airport operates
9 now, future development and compatibility of uses that would best benefit the Airport.
10 • Additionally, during the process of revision of the Guideline document there was considerable
11 Airport Commission discussion about compatibility of aircraft in terms of safety related to fixed
12 wing aircraft and rotocraft operating in close proximity to one another and looking at the eastside
13 as a potential area where rotocraft can be relocated to when the necessary infrastructure is in
14 place. Is of the opinion, the Airport Commission has worked diligently to bridge that gap between
15 rotocraft and fixed wing aircraft operations by recommending areas where the uses are most
16 compatible now and in the future.
17 • Is of the opinion the Planning Commission support the work done by the Airport Commission on
18 the code document because the Airport Commission is the expert on Airport matters and
19 functions.
20
21 Commissioner Christensen:
22 • Acknowledged the Airport Commission put in a lot of work on the PD Regulation document and
23 supports a recommendation to Council for adoption as written.
24 • Understands the Airport does not have the space to build large buildings that are not necessarily
25 to be used for aviation related purposes.
26
27 Eric Crane:
28 • Supports that development has an aviation-related component so that in the future when the
29 building reverts back to City ownership, it can be used for aviation related purposes, such as a
30 hangar.
31 • Has no problem with a non-aviation related use operating on the Airport for the short term as a
32 source of revenue if there is no demand for an aviation-related use.
33 • The work done on the Guideline document was formulated in the best interest of the Airport as it
34 presently exists/operates with consideration given to uses and potential improvements related to
35 future operation and development so the Airport can continue to be a growing, economically
36 viable and thriving municipal airport. During the process consideration was given to building
37 restrictions for compliance with Airport and FAA regulations and to explore ways to effectively
38 maximize and utilize the space that is available to its highest and best use for each of the zoning
39 districts.
40
41 Don Albright:
42 • Emphasized the importance of allowing for Aviation related uses as much as possible because
43 such uses support the economic viability of the Airport in that they typically purchase fuel and fuel
44 sales represent the largest source of revenue for the Airport that operates as an Enterprise Fund.
45 • There is a need to protect space for aviation related uses where feasible.
46
47 Acting Chair poble:
48 • The matter of professional office uses — aviation related versus non-aviation related and
49 warehouse and distribution uses were two items of interest to him requiring clarification.
50
51 Staff:
52 • Related to Commissioner Sanders' suggestion of adding some examples for professional office—
53 aviation related uses, supports including examples in the use table such as appraisal of aircraft,
54 insurance for aircraft, FAA offices, consultant, and courier businesses.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 10, 2013
Page 12
1 Planning Commission Consensus:
2 • Supports the aforementioned change to professional office —aviation related uses by adding the
3 examples listed above.
4
5 Airport Manager Owen:
6 • The Airport receives grant funding from the FAA. As part of the grant assurances the Airport has
7 to use the money it receives from the FAA for the Airport and the Airport has to have airport
8 related uses.
9 • There are things we cannot do at the Airport because they are not aviation related.
10 • Uses that are not aviation related could jeopardize grant funding from the FAA. This was some of
11 the thinking that went behind the making of the use tables. If the Airport does allow a non-
12 aviation related use, a process is in place to make an informed evaluation/decision for the good of
13 the Airport that says this is why the use is allowed and what the terms are. As such, if a non-
14 aviation related use has a short term lease this would allow for an aviation related use to come
15 forward should there be a demand.
16 • Much of the thinking concerning the use table has to do with FAA grant assurances because the
17 FAA is very specific about having an airport and maintaining it as such.
18 • When there is non-aviation related activity at the Airport, every effort has to be made to
19 demonstrate to the FAA why this particular activity is occurring at the Airport. Related to the small
20 saw/engine shop that operates as a non-aviation related use in Westside North and is an
21 acceptable non-aviation related use at this location is because there is no access to the Airport.
22 • Where the City Corporation Yard is located there is no access for airplanes. The City Corporation
23 Yards pays the Airport to be at that location. The FAA does check to make sure airports are
24 receiving compensation for use of their facilities.
25 • When the Airport Commission reviewed the Guideline document, it was important the Airport not
26 violate the grant assurances.
27 • While the Airport can make policies/rules about rotocraft operations, the Airport is required to
28 make sure space is available for helicopters to operate because rotocraft are required by the FAA
29 to be allowed at the Airport.
30
31 There was discussion regarding rotocraft and uses and the locations where such aircraft uses are allowed
32 by right and where a use permit is required as shown on the use tables.
33
34 Paqe 11. Table 1 continued
35 No further questions/comments.
36 Paqe 12, Table 2: Westside Uses and Permit Requirements
37 No questions/comments.
38 Paqe 13, Table 2 continued
39 No questions/comments.
40 Paqe 14, Table 2 &Section 9
41 No questions/comments
42 Paae 15. Section 9 continued
43 No questions/comments
44 Paae 16. Section 9 continued
45 No questions/comments
46 Paqe 17. Section 9 continued
47 No questions/comments
48 Paqe 18, Table 3: Number of Parkinq Spaces Required, Parkinq requirements
49 No questions/comments
50 Paqe 19, Parkinq reauirements continued &Table 4: Parkinq Desiqn Standards
51 No questions/comments
52 Paqe 20, Table 4 continued, Landscapinq requirements and Table 5: Landscapinq Requirements
53 No questions/comments
54 Paqe 21. Table 5 continued, Liqhtinq Standards and Table 6: Liqhtinq Requirements
55 No questions/comments
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 10, 2013
Page 13
1 Paqe 22. Table 6 continued, Section 10, Table 7: Site Development Permits
2 No questions/comments.
3 Paqe 23, Table 7 continued
4 No questions/comments
5 Page 24, Section 11 and Section 12
6 No questions/comments
7 Page 25, Section 12 continued and Section 13
8 No questions/comments
9 Page 26, Section 13 continued
10 No questions/comments
11 Paqe 27, Section 13 continued
12 No questions/comments
13
14 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:38 p.m.
15
16 M/S Sanders/Christensen to recommend City Council adopt the Ukiah Municipal Airport Zoning Map
17 Amendment and Establishment of Planned Development (PD) Regulations and Planning Areas Map, as
18 presented with revision to the professional office by adding examples of aviation related uses as
19 discussed above. Motion carried (3-0)with Commissioner Whetzel and Chair Pruden absent.
20
21 10. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
22 Senior Planner Jordan talked about the agenda for upcoming Planning Commission meetings.
23
24 11. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
25
26 12. ADJOURNMENT
27 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:51 p.m.
28
29
30 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 10, 2013
Page 14
1 ITEM 9A
Community Development and Planning Department
L�ity of Zikah 300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
planninq c(�.cityofukiah.com
(707)463-6203
2
3 DATE: April 24, 2013
4
5 TO: Planning Commission
6
7 FROM: Kim Jordan, Senior Planner
8
9 SUBJECT: Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions and Climate Action Plan (CAP) Public
10 Workshop
11
12 BACKGROUND
13
14 The City of Ukiah, City of Fort Bragg, and County of Mendocino were awarded a Sustainable
15 Communities grant (proposition 84). One of the requirements of the grant was collaboration
16 with other communities. In order to comply with this requirement and to make the application
17 more competitive, the cities of Ukiah and Fort Bragg, as well as the County of Mendocino
18 participated in the grant application. While the general purpose of the grant is creating
19 sustainable communities, each jurisdiction is using the grant funding to support their individual
20 projects and programs as described below:
21
22 City of Ukiah:
23
24 ■ Preparation of a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory (municipal and community)
25 ■ Preparation of a Climate Action Plan (municipal and community)
26
27 City of Fort Bragg:
28
29 ■ Preparation of a Climate Action Plan (prior to the grant, Fort Bragg prepared GHG
30 inventories)
31 ■ Preparation of a General Plan Sustainability Element
32
33 Mendocino County:
34
35 ■ Preparation of a Stormwater Ordinance
36 ■ Preparation of a Sustainable Land Use Code
37
38 As part of the grant, the City of Ukiah prepared a request for proposals (RFP) for the
39 preparation of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inventories and climate action plan (CAP).
40 Several proposals were received in response to the RFP. After interviewing several firms,
41 Environmental Science Associates (ESA) was selected to prepare the GHG inventories and
42 CAP. ESA is also the firm that prepared the Walmart Expansion Project EIR and is preparing
Planning Commission Public Workshop
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Action Plan
April 24,2013
1
1 the Costco Project EIR. ESA's preparation of the GHG inventories and CAP are fully funded by
2 the Sustainable Communities grant received by the City of Ukiah.
3
4 For the past 9 months, ESA in coordination with City staff have been collecting the municipal
5 and community data required to prepare the GHG inventories for municipal operations and the
6 community at large. The GHG inventories with appendices are included as attachment 1. The
7 GHG inventories estimate the GHG emissions for municipal operations and the community,
8 identify the sources of the emissions (such as transportation, solid, waste, energy), and identify
9 potential reduction targets.
10
11 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
12
13 The Sustainable Communities Grant is funding the preparation of a Greenhouse Gas Emissions
14 Inventory and Climate Action Plan for municipal operations and the community (City of Ukiah)
15 as described above.
16
17 WORKSHOP
18
19 The workshop will be conducted by ESA. The intent of the workshop is to (see attachment 2):
20
21 ■ report on the municipal and community-wide emissions for the City of Ukiah;
22 ■ discuss the objectives and goals of Climate Action Plans; and
23 ■ identify the steps Ukiah can take to reduce emissions;
24 ■ identify the challenges and barriers to reaching emission reduction goals; and
25 ■ identify the programs and policies that could be used to achieve reduction goals and
26 overcome the barriers and challenges.
27
28 In order to help gather community and Planning Commission input, breakout stations will be
29 available at the workshop. The Commission and public will be able to indicate their preferences
30 on various topics (transportation and land use, energy, solid waste, water, and ways in which to
31 reach identified reduction goals) at the breakout stations. The posters for the breakout stations
32 with questions are included as attachment 3.
33
34 PUBLIC OUTREACH
35
36 Notice of the GHG and CAP workshop was provided in the following manner:
37
38 ■ posted on the City of Ukiah website;
39 ■ emailed to interested parties;
40 ■ sent to media outlets; and
41 ■ sent to Mendocino County Public Health for distribution.
42
43 NEXT STEPS
44
45 A survey will be available on the City of Ukiah website from April 25 through May 23, 2013 to
46 gather input from interested parties that were unable to participate and make their preferences
47 known at the April 24th workshop.
48
Planning Commission Public Workshop
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Action Plan
April 24,2013
2
1 After the workshop, ESA will begin to prepare a draft Climate Action Plan for the City of Ukiah
2 (municipal and community). The draft CAP will be presented at a City Council meeting for
3 public review and comment at a date that has yet to be determined.
4
5 ATTACHMENTS
6
7 1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory with Appendices
8 2. Workshop Agenda
9 3. Discussion Questions and Workshop Posters
10
11
12
Planning Commission Public Workshop
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Action Plan
April 24,2013
3
;
��t��hrft�r�� �`
,
�
The Ukiah greenhouse gas(GHG)inventories serve multiple purposes.They quantify the GHG emissions
resulting from activities taking plaee throughout the City of Ukiah and caused by the City's residents,
businesses,and local governmenf(i.e.,community-wide emissians),as well as emissions attributed to
operation of"the local government(i.e.,municipal emissions).The inventories providean understanding of
where GHG emissionsare originating,and create an emissions baseline against which the City can set
emissions reductinn targets and measure future progress.The inventories further allow the City to develop
effective policies,strategies,and programs#o reduce emissions.
The 2005 and 2010 inventories provide a breakdown ofi GNG emissions by sectorto illustrate the
contributian of varic�us sources in the community and in municipal operations.The year 2005 was ahosen
as the baseline based on guidance from the Galifornia AirResources Board(CARB)and the California
State-wide Energy Efficiency Collaborative(SEEC),and is consistent with most locai government climate
actian pians in California.The 2010 updated inventory shnw more recent data and the general trend for
each sector aver time. �
In addition ta accounting for the 2005 baseline and 2Q10 updated emissions,this document#orecasts !
future emissions using current best estimates for populatian,households,and job growth within the City
under"business-as-usual"conditions.This document further provides a reduction target for 2020,based
on guidance fram CARB.
The boundaries of analysis,along with the methodology and assumptions used to develop Ukiah's GHG
i�ventories and future projections,are included as Appendix A.The technicai report on transportation
modeling of base year and future conditions in Ukiah,provided by Fehr&Peers,is included as�,ppendix 8.
GHG inventories,Future Projections,and Reduction Target City of Ukiah Glimate Action Plan
� - i i i
The emission sources and activities chosen for inclusion in the cammunity-wide inventory are based on the
reporting framework for local governments developed by ICLEI in their U.S. Gommunity Protoco!for
Accounting and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions.As such,emissions in the community-wide
inventory include those that derive from sources located within the jurisdiction and from activities by
community members for which the local government has significant influence to mitigate by 2020.This
generally includes activities taking place within the City's geopolitical boundary where the local government
has jurisdictional authority,as well as community-related activities taking place outside of Gity-limits that
are attributable to community activities(e.g.,landfill waste from City residents}. Emissions from sources not
subject to significant influence by the community were not included within this inventory,such as the
upstream impacts of materials used by the community,since the local government has limited means to '
influence community material uses. '
The community-wide inventory includes emissions from residential,commercial,and industrial activities, as
well as municipal operations,broken into 12 sectors: Residentiai Electricity, Residentiai Natural Gas,
Commercial/Industrial Electricity,CommerciaVindustrial Natural Gas,Stationary Sources Energy,Water
Conveyance Electricity,On-road Transportation,Off-road Transportation,Agriculturai Equipment,
Wastewater Treatment(process emissions'},5olid Waste Generation,and Gity Landfill.
The baseline 2005 GHG inventory for the community of Ukiah totals 155,480 metric tons(M'n af carbon
dioxide equivalent(CO2e2).Figurs 1 and Table 1 show total GHG emissions by sector. In 2005,qn-road
Transportation accounted for of the largest portion af overall community-wide emissians,constituting
47.9 percenfiof total emissions:Contributions#ram other sectors,in order of magnitude,include:Gity-
operated Landfiil3(23.8 percent),Residential Energy(electricity and natural gas, 1 Q.4 percent),
Commercial/Industrial Energy{electricity and natural gas,9.0 percent),Salid Waste Generation
{3.0 percent),Agriculture(2.8 percent),Off-road Transportation(2.7 percent),Wastewater Treatment
(0.2 percent),Water Conveyance Electricity{0.1 percent},and Stationary Sources(z0.1 percent).
Between 2005 and 2010,community-wide emissions decreased by approximately 7 percent to 144,625 MT
CO2e,with-9 of#he 12 sectors experiencing a decrease.The 44 percent reduction in emissions from Solid
Waste Generation is due to a large increase in waste diversion between 2005 and 2010(i.e.,increased
recycling).The decrease at the City-operated Landfill is due to the natural attenuation of inethane(CN4)
emissions as the waste in place decomposes and releases less landfill gas over time. Electricity-related
reductions(Residential,Commercial,and Water Conveyance)can be attributed to lower power
consumptian resulting#ram the economic downturn,and an increase inthe amount of low-carbon
renewable energy sources in the City's electricity portfolia from 2005 tn 2010.Overall,the percent that
each sector contributed to total emissions did not change significantly between 2005 and 2010,with
On-road Transportation continuing to comprise the largest sector(51.1 percent),followed by the City
Landfill(21.1 percent},and Residential Energy{electricity and natural gas, 11.2 percent).
�igure�shows changes in GHG emissions by sector between 2005 and 2010.
1 Process emissions consist of inethane(CH4)and nitrous oxide(N20)generated by combustion of digester gas,piant processes,and
fugitive emissions from effiuent discharge.Natural gas and electriciiy consumed by the Wastewater Treatment plant are captured in the '
naturai gas and electricity sectors. ',
2 Carbon dioxide equivalent(CO2e)includes carbon dioxide,methane(CH4 andlor nitrous oxide(N20). '
3 The City-Operated Landfill stopped accepting new waste in 2000.Hawever,it continues to emit GHGs from the breakdown of stored
waste.
Gity af Ukiah Climate Action Plan GNG Inventories,Future Projections,and Reduction Target
Fi�ur� 1: 20Ci5 E��s�lir�e�c�rrarn�ar���y�h6� Emis�icar�s by ��ctor
1% 9%
24% "` �� 30/ �Residentiat-Electricity
�Residential-Natural Gas
`�� ���', ��y�idl 4`
� ��h�i� 6% �Commercial/Industrial-Electricity
�Commercial/Industriai-Natural Gas
3%
�Stationary Sources-Energy '
3o/ �Water Conveyance-Electricity ,
�Transportation-Off-road
3% �Transportation-On-road
��Agricultural Equipment
�Wastewater Treatment
�Solid Waste Generation
�Landfill
48%
�"�b(� �: �0�5 ��s�(in��nd 2�1� CJpd�t�d Cc�mmt�r�i�y t�F��Emissiar�� by�e�t�ar
2005
Baseline 20Q5 2Q10(Ml" 2010 2005-201Q
Emission�ectar (MT Ct�2e) (%Totalj �t?2ej (°lo TotaQ (%Change)
Residentiai-Electricity 1,918 1.2% 1,679 1.2% -12.4%
Residentiai-Natural Gas 14,370 9.2% 14,490 10.0% 0.8%
Commeraial/Industrial-Electricity 4,323 2.8% 3,212 22% -25.7%
CommerciaVindustrial-Natural Gas 9,658 6.2% 9,231 6.4% -4.4%
Stationary Sources-Enargy 47 �0.1% 48 <0.1% 0.8%
Water Conveyance-Electricity 126 0.1%' 78 0.1% -38.1%
Tran�porkation-Off-road 4,200 2.7% 4,302 3.0% 2.4%
Transportation-On-road 74,477 47.9% 73,896 51.1% -0.8%
Agricultural Equipment 4,330 2.8% 4,134 2.9% -4.5%
Wastewater Treatment 377 0.2% 372 0.3% -1.3%
Solid Waste Generation 4,722 3.0% 2,641 1.8% -44.1%
City l.andfill 36,934 23:8% 30,543 21.1% -17.3%
Tot�l 155,4�0 1 QQ°10 144;625 1 C1Q% -�.0%
GHG inventories,Future Prajections,and Reduction Target City of Ukiah Glimate Action Plan
Fig��re 2: 2Q05 �nd�U1Q Gc�rr�munity GFi� �mi��ic�n� by�ecficrr (MT C;tJ2�)
180,000 �__.__. _.__.____ _.__._.__ ___._.__ _.__.___.__..._._.__m..._.___.__.
160,000 �_.�---- _.._______....�_..�
_.�,.. ._._w.__r__., -.---__., .___.___ _._ �Landfill
140,000 -�---�������-�- �'�' •• '����.�.°.� �SolidWasteGeneration
�Wastewater Treatment
120,000 `- --- ---" �Agricultural Equipment
100,000 �Tra nsportation-On-road
�Tra�spartation-Off-road
80,000 �---- ---- �- - �Water Conveyance-Electricity
;
60,000 ;---= �Stationary Sources-Energy
_._._._..______ .....w._.._
� �CommercialJindustrial-Natural Gas
40,000 ---: __._.___...� ____.. ,
�Commercial/Industrial-Electricity
20,000 _ ■Residential-Natural Gas
�Residential-Electricity
a �__..__. _____..
20d5 2010
l� I -1 I r t l i�� I 1 �1
Although emissions from Ukiah municipal operations are included in the community inventory,tfiis
document provides added detail on the GHG emissions from municipal operations.The municipal energy
use inventory includes ail energy-consuming activities under the direct cnntrol af the Gity,and details
emissions fram eight categories:Electricity, Natural Gas,Gity Vehicle Fleet(fuel),Solid Waste Generation,
Employee Commute,Stationary Sources,Wastewater Treatment{process emissions),and City�andfill.
As shown in Table 2,in 2005 municipal operations were responsible for approximately 1,969 MT CO2e,
exciuding emissions associated with operation of the City l.andfill,and 38,903 MT G02e including City
Landfili emissions.Because the City Landfill generates a disproportianally large percentage of emissions
from municipal operations,this inventory shows municipal operations bath with and without City Landfill
emissions,to give a ciearer picture of contribution afieach sector.
Figure 3 shows 2005 baseline municipal GHG emissians by sector,excluding City Landfill emissions.The
primary sources were City Vehicle Fleet Fuel(27.9 percent),Wastewater Treatment processes
(24.1 percent), and Electricity for facilities and streetlights(23.6 percent}.Remaining emissions came from '
Employee Commuting(14.1 percent),Natural Gas for facilities(6.6 percent},Solid Waste Generation
(2.4 percent),and Stationary Sources fuel(1.3 percent). Figure 4 shows baseline emissians including the
City Landfill,in which case the City Landfill generated approximately 94.9 percent of total municipal
operations emissions.
As shawn in 1"�ble 2, between 2005 and 2010 municipal operations emissions decreased by approximately
7.8 percent(excluding City Landfill emissions)to 1,814 MT G02e.Including the Gity l.andfill,municipal
emissions decreased 16.8 percent to 32,357 MT CO2e.As discussed previously for community-wide
emissions,the 17.3 percent emission decrease at the City-operated�andfill is due to a natural reduction in
City of Ukiah Climate Action Plan GHG Inventorias,Future Projections,and Reduction Target
�fabl�2: �0�5����linc��r�d 201� lJpdated Nlunicipal C3p�r�tion��H� �mis�ior�s by Sectr�r
2005 20�1 Q
�as�line 2005 Update 2010 2005-2010
Emission Sectar {MT C(72e} (/o Total)` {MT Gt�2e) {�/01'otal}� (%Change}
Electricity 465 23.6% 283 15.6% -39.1%
Natural G�s 129 6.6% 184 9.0% 26:4%0
Gity Vehicle Fleet-Fuel 550 27.9% 549 30.2% -Q.2%
Solid Waste Generation 48 2.4% 29 1.6% -40.1%
Stationary Sources 25 1.3% 24 1.3%0 -3.8%
Wast�water Treatment 474 24.1% 475 26.2% 0.1% '
Employee Cammute 277 14.1% 291 16.0% 4.9%
Tatal(without City L.andfill) 1,969 1Q(�% 1,8i4 100°fo -7.8%
Gity Landfill 36,934 94.9%�* 30,543 94.4%*` -17.3°l0
Total{with City Landfill) 38r903 10t�% �2a357 1�Q% -16.8°fi
'`Excluding City Landfill '
*`Including City�andfili
Figure 3:;2�05 ��s�lin� Municip�l �N� �rr�i�sions by�ectar, Excl�ading City L.�nd�ill
14%
� ��� �"°
24%
■Electricity
�Naturai Gas
�Ciry Vehicle Fleet-Fuel
■Government Generated Solid Waste
24% ��0 �StationarySources
++
' ��" �� �WastewaterTreatment(process
�P p p' emissions)
p �� ti ��, ���� �Employee Commute
� 4
�
r
1%
2%
28%
the decompasition rate af deposited waste over time,and the 40.1 percent decrease in emissions from Solid
Waste Generation is likely due to a large increase in waste diversion.Electricity-related emissions also show a
sharp decrease(39.1 percent),both from lower electricity consumption in 2010 likely due to a smaller staff,
and an increase in the amount low-carbon renewabie energy sources in the City's electricity portfolio.Natural
Gas for municipal facilities increased 26.4 percent between 2005 and 2010,primarily due to four new facilities
being brought online.Like in 2005,in 2010 the three sectors with the highest emissions remained City Vehicle
Fleet Fuel(30.2 percent),Wastewater Treatment processes(26.2 percent),and Electricity for facilities and '
streetlights(15.6 percent).Fi�ure�shows changes in GHG emissions by sector between 2005 and 2010. !
GHG Inventories,Future Projections,and Reductian Target City of Ukiah Climate Action Plan
Figure 4w 20t�� �a��lir�e C�uni�ip�(��Il���missic�r�s by��ctrar, lr�cludic��C�ity�.�ndfill �
1% 2% 1%
m=���� ��
° �Electricity
�Natural Gas
q�City Vehicle Fleet-Fuel
�Government Generated Solid Waste
�Stationary Sources '
�WastewaterTreatment(process '
���� � .'�9� �i� � C� r'e; .
,,
°� � : � ° �� emissions)
, ...
b
�� � �� t � � ���a
" '"" � ` �Employee Commute '
� e
�d ° `� �`�, ��CityLandffll
95%
�igG�r��: 2QQ5 Bas�line�nd �0'I� Upd�t�d �lunicip�l �mi�sic�ns by;�ectc�r{I�T �C�2�)
(�x�luding �ity Landfill)
2,50Q -__ __.__,..___..___._..____._.__ . ----__... _._.._._._.___
f �Employee Commute
�
I
2,000 _�___. _r._._�., ..._._. .__.____._ .__._..._._ ________._
�WastewaterTreatment(process
� emissions)
1,500 �Stationary Sources
�Government Generated Solid
1,000 Waste
..,._.___.... _._�..._,_..,.�.. ...m_.,_..____
f �City Vehicle Fleet-Fuel
i
500 �
___.._...,__�--__, ._...___ NaturaiGas
�._____—_
� �Electricity
� .�____..._.__. ___._.,_, _ ._., ___----_.,
2005 2010
City af Ukiah Ciimate Action Plan GHG Inventories,Future Projections,and Reduction Target
� i
GHG emissians projectians for 2020 and 203Q were develaped under a business-as-usual(BAU)scenario,
i.e.,a scenario that daes nat include regulatory actions or GHG reduction measures that were not in place
bythe 2005 base year. For community-wide emissians,this section also includes a 2020"adjusted"
forecast that includes the effects of state-wide emissions reductions measures such as updates to building
energy standards and implementation of programs to decrease emissions from on-road vehicles.
�usiness-as-�lsuai Fa�eca��
GHG emissions projections for the community and for municipal operations were based primarily on
anticipated growth in total population,employment and/ar housing in the City of Ukiah for the periads 2010
to 2020 and 2010 to 2030. Histarical City papulation data was obtained from the Califarnia Department of
Finance(DOF,2012)^,and future population projections were taken fram the Gity of Ukiah 201 D Urban '
Water Management Plan. For community-wide empioyment,historical estimates ware obtained from the
2010-2011 Mendocino County Economic&Development Profile(labar force only).Future emptoyment
projections were taken from the model used to estimate future vehicle miles traveled(see Appendix B).
Historical housing data was obtained from the California Department af Finance,and future housing
estimates were taken from the Fehr&Peers Ukiah VMT Inventory Memo(see Appendix B)5:For municipal
employment, historical estimates were abtained from City records and projected trends were calculated
using historicai growth patterns.See Appendix A for more detail on growth factors and estimates.
Comm�nity-wide Prc�jectians
"�able 3 shows anticipated GHG emissions for the twelve sectors included in the City's community-wide
2005 and 201 Q GHG inventories.The table includes a description of the specific growth projectians used
as a proxy ta project future emissions for each sectar.
�°�bl�3� Commurti��-wid� ����Eine�r�ci F'rc�j��t�d�NC��mi�sions 2�C15=2030 und�r� �AU
Sc�narica(MT�C32e)
�oa5 �aio �oao �a�a
�missian Sectar Emissions Emissions Emissians Emissions Growth Proxy
Residential-Electricity 1,918 1,679 �1,7gg 2,12g Average of population and�
household growth
Residential-Natural 74,370 14,490 15;519 18,344 Average of population and
Gas household growth
Gammercial/Industrial- 4,323 3,212 3;523 3,808 ��
Electricity Employment growth
CommerciaVlndustrial- g,658� 9,231 �10,124 10,946� ��µ��^
Natural Gas Employment grawth
Stationary Sources- 47 48 51 61 Average of population and
Energy household growth
Water Conveyance-� � p� � � Average of pop.,household,and
Electricity 126 78 $4 96 employment growth
4 Califomia Department of Finance,(E-8 Historicai Popuiation and Housing Estimates for Cities,Counties and the State,2000-2010). '
Accessible at:http://www.dof.ca.govJresearch/demographic/reports/view.php#objGoliapsibiePanelEstimatesAnchor
5 See Appendix B.
GHG Inventories,future Projectians,and Reduction Target Gity of Ukiah Climate Action Plan
T�bl�3: �cammunity-�vid� �a��lin��n� F'rcaj�cted t�P�� �mi��ic�ns 2005�203d �and�r� �1�U
�c�n�ri� (�!°��CJ2�) (c�n�inued}
2005 2010 20�0 �2030__ _._ _n__.___._.________._
Emission Sectar Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Growtl�Praxy
Transportation— 4;200 � 4,302 4,718 5;101 � ��
Off-road Employment growth
_�._.__ _..__.._._. _ ___________ ____.__.,_.�
Transportation— 74,477 73,896 85;523 96,456 � �v���
Qn-road Vehiclemilestraveled(VMl)
Agricultural Equipment 4;330 �4,134 4,134 4,134 No growth
Wastewater Treatment 377 372 402 461 Average of pop.,household,and
employment growth '
Salid Waste Generation 4;722� 2,641 2,851 3,271� Average of pop.,household,and '
empioyment growth
___.._______ —___ ___.____. --- -- � N/A(Projections used California
�andfill 36;934 30,543 20;887 14,215 ARB�andfili Emissions Tool,and
EPA's LandGEM software)
'fatal 155,480 144,625 149,615 159,021
Figur�6;2�05 ��s�lir��, 2�10 �ipd�t�, �nd�02�and 203t� �At� C��muni�y�rrrissi�ans by
S�ctar(fVIT�Q2e}
�.___m__� ��.�_�_._._.___.._.��_.�.� ��� �
__ _._________�,
180,000 �-.���__�..__.___._..__._� ,_v�;�___._.._,.m. _.��:....__._.v._�.��__.._.....__
I
� �Landfill
160,000 _.___..___�__.._.� ._._.____ __........._w� �.._.__ __...
� � � �AgriculturalEquipment
140,000 ._.___.,_.. .----_ ______., _._.
�5tationary Sources-Energy
12�,��� �-- ---°--- ---- ---°--- ----- �Water Conveyance-Electricity
i
� �Solid Waste Generation
100,000 __. _ ._
�T�ansportation-On-road
80,000 ��_.:: _,.��: �..,_ ._..,
f��J �Transportation-Off-road
60,000 i--- ------ ---- --.--- ----, �wastewaterTreatment
�Commercial/Industrial-Natural Gas
40,000 � - __.. __.__. __.. __ _._
�Commercial/Industrial-Electricity
20,000 -- ---- -- ---- ---- ■Residential-Natural Gas
� __ �Residential-Electricity
2005 2010 2020 2030
_.________._w__..__�,_...._ _ ___._.....____.. _._...��____�._____..�.____...__._.___._____a
Municipal Projections
For projecting municipal emissions, it was assumed that wastewater treatment(process emissions)wauld
grow commensurate with populatian growth,whereas other municipal departments,facilities,and services
wauid grow in proportion ta municipal employment#rends. Municipal employment is anticipated to grow at
a slightly slower rate than the City population from 2010 ta 2020 and 2030,following the same annual rate
Ci#y af Ukiah Glimate Rction Pian GHG inventories,Fu#ure Projectians,and Reduc#ion Target
of growth in municipal employment during the 2000 to 2011 period.Table 4 shows historic and projeeted
GHG emissions for municipal sources.
T�bI�A �ffunicipa( ����line ar�d F?r?aj�c�e� t,;N� �r��i�sit�n�2(?��-2030 und�r� �3AU �c�n�ric�
(t�1� �d���)
2005 2010 2020 2Q30
Emission Sectar Emissions Emissions Emissions �missions Growth Proxy
Electrieity 465 283 303 324 City employee FTE � '
Naturai Gas 129 164 175 187 City employee FTE �
Gity Vehicie Fleet-Fuel 550 549 586 627 City employee FTE
Salid Waste Generation 48 29 31 33 City empioyee FTE
Stationary Sources 25 24 26 28 Gity empioyee FTE w
Average of pop.,
Wastewater Treatment 474 475 513 588 household and
employment growth
Employee Gommute 277 291 311 333 Gity employee FTE �
Totai(without Gity l.andfiilj 1,969 1,814 1,944 2,i18
City Landfill 36,934 30,543 20,887 14,215 Nistorical Iandfill
emissions
'Total{with City Landfill) 38,903 32,357 22,831 16,334
` djusted� usir�ess-as- �ual ore�a�t
State-wide emissions reduction measures wili contribute to Ukiah's overall GHG reductions by 2020.
Several high-impact state-wide measures included in the AB 32 Scoping Plan target emissians from
transportation and power generatian.
The Low Carbon Fuel Standard(LCFS)to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels and the Paviey '
Bill for reducing passenger vehicle emissions(Assembly Bili 1493)are each expected to provide significant '
emissions reduction benefits for the City of Ukiah,particularly sinee on-road emissions constitute such a
large praportion af totai community-wide emissions{57.7%in 2020). By 202Q,the impact of both the '
Pavley Bill and the LCFS in Mendocino County is projected to reduce on-road transportation emissions by '
approximately 19.3 percents.
In addition,updates to Califomia's Titie 24(Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and ,
Non-residential Buiidings)will pravide improvements to the energy efficiency of new residential and commercial
structures constructed between 2005 and 2020.By 2020,residential energy improvements for electncity and
natural gas are projected reach approximately 10.0 percent and 22.7 percent above pre-2005 Title standards,
respectively,and commercial energy improvements for electricity and natural gas are projected to reach ',
9.4 percent and 4.9 percent'.These energy and resulting emissians savings will impact new develapment in the
6 EMFAC 2011 Model Run for Mendocino County,accessed February,2013.
� impact Analysis:2008 Update to the Caiifomia Energy Efficiency Standards for Residentiai and No�residential Buiidings Available at:
http:!/www.energy.ca.gov/title24l2008standards/rulemaking/documents/2007-11-07_IMPACT ANA�YSIS.PDF
GHG lnventaries,Future Projectinns,and Reduction Target Gity of Ukiah Climate Action Pian
Gity af Ukiah from the between the base year(2005)and 2020,resulting in reduction in electricity-related
emissions af 28 MT CO2e,and a reduction in natural gas-related emissions of 131 MT CO2e.
The state's Renewable Portfolio Standard(RPS)requires the renewable energy portion af a utility's portfolio
to be 33 percent by 2020,which will reduce the emissions associated with the portion af the City's
electricity purchased from PG&E. RPS rules require the renewable energy portion of a utiliry's electricity
portfolio to be 33 percent by 2020. However,the portfolio of electricity consumed by Ukiah already far
exceeds 33 percent. In 2010,eligible renewable already accounted for 55 percent of the electricity
portfolio,with hydroelectricity praviding an additianal 21 percent and nuclear a further 4 percent. Moreover,
PG&E provides less#han 1 percent of the City of Ukiah's energy needs.The State-wide RPS is therefore
not expected have a significant effect on emissions in 2020,and isso is not included as a State Reduction
Measure for calculation purposes.
The collective impact of these state-wide measures on helping the City achieve its 2020 reductian target is
presented in Table 5:By 2020,these measures are expected to reducecity-wide GHG emissions by an
estimated 11,1 percent, resuiting in annual emissions of approximately 132,944 MT CO2e.
T�bl�5. �,rir�u�i �hl� F��cluctic�n�fron� S�ate-v�id� �1��sur�s by 2�20
GHG�missions
State Measure (MT Ct�2efyear)
2�08 Title 24-Electricity 28
2008 Title 24-Natural Gas 131
Pavley Bill and�ow Garbon Fuei Standard 16;513
Totai Reductions 16,67i
� ' �
The City of Ukiah is cansidering a community-wide emissions reduction target of 15 percent below its 2005
baseline by the year 2020,fnr both community-wide and municipal emissians.A 15 percent reduction
target is deemed by CARB and the California Attorney General to be consistent with the state-wide AB 32
goal of reducing emissions to 1990 leveis,8 and is in line with current best practice for climate action plans
developed for numerous California cities,many of which use a 2006 baseline.
�omm�ani�y Emi��ions
The City's target of 15 percent below 20Q5 baseline by 2020 equates to i32,158 MT GChe per year for
community emissions,which is 23,322 MT CC?ze below the baselins(2005}, 17,457 MT CQze below the
projected 2020 BAU emissians,and 786 MT G02e below the adjusted BAU.The eommunity-wide emissions
reduction target is depicted graphically in Figure 7. '
8 In its Climate Change Scoping Pian of September 2008,CARB recommends that local governments adopt a GHG reduction target
consistent with the State's commitment to reach 1990 Ieveis by 2020:This is identified as equivalsnt to 15%below"currenY'levels at '
the time pf writi�g(2ppf�).
� City of Ukiah Clima#e Action Plan GHG Inventories,Future Prajections,-and Reduction Target
Figure 7:��mmunity-wid���I� �missie�ns ur�d�r 2OQ5���eline, 2C11(} �1pc��te, 2Q2Q �AIJ, 2�20
Adjusfied ��tJ,ar�d 15°l� F��d�c�ic�r�7arge�fiar 202�
160 -— -_..__,_�__._._.,_, ____.__.____.__�,___`____.___..___.___,.. _..__.___.m_..____.._______�___
:__..____._�
» 2030 BAU�'���,,�'� (
(159;021 MT CQ2ea.�"" i
2005 Beseline(155�480 MT CO2e) °
155 __ _ �.____., � ___"",.�_..,..__ _ ___ ___--- �---�________^�'" __� _ °",____,m _
�
15D .�-_ _,m... _��nw_ ...___-_ _.__.___... _ __w�.____,�._
.,d .._.._... ,_.,.w.,___ __.�._.__ ..�.._......_,._,_.
� � �
• ° ``-2p20 BAU
U ..� (149,615 MT CC32e)
� 145� _�_ ._ _.� _._��.._.__.__ _ ��� � .�. .�. .�_ _,.__,_.�____�____n�__ ___.. ___ __...e...�....
±° 2010 Update--f''r
� (144,625�MT G02e)� � '�:� * ��
:c° ```� "
E- 140 .__ ..______.______._._____._ ___. ��°_________._.__.___ ----_--- ------___._..__�
\,.::: :
��
�,y .:<
� ._ .::�
135 -- -----_..__.�_.______._.__ .__ _._____..�.__w�____ . �;•_� .�:_.___.�..__.______ _______._._� �..___.�._�
�..� ,�
`��,�,,202o aaaustea BAU �
2020 GHG Reductian Target,,��„� (132,944 MT G02e) '
(132,158 MT G02e} ce
130 .�_ ___._,_..._ ._,,.,.___.__.._._._ __,�.�,_.,_.� ._�,......_._w�_.. ,_._,.. .� ��,.�..___ _.,n..___._.� ..___._ _____.___
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
�Historic Emissions,2005-201t1 �Reductians from Statewide Measures '
-°-•�Business-as-Usuai Emissions;2410-2030
-�°°Trajectory to Reach 202d GHG Target,2010-2D20
�/lur�icipal t�p�ratic�ns Emissions
Though municipal operations emissians are much smalier than emissions from the overall community,a
reduction target for municipal operations is appropriate because many of the measures included in this '
Glimate Action Plan apply to facilities or operations under the direct contral of the City,and because the
City intends to lead by example in meeting the mandates of AB 32.Applying the 15 percent reduction ta
the 2005 baseline emissions results in a 2020 target of 1,673 MT COze,representing a reduction below '
business-as-usual of 271 MT CO2e per year in 2Q20.
GHG Inventories,Future Projections,and Reduction Target Gity of Ukiah Climate Action Plan
This appendix describes the methadology used to develop the City of Ukiah Climate Action Plan(CAP)
2005 baseline and 2010 updated inventories of greenhouse gas(GHG)emissions for the greater
community and for municipal(i.e.,city government)operations.
The purpose of the GHG inventories is to identify-sources,distribution;and averall magnitude of GHG
emissions that occur within the Gity and/or are caused by the community member activities:The
inventories will enable policy makers to implement cost-effective GHG reduction programs pertaining to
residential,commercial,industrial,and municipal sectors within the community.
These inventories use standards established by the IC�EI U.S.Community Protocol(v1.0)' and the Local
Government Operations Pratocol(�GOP)v 1.1?ICLEI has worked with the California Air Resource Baard
(CARB),BAAQMD,and otherstate and regional agencies to develop standardized methods for
inventorying community emissions.lC�EI,along with CARB and the Climate Registry(TCR), has also co-
developed methods for quantifying and reporting GHG emissions from local government sources,which
have been incarparated into the LGOP.
In keeping with these protocols, ESA's process for developing a GHG inventory is:
1. Set organizationai boundaries
2. Set operational boundaries
3. Identify sources of emissions
4. Gollect data on emissions for a representative period of time
5. Calculate GHG emissions from data using robust emissions factors
6. Greate an inventory of CO2e emissions that is complete,transparent,and accurate.
� U.S.Community Protocoi for AccouMing and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions,version 1.0,IC�EI,published October 2012.
Available at:http://www.icleiusa.org/tools/ghg-protocol/community-protocoi
2 LGOP version 1.1,pubiished May 2010,available at:http://www.theciimateregistry.org/resources/protocolsliocai-govemment- '
ooerations-protocoV
Appendix A.GHG Inventary Methodology Ci#y of Ukiah Clima#e Action Plan
0
Establishing the boundaries of an emissions analysis is an important first step in the GHG inventory
process.A city exerts varying levels of control or influence over the activities occurring within its borders.
At the minimum,community-wide GHG inventory shauid be defined broadly enough to include all
emissions sources that may be significantly influenced by locai government actions.These sources tend to
be those that are affected by land use decisions,municipal eodes,and General Plan policies,and
correspondingly are included in a city's GHG reduction measures.In general,the inventory should
encompass sources that are within the purview of the city's discretionary actions and regulatory authority, ,
including sources af indirect emissions that can be intluenced by the city policies ar programs,such as
water canservation or waste reduction.
lJki�h'� C�rgar�iza�ic�n�l �caur�dary
Setting an organizational boundary for a GHG inventory involves identifying the facilities and operations
that-are to be included.The IC�EI U.S.Community Pratocol(2012)definesthe organizational boundary as
the boundary that determines the operations owned or controlled 6y the reporting entity,which depends on
the consolidation approach taken.
The City of Ukiah's2005 and 2010 community-wide inventaries encampass the GHG emissions resulting
from activities taking place within the Gity's geopolitical boundary,where the local Ukiah government has
significant direct or indirect influence.The municipal operations inventories encompass the GHG emissions
resulting from actions governed directiy by the local gavernment;such as municipai buildings,vehicle
fleets,and streetlights.
�9kiah's C�pe�ational �caund��y
The aperatianal boundary is the sum of all saurces of direct and indirect emissions and associated
activities that are included in the organizatianal boundary:The 2005 and 2010 Ukiah community-wide
inventories include GHG emissions(carbnn dioxide(CO�),methane(CHa),and nitrous oxide(Nz0)from the
following sectors.Other GHGs(e.g. hydrofluorocarbons(HFGs), perfluorocarbons(PFGs),and sulphur
hexafluoride(SFs)}were not found to be significant contributors of emissions within the City of Ukiah,and
were therefore not inciuded in this inventory.
Community-wide Inventc�ry `
For community-wide emissions,the ICLEI U.S.Community Protocol breaks down emissions into two
categories. '
� Sources:Any physical process inside the jurisdictional boundary that releases GHG emissions into '
the atmosphere(e.g.,combustion of gasoline in transportatian;combustion of natural gas in
electricity generation;methane emissions from a landfili).
� Activities:The use of energy,materials,andlor services by members of the community that resurt
in the creation of GHG emissions either directly(e:g.,use of househald furnaces and vehicles with '
internal cambustion engines)or indirectly(e.g.,use of electricity created through combustion of
fossil fuels at a power plant,consumption of goods and services whose production,transport
and/or dispasal resulted in GHG emissions).
The community-wide inventory includes emissions from the fallowing sectors.As shown below,emissions
from most sectors derive from multiple sources and activities: ,
City af Ukiah Glimate Actian Plan Appendix A.GHG inventory Methodology
� Gommercial/Industrial�nergy:Direct stationary emissians from combustion of natural gas(source
and activity),and indirect emissions from the use of electricity by the community(activity);
� Residenfiia!Energy.Direct stationary emissions from natural gas combustion(source and activity),
and indirect emissions from purchased electricity{activity);
; * �}n-Raad Transport�tion:Emissions fram on-road gasoline-and diesel-powered vehicles(source
and activity);
� Off-Rcrad Transportation: Emissions from off-road lawn and garden equipment,construction
equipment, industrial equipment,and light commercial equipment(activity); ,
� Agriculture:Emissions from off-road gasoline-and diesel-powered agricultural vehicles(activity);
* Generated Solid Waste:indirect methane(CHa)emissions from the anaerobic decomposition of
arganic material sentto landfill by the community(source); '
� Wasfiewater Treatmenfi:Total Indirect pracess emissians and fugi#ive emissions from wastewater '
treatment proeesses at the City-aperatetl WastewaterTreatment Plant(activity);
� Wafer Gonveyance:Emissions generated by electricity used in the transport of water(activity};
� Static�nary Sources:Emissions generated by the combustion of fassif fuels other than utility-
provided natural gas within the community(source);and
� k:andfill:Indirect methane(CHa)emissions from the anaerobic decomposition of organic material
sent to the(now closed)Gity-operated landfill(activity). ,
�unicip�l �per��ic��s Inv�ntc��y
For municipal emissions,the LGOP divides the aperational boundary into three different scopes,defined as
foilows: '
� Scape 1 emissions are those that come from sources that are owned or controlied by the
reporting entiry.Such sources include stationary emitters like furnaces and boilers,and mobile
emitters like vehicles and construction equipment.
� �cap�2 emissions are indirect GHG emissions related to the consumption of purchased energy '
(i.e.,electricity)that is produced by third-party entities,such as power utilities.
� 5cope`3 emissions are other indirect GHG emissions not cavered by Scope 2 that are associated
with cammunity activities. For a community inventory this generally includes emissions occurring
upstream or downstream of a community activity,such as the methane emissions resulting from ,
degradation of the community's solid waste depusited at a landfill outside of city limits;or the ',
electricity used to pump water to the City from upstream reservoirs.Quantification and reporting
of Scope 3 emissions is generally considered optional,but including them in a community-wide
inventory is appropriate where there is local control over an activity that has an indirect emissions
reduction impacf,such as diverting waste from landfills. '
The 2005 and 2010 municipal operations inventories inciude emissions from the following sectors
� Natural Gas:Direct stationary ernissions from natural gas combustion(Scope 1)from building and
facilities,excluding from the Wastewater Treatment Plant;
� Electricity.lndirect emissions from purchased electricity far buildings,facilities,streetlights,traffic ,
lights,and water pumps operated by the City(Scope 2);
� Vehiele Fleet;Direct emissions from fuel combustion in municipal fleet vehicles(Scope 1);
� Generated Scilid Waste:This sector comprises solid waste sent to landfill from government-owned ,
and/or aperated facilities(Scope 3); '
Appendix A.GHG Inventory Methodology Gity of Ukiah Climate Action Plan
+ �mployee Gommute:Emissions from the fuel combustion in employee-owned vehicles used by
municipal staff travelling to and from work(Scope 3);
: � Stationary�aurces:Emissions from combustion in stationary generatars and other equipment -
operated by the City government(Scope 1);
� Wastewater Treatment: Indirect process emissions and fugitive emissions from wastewater
treatment processes(Scope 3),and direct stationary emissions from natural gas combustion
(Scope 1),at the City-operated Wastewater Treatment Plant;and
� �andfill: Indirect methane(GHn)emissions from the anaerobic decomposition of organic material
sent to the(now ciosed)City-operated landfill(Scope 1).
' ' � � f
20fl5 �3�.s�line and 20�0 Upda�e
IGLEI and the LGOP identify calculatian-based methodologiss as the most appropriate technique for
quantifying GHG emissians,following the basic formula:
GHG�'missions=Activ�fy Qata x Emissians Factor !
Activity data are the relevant measurements of energy use or ather processes that are assoeiated with the
emission of GNGs,such as metered annual energy consumption(kWh of electricity and therms of naturai
gas).
Ernission factors are calculated ratias relating GHG emissions to a proxy measure of activity by emissions
source.The inventories focus on the three GHGs most relevant and significant to City Government
palicymaking:CQ2,GHa,and N20.These gases comprise the majority of GHG emissions from the
community and city government operations. Most GHG reporting protocols alsa include methods for
estimating three additional GHGs: HFGs, PFCs,and SFe.However,these GHGs,largely represent fugitive
emissions that leak from equipment,are generally not included in a community or city gavernment
inventory because the data needed ta quantify them is#ypically incomplete ar difficult to obtain.
Gommunity-wid� Inventory
Gommercialllndustrial ar�el Residential�nergy Emissions '
Commercial/industrial and Residential energy activity data far 2005 and 2010 cansisted of electricity
consumption and metered natural gas use. '
PG&E provided community-wide naturai gas data,in therms,for both years. Direct emissions from naturai
gas combustion were calculated using standard emission factors for natural gas published by the LGOP.
The City of Ukiah Finance Department(Department)provided community-wide electricity consumption in
megawatt hours(MWh)for both 2005 and 2010.The Department also provided a breakdown(by '
percentage)af the various sources of electricity that contributed to the City's electricity portfolio for each ,
year.This included electricity generated from the foilowing sources:
� Renewables(Biomass and waste,geothermal,smail hydroelectric,solar and wind) '
� Coal
� Large Hydroelectric
City of Ukiah Climate Action Plan Appendix A.GHG Inventory Methodology
* Natural Gas
� Nuclear
This mix includes electricity generated by the City-operated�ake Mendocino Hydroelectric piant,as well as
electricity purchased from individual suppliers including wholesale powersuppliers and PG&E.Renewable
energy generation and hydroelectric plants provide approximately 80%af Ukiah's power. Indirect emissions
fram electncity generation were calculated using energy source-specifie emissian factors3,and were adjusted
to include emissians from transmission and distribution.Total electricity use was assumed to refiect a
transmissian and distribution loss of 3.5 percent,based an correspondence with the City's Electric Utility
Directar.
1'ransportatiars(On-raad a�rd f3ff�road}�missians
As with many cities,vehicle travel in Ukiah is the City's largest single source af GHG emissions. Most '
methods for estimating transportation emissions are based on vehicie miles#raveled(VMI�.Community-
wide VMT estimates are highly dependent on the accounting rules and analytical tools used. '
For Ukiah,Fehr&Peers'provided estimates of VMT for on-road vehicular transportation based on the
Mendocino Council of Governments(MCOG)travei demand model and origin-destination calculation ,
methods".VMT were pravided for 2010,and future projectians were provided for the years 2020,2030,and ',
2035.2005VM7 was conservatively estimated by assuming VMT was the same in 2005 as it was in 2010. ,
GARB's EMFAC2011 model was used to calculate 2005 base year and 2010 GOz emissions factors:GH4
and N20 emissions were calculated with default vehicie mix values and emission factors from IC�EPs
U.S.Community Protocol.
Ta estimate mobile off-road emissions,non-point source off-road emissions were abtained from CARB's
OFFROAD2007 Vehicle Model for ali af Mendocino Gaunty.Off-road emissions sources include lawn a�d '
garden equipment,canstruction equipment,industriai equipment,and light commercial equipment.Emissions
were apportioned to Ukiah based on the City's population as a percentage of overail County population(note:
except for lawn and garden equipment,which was apportioned based on number of househalds).
Agricult�aral Equiprnent
CARB's OFFRQAD2007 Uehicle Modei provided agriculture off-road vehicle emissions for all of Mendocino '
Gounty for 2005 and 2010. Emissions were apportioned to Ukiah based on the City's percentage of total '
County population. '
S+�lid Waste G�eneraked
Galrecycle(GRiS)provided community-wide solid waste in annual tans for 2005 and 20105.CHa emissions '
from solid waste were calculated using EPA's�andGEM softwares using the following assumptions:
� 100-year timeframe for waste decomposition;
� Landfill gas capture rate=75%;
� Oxidation Rate=10%
3 For this inventory,renewable sources of electricity were assumed to have an emissions factor of zero.
4 Quantifying emissions associated with the use of travel by the community invoives estimating emissions associated with the entire
length of i�-bou�dary and trans•boundary trips,and allocating a portion of those emissions to the community for which emissions are
being reported.See Appendix B for more information about VMT caiculations for Ukiah.
5 CRiS:CalRecycle Gountywide,Regionwide,and Statewise Jurisdiction Diversion Progress Report ,
6 EPA's Landfiil Gas Emissions Modei(LandGEM version 3.02,released May 12,2005}is available at '
http://www.epa.govAmop/publications-toois! '
Appendix A.GHG Inventory Methodology City of Ukiah Climate Actian Plan A
� �andGEM parameters
� Methane generatian rate{k)=0.04;
� Potential methane generation capacity(Lo)=100;
< NMOG concentration=4000;
� Methane content=50% '
lNater Ganveyance
Emissions from water conveyance were estimated based on historical water use and average electricity '
used to canvey water from a reservoir to tf�e tap.The Ukiah 2010 Urban Water Management Plan provides
2005 and 2010 estimates of annual water use in miliion gallans(MG)of water consumed.The annual
electricity required to transport water was calculated using the Northern California Average Conversion
factar of 1,811 kWh/MG.'Associated GHG emissions were then calculated using a Ukiah-specific emission '
factar foriacal electricity that takes into account the City's diverse mix of electricity sources,and high
percentage of renewable electricity. ,
+tationary Sources
Methodolagy followed U:S.ICLEI Community Pratocal(2d12)methodology for estimating emissions far
statianary sources:Stationarysaurce emissions may include industrial,residential and commercial
emissions sources.
For residential emissions,this inventory includes propane/liquefied petroleum gas(LPG)emissions.
County-level energy consumption figures for other residential stationary sources(i.e.wood and fuel
oil/kerosene)were unavailable from the U.S.Energy Information Administration(EIA).2010 propane/LPG
emissions were estimated based on EIA energy consumption and Census household data(number of
homes utilizing propane/LPG).Propane/LPG consumption was converted into emissions using the LGOP '
emission factor far G02,GHa,and N20 emission.Year 20Q5 emissions were backcast using an average of '
population and household growth from 2005 to 2010.
Industrial emissians from stationary sources were determined to be de minimis based on correspondence
with the Mendocino Air Quality District(Ghris Brown),and were thus not caiculated.Commercial stationary
source emissians were not estimated because local-level building characteristics,which are required far
estimates of commercial stationary source emissions,were not attainable.
VU�stewater 7"reatment
Ukiah owns and operates a Wastewater Treatment Plant(WWTP).A WWTP supervisor provided
information regarding plant processes,standard cubic feet af gas#lared from March to December of 2010,
and the fraction of CHa in biogas(65%}.The Ukiah 2010 Urban Water Management Plan provided the 2005 '
and 2010 population served by the WWTP. !
Wastewater emissions were calculated foliowing ICLEI U.S.Community Protocoi(2012)methodology,and
were based on process data and WWTP service papulatian within Ukiah City boundaries.The nine months
of 2010 gas data were extrapolated ta represent the entire calendar year,and 2005 levels were estimated
commensurate with local population,housing,and employment levels.GHG emissions from wastewater '
include stationary GHa and N20 stationary emissions from the combustion of digester gas,process N�O
emissions from plant processes,and fugitive Nz0 emissions from effiuent discharge.
7 Califomia Energy Commission:Refining Estimates of Water Related Energy Use in Califomia.Avaiiable at:
http://www.energy.ca:gov/2006publicatio�s/CEG500-2006-118/CEG500-2006-11$.PDF
� � City of Ukiah Giimate Action Pian Appendix A.GHG inventory Methodology
Landfill
Emissions were quantified for indirect methane(GHa}emissions from the anaerobic decomposition of
organic materiai sent to the Gity-operated landfill,for years 2005 and 2010.Although the landfiil stopped
accepting waste in 2000,waste-in-place continues to generate emissions,at annualiy decreasing rates.
The Galifornia Air Resource Board's Landfill Emissions Model was used to calculate emissions.The City of
Ukiah pravided an estimate fortotal closure year waste-in-place Emissions Model inputs.
Municipaf C}peratians Inventary '
�lectrici9.y
The City Finance Department provided activity data for electricity that includes electricity used in aU
buiidings and facilities,streetlights,and water supply operated by tne City of Ukiah,for both 2005 a�d
201 Q.Indirect emissions from electricity generation were caleulated using a weighted emissian factor
based on the breakdown of electricity sources within the City's electricity portfolio in 2005 and 2010.
Matural Gas
PG&E pravided activity data for naturai gas that includes metered natural gas usage for ail buildings and
facilities operated by the Gity,including the WWTP,far both 2005 and 2010.Emissions from naturai gas
consumptian were calculated using the PG&E emission factor for G02,and the LGOP emission factors for '
CHa and N20.
Vehicle Fie�;t
This sector includes emissians from on-road and off-road fuel consumption from vehicles operated by the
City of Ukiah,inciuding the Gity vehicle fleet.The Gity pravided fuel cansumption data for gasoline and diesel
vehiclesfor years 2008 and the first seven months of 2012,which was interpalated to estimate fuel
cansumptian for calendar year 2010.Emissions were calculated using C�2,GHa,and Nz0 emission factors
from the�GOP for gasoline and diesel vehicles.Miles pec gallorr(MPG)factors for gasoline and diesel
vehicles were taken from EMFAG2011 software Mendocino County model run for year 2010.Year 2005
emissions were backcast using the growth rate in City#uil-time-equivalent(FTE)workers from 2005 to 2010.
Generated Solid Waste
This sector includes solid waste generated by the City-government facilities that is sent to landfill.Emissions
for the sectar were estimated by apportioning community solid waste emissions based on the proportion of ,
city fuil-time-equivalent(FTE)empioyees as a praportion of total City population,for years 2005 and 2010. '
Employee Commute
This sector comprises emissions from fuel cansumption from City government employee vehicle traveL The
Gity conducted a survey to determine travel mode of City employees in 2012.The City coliected data on
vehicle type,model,make,and year,as well as annual mileage traveled.2005 and 2010 emissions were
back-cast from 2012 emissions levels based on the number of FTEs in each year. '
Statianary Saurces '
Stationary source emissions include emissions from generators operated by the City government.The City
provided recent{year 2011 and/or 2012)#uel consumption data for the five generators that burned fuel in
2005 and/or 2010,which were used as proxy data for calendar year 2010.Emissions were calculated from
Appendix A.GHG Inventory Methodology City of Ukiah Climate Action Plan
fuei consumption totals using�GOP emission factors for CO2,CH4,and NzO.Year 2005 emissions were
backcast using the growth rate in City fuli-time-equivalent(FTE)warkers from 20Q5 to 2Q10.
UJas#ewafer Tr�atment
Emissions were quantified as described in the Community Wastewater Treatment sector(see above).
However,since the municipal government maintains operational control of the Wastewater Treatment Plant,
total Plant service population was used for calculation purposes for this inventory.Year 2005 emissions were
backcast using the growth rate in Gity fuil-time-equivalent(FI'E)workers from 2005 to 2010.
Landfill '
Emissions wrere quantified as described in the Gommunity Landfill sector(see above). ',
2a2� �r�d �d3� �u�ine���;���l��u�l Prc�j���i�r��
Table 3 in the Ukiah GHG Inventory shows the growth proxies used praject future emissions(for years 2020
and 2030)for community-wide and municipal operations,under business-as-usuai conditions.Table A-1
shows the specific projections data used for City-wide population,housing,employment,and municipal
staff.Annual growth rates were derived for the periods 2005 to 2010{to backtrack 2005 emissions when
2005 data was unavailabie),as well as 2010 to 2020 and 2010 to 2030,to praject future emissions for 2020 '
and 2030.The sources of data and numbers used are shown in Table A-1.
Table A-"f: �ity c�f�1ki�l� Pcapulatic?r�, Nc�usin�, �nd�mplc�yrr��rit F�r�j�ctie�n�[��t��nc��rawth 6��#��
Annual Annuai Annual
Growth Growrth Growth
Rate, Rate, Rate; '
Source 2005 2010 2020 2030 2005-2010 2010-2020 2010-2030
Popuiation(#of peopie)
California Department of 16,020 16,042 Na data No data 0.03% N/A N/A
Finance
Ukiah Urban Water No data 15,682 17,323 19,135 N/A 1.00% 2.01%
Management Plan(UWMP)
�mployment{#of jobs}
2010-2Q11 Mendocino Caunty
Ecanomic&Development 7,080 6,700 No data No data -1.10% N/A N/A
Profilea
Mendocino Council of No data 12,007 13,169 13,075 N/A 0.93% 0.86%
Governments(MCOG)Modei°
Wausing(#of households)
California Department of 6,389 6,482 No data No data 0.29% N/A N/A
Finance
Mendocino Council of No data 6,512 6,762 6,752 N/A 0.38% 0.36%
Governments(MCOG)Model
Municipal Government Staff(fuil-time-equivalent employees) '
Gity of Ukiah Fiscal Year FTE �63 171 183 d 195° 0.96% 0.67%e 0.67%e '
Data�
a Internal Gity labor force only
n Data provided by Fefir&Peers VMT Inventory Memo.See Appendix B
° 2005 reflects fiscai year 2005-2Q06 data;2010 reflects fiscai year 2010-2011 data
`� projected based on the estimated growth rate(0.67%}
e estimated based on prior City full-time empioyee growth from the fiscal years 2000-01 to 2010-11
City of Ukiah Climate Action Plan Appendix A.GHG Inventory Methodalogy
Three sectors did not use growth proxies represented in Table A-1:Agricultural Equipment, On-road
Transportation,and l.andfili. Emissions from Agricultural Equipment were assumed ta experience zero
grawth between 2010 and 2030. Future emissions for On-road Transportation were estimated using 2020
and 2030 VMT projections provided by Fehr and Peers,and emission factors from the EMFAC 2011 Model
that do not include effects of the state-wide�ow Carbon Fuel Standard(LCFS)and the Pavley Bill,AB
1493(which will reduce GHG emissions in automabiles). Fnr the City Landfill,the Galifornia ARB Landfili
Emissions Tool was used to calculate emissions for 2020. Because the#ool does not provide emissions out
to 2030,2030 emissions were estimated with the EPA's LandGEM software.
Appendix A.GNG Inventory Methodalogy Gity of Ukiah Climate Actian Pian '
�
�/I E 11�1�I�IU�lJ M
Date: November 19, 2012 '
Ta: Brian Grattidge, ESA ,
From: Kathrin Tellez, Tien-Tien Chan,and Dennis �ee, Fehr & Peers
Subj��ct: Cifiy af Ukiah�Vehicle Miles of Travel{VMT)Inventory
SF12-0638
Fehr & Peers has prepared this memorandum describing the technical approach and results of a
city-wide inventory of vehide miles of travel (VMT) for the City of Ukiah Climate Action Plan (CAP)
using the Mendocino Cou��cil of Gavernments (MCOG) travel demand modeL Estimates of VMT
were prepared for the 2009J10 baseline year and the three forecast years of 202Q, 2030, and 2035.
MCOG TRAVEL �ENIARID MC)DE�. '
The Mendocino Council of Governments (MCQG} travel demand model was used ta develop VMT
estimates. At the time the model was developed, City of Ukiah staff was heavily involved in
developing the land use inputs for the model, and particular care was taken ta ensure the
accuracy of the information and reasonableness of the future forecasts.
CAt�I[7 IISE
Land use information within the MCOG model area is provided at the Traffic Analysis Zane {TAZ}
level; the TAZs within the incorporated city boundary of Ukiah from the MCOG model are noted '
in Fic�ure 1. Land use information is provided for a variety of land use types, including seasanal
housing (or vacation homes), single and multi-family homes, and emplayment uses {agricultural,
commercial, medical, industrial). Data for the TAZs located in Ukiah are summarized in Table 1 far
2009j10, 2020 and 2030 for the various land use categories. For 2009/10, the data presented
represents the land use total, while the 2020 and 203Q columns show the incremental growth.
Land �ise data, both existing and future, were compiled during the MCQG travel demand model ',
develapment ai�d eonfirmed by City of Ukiah staff for this project.
332 Pine Street� Floor 4� San Francisco,CA 94104�(415)348-0300� Fax(415)773-1790 '
www.fehrand peers.com
Appendix B Gity of Ukiah Glimate Actian Plan
LEGEND �za2 ���"�"� zo2 '
��'�, ry �`�'� � ,
o..` Ukiah Clty Limlts �'"� � zo+ ° �s�.� 'gs }� ��
�,
Ukiah TAZs �: :��,,�`� .--�t,.�s,��«,�!Sp�rn9s a�,.av 27�'�;"�m�;r�,��k���� F
��� Rtl m � a
�i isa 9
r �� ��o.,� >,mP
� 162 y
c �3�
.„,a., m 1 � ` �� .. �
N � �, W ..
x,
�,OVOCS���,,�� 17� j . i74 �
�� �
���w:;;,� 73 �q '72 � � 198 860 � 9'4",.�8 8„� .
� �x�ma+"u �"�',, .�!� t ' . �a:i�
NOT TO SCA�E � `
ss s��° sa �o ` o; ��, �'�
ire Dr.
�i �
� � P,.�
����,-�101 n�,�,
��
+�3"^��S�:^��+��aF.�� ��Sq 6Q "�.: ��:
272 �m �� .,,,, �4a�.a59a,��.an .
�:u,;�� .. , c �,.� , .
� N N
m 62 � �
�u � 52 `� �
.. � a����' �OW�, 53 ' ,�N � . Vic� ..
� +�°� aARok sa ss ` ah�Q ��ro� � �`rari
t.�� � '��... BrushSt ��. ..�75`;�,�� ng Rd� ���.
' � . tp � � awx�vtisava�a �!�
.. G 49 � qg 47� "46c�a
� 3,��� m Ford St
� 9 4� �
� � 2i0 t, � . 42 qg 4q 45 � ��"s' 854
, �" ..57 5n�. � 3 ..
� " A6 �ar�, � iss ns �diSo
! ` �,, nR �
�:+�+��.;� �;a'�r,�ua�.��`�.s .t9 : '�`� 39 .��.�e'"`wsw�cn 30 8 d 856
� „� 38 36�� 2,., 5
''�3� �°�„�""�" � ��� wD 7 . nn,�,�
� ,�,v�a.was��n� .: 37 �6���20 Zi k p'�����5 st . .
���. � �u,� � �+`a� �� �� N7z�Pe„ .»� 75 .: � 184
,�wa.-. a�' ° 78 � 7b ' 780
.. � `�„ �'a t8 �.17 �� ��#��.�. o{ n
� �i
�, �3 182
� ��.�w"c� ���`.. �:p, r 106 .
w `
� � i� �
zoa ���,u�,�s�� ���u� ��:: yo7 na
a es yua ios a �
�98�y ���:��' vo ��obb� t �� o
y�x � � 6
... .. ��:�'u�'m`�'�.,�. 714��. 713 712 tl. ���. i�o�n 168 arae� . .. Z.
GC�"
ma F..,'��.'-?�waaa+.�.� � 115 ,�,>' 0 178 �. � � 21b '�. .. o.
208 �. � ` : A� akify��� 852 �.
Mewc€rz�%����,.wx�r.,�,�,�.�` 117 (f? .. 121 `w �.�s„�a�.�ns.m ffiws
�`� � �,,� �� 207 : •m 125 i� � �
� m�sv�� ��^�t27 °:� ���� 218 4 786 ,� Qan�a��.v:� .
v��rc
� . v�:..,n*uas�` 131 �� �
� ����°� �' � xTaimage R`d "` �
H 215 : � �.. o
� �" :128� :130 ., t. � . � �""�" �� ..2�6
Downtown Ukiah ��°"� Washingt�Av. ia?�135 ��3 �'�,,
. . � ° N���'�'s�vs�'`',� : 732 � 190 "
� �� 41 . �� V�139 0147 142 ��. GO[ii.EfCB D, �' � Sh 222
�y� � c� ��,�� ���,
��ao ( ���� � � ' zzz �
�_ �aa
��. ���� ra�' ias ias o ���
r {
�'� ias -o �
��.. 39 '� 3t� 60 �8 . �t '°�m 163 ,x 79Y . .
�
38 ���� ��38 � � �t� 748 151 CA aa
�� ,. . ''a� . 752
�
�. l� �� ��3�32`t(26 � +�, ,.�a� � � 194� .
' 21 :1 35 25 1 27 ����-" ' �ng St � i49� �� :
20 } 22 23�z4 � —'i a 8 Perk •� ':�
� � iz��i l 70 � �so
' �14 13� �8t�80 79� ... 2Td
16 75�gq. 83 82 , � ��� 78 . 77 � \t����'�� 968 757 �
i
i �
��� s1 1 ! �
F .�
� 89 , so y 92 �CIaY t' '' � ,r'
�.
� _i v ,
�-� � ' c� w� . "t,!G `
35�p, �.... � � y �
87 ��,88 t�s7 � y- s+ ��s . -� ..
�86 } _-- ���� 1 rt 106 � 60 75� � . �
}^� 709 : �,�a���.� , �««"
� �� i�702�709 ��� , �, ��v .
� �� S �
� � . : �.. � 783 �165 � . :
:99 , . - � � n�.w �.
98 y . 107 �. � (��. tl 710�. .. : . �8��,.,.e xs:� � ��.
� ��� ti3 112 � �na�'�v�„�,w �u..��a. �„�a�s, ,tis�.:a . .. �,,�'°;���� �xi.s.aa
Y�. .
', I 774 '", 1 111 ��. ��" 77p 726 728 ` � �� 734
s� ' ' .r�'"
��tA�FI��i��►L��t, ��tVE�
FEHR� PEERS UKIAH
FIGl1RE 1 '
R�pendix B �ity of llkiah Gliinate Action Plan ',
Brian Grattidge
November 19, 2012
Page 3 of 8
TABLE 1
CITY OF UKIAH LAND USE DATA FROM MCOG MODEL
I.and Use Typel 2009/10 Growth Increment
20202 20303
Seasonal Housing Units 15 0 0
Single Family Units 3,738 49 41
Multi-Family Units 2,759 201 199
K-8 Students 3,139 198 193
High School Students 1,978 125 122
Coilege/University Students 100 0 0
Hotel Rooms 770 25 25
Agricultural and Winery Jobs 81 0 0 '
Retail Jobs 2,636 388 358
General Office lobs 2,222 164 150
Medieal)obs 1;610 206 197
Entertainment Jobs 273 4 4
Restaurant lobs 884 61 53 '
Industrial Jobs 1,679 43 40
Government Jobs 1,852 296 266
Notes '
1. Housing land uses are represented by the number of dwelling units,educational uses are represented by the
number of students,and employment uses are represented by the number ofjobs.
2. Represents the increment of growth between 2009/2010 and 2020.
3. Represents the increment of growth between 2021 and 2030. I
Source:MCOG Model Land Use Inputs,November 2012. '
Appendix� City of Ukiah Climate Action Pian
Brian Grattidge
November 19,2Q12
Page 4 of 8
Ftaadway IVetw�rk
The future year models include roadway network improvements that are expected to be in place
by 2020 and 2030, as summarized in Table 2. Roadway network improvements in the
unincorporated areas of the County are noted in Table 2 as those improvements have the ,
potential to affect travel patterns within the Gity of Ukiah. '
TABLE 2 '
FUTURE ROADWAY IMPRQVEMENTS '
Roadway Jurisdiction Proposed Improvement Yea i
Built
North State Street Mendocino Widen from 2 to 4 lanes between US 101 2020
County and lake Mendocino Drive
Mendocino E�end eastward from North State Street to
Orr Springs Road County Orchard Avenue Extension 2020
Mendocino Extend northward from Ford Street to Orr
Orchard Avenue 2020
County Springs Road
Mendocino Extend northward from Orr Springs Road to
Orchard Avenue County Lake Mendocino Drive 2030 '
Orcnard Avenue Ukiah Extend southward from current terminus to 2030
Talmage Road
US 101/Talmage Road(SR- �kiah Reconfigure to partial cloverleaf interchange 2030
222)Interchange ,
Clay Street Ukiah 6ctend eastward from Main Street to Leslie 2030 '
Street
Mendocino Extend eastward from North State Street to
Hensley Creek Road County Orchard Avenue Extension 2030 ,
Notes:
l. "2020"means the improvement is included in both the 2020 and 2030 roadway networks.Actualyear of '
construction could be any time between 2009/10 and 2020.Similarly,"2030"means the improvement is ,
included only in the 2030 network,and actuai year of construction could be any time between 2021 and '
2030.
Source:Final Modet Development Report;MCOG Trave!Demand Forecasting Modef,October 2010.
Minor changes were made to roadway functional classification in the City of Ukiah as per
feedback from City staff. These changes are listed in Table 3. ;
Ap�endix(3 Gity of Ukiah Ciima[e Accion P1an '
Brian Grattidge
November 19,2012
Page 5 af 8
TABLE 3
FUNCIIONAL ROADWAY CLASSIFCATtON MODIFIC,4TIONS
Previous Updated
Roadway Descriptian Functional Class Functional Class
Dora Street Firecrest Drive to Grove Avenue Minor Collector Urban Arterial
Washington Avenue Dora Street to Helen Avenue Major Collector Local
Observatory Avenue Dora Street to South State Street Minor Collector Local
Dora Avenue Grove Avenue to Live Oak Avenue Minor Collector Local '
Standley Street Main Street to Dora Street Minor�ollector Urban Arterial
Perkins Street Main Street to Dora Street Minor Collector Urban Arterial
N.Oak Street HenryStreet to�ow Gap Road Local Major Collector '
Empire Drive Bush Street to State Street Minor Collector Local
Brush Street State Street to US 101 Major Collector Local
Ford Street State Street to Orchard Avenue Minor Collector �ocal
Clara Avenue Mason to Orchard Avenue Minor Collector Local '
Perkins Street East of US 101 Ramp Urban Arterial Major Collector ,
Main Street Gobbi Street to Marshall Street Major Collector Local
Clay Street Main Street to Mason Street Minor Collector Local
School Street Mill Street to Henry Street Major Collector Urban Arterial
Hastings Avenue South State Street to Airport Road Major Coilector Local
Commerce Drive East of Airport Road Major Collector �ocal
Airport Park Boulevard Talmage Frontage Road to Airport Road Major Collector Local
Hastings Frontage Road Talmage Road to end Major Collector Locaf '
Source:City of Ukiah Staff,response to data request,Octaber 11,2012
ANALYSTS-PARAMETERS '
The follawing presents the analysis parameters, including methods to calculate the VMT
generated by land uses in the City af Ukiah for the base and forecast years.
VEHYCLE MI�ES UF T't2A�lEL CAL�ULATiUNS
The VMT inventary for Ukiah captures vehicle trips ge��erated by land uses within the City; '
however, some trips may have an origin or destination outside of the City limits. Per the
recammended calculation methods, VMT for Ukiah was calculated from the combination af the
following trip lengths: '
Appendix B City of Ukiah Glimate Action Plan '
Brian Grattidge
November 19,2012
Page 6 of 8
l. All Internal City-City(I-I)trips: All trips starting and ending in Ukiah.
2. One-half of External-Internal City (X-I} trips:One-half af trips with an origin outside of
the City of Ukiah and a destination in Ukiah.
3. (�ne-half af Internal City-External (I-X) trips: Qne-half of trips with an origin within the
City of Ukiah and a destination outside of Ukiah.
Trips without an origin or destinatiai� in Ukiah are nat included in the VMT estimates associated
with activities in Ukiah, as the City has no eontrol over the amount of through traffic on regional
roadways such as US 101.
Forecast Y�ars '
The MCOG travel demand model was validated to 20Q9/10 conditions and is able to forecast ta
202Q and 2030 conditions. Forecasts of 2035 conditions were made by extrapolating the growth
rate between 2009/10 and 2d30.
A�IALYSIS RESULTS
The results af the VMT estimates using the MCC?G travel demand model for the City af Ukiah are
presented below.
Vehiele IVliies of Trave)
A summary of 2009J10, 2020, 2030, ar�d 2035 daily VMT for the City of Ukiah are presented in
1`able 4. This table includes normalization of VMT hauseholds and by capita. Table 5 shows the '
VMT estirnates by 5-mph speed bin far each scenario year.
�
The results show that VMT is prajected to increase between scenario years. This increase is
expected as the number of residential units and employment o�portunities within the City is ,
planned to increase. VMT per Capita is also expected to increase,which is due to the projection of !
emplayment oppartunities increasing in Ukiah at a higher rate than residential uses. Over the next
20 years, the number of residential units within the City is expected to increase by approximately '
8 percent, while the number of jobs within the City is expected ta increase by approximately 20
percent. As there were approximately 1.71 jobs per household ir� 2009J2010, it is likely that new
employment oppartunities will draw some warkers fram residential locations o�atside the City '
boundaries.
Appenc�ix B C;ity of Uki�h Climate Actian Plan
Brian Grattidge
November 19, 2012
Page 7 of 8
TAB�E 4
CIYT OF UKIAH DAILY VMT CALCULATTQNS
� VMT J�apita
Scenario Daily VMT Mouseholds Rapulation Emplayment
(Pop + Emp)
Year 20Q9/10z 399,199 6,497 16,113 11,237 14.6
Year 20202 439,657 6,747 16,733 12,399 15.1
Year 2030Z 4$8,514 6,987 17,328 13,467 15.9
Year 2035� 509,779 7,066 17,524 13,827 16.3
Notes
1. Populatian caiculatedbased on auerage household size from 201Q U.5.Census data.
2. Households and employment based on model land use;VMT based on modeL
3. Households,employment,and VMT based on growth rates between 2009/10 and 203d scenario years.
Source:Profile of General Population and Nousing Characteristics:2010 American FactFinder, U.5.Census Bureau; MCOG
Model,as summarized b Fehr&Peers,November 2Q12.
This completes aur VMT inventory for the City of Ukiah GAP.We look forward to working with the
Praject team to identify strategies that could be effective in reducing VMT growth. If you have any
questions, please contact Kathrin Tellez or Tien-Tien Chan.
Ap�endix t3 Gicy c�P Ukiah Ciimate Actic�n Pian
Brian Grattidge
November 19,2012
Page 8 of 8
TAB�E S
CITY 4F UKIAH DAILY VEHICIE MILES OF TRAVEL(VMT)DISTRIBU'iTQN BY SPEED BIN '
Vehicle Miles of Travel Estimates(Daily}
Speed Bin 2009j1p 2Q24 2036 2035
{miles per hour) v�T percent of VMT Distribution VMT Percent of V�Y Percent ot
Total (%) Total Total
0.0-5.00 0 0.0°!0 0 0.0°fo 0 p.0% 0 0.0% '
5.01-10.00 76 d:0% 83 d.Ol 87 Q.Q% 90 0:0%
10.01-15.00 18 Q:0% 914 0.2°fo 2,097 0.4% 2,592 0.5%
15.01-20.00 2,707 0.7°!0 3,073 OJ% 4,600 0.9% 5,051 1.0%
20.01-25.00 38,552 9.7% 41;505 9.4% 48,146 9.9°0 50,430 9.9°fo
25.01-30.00 45,226 11.3°l0 49,458 11.2% 52,411 10.7% 54,122 10.6%
30.01-35.00 85,836 21.Sf 91,292 20:8f 95,696 19.6°0 98;043 192%
35.01-40.00 22,057 5.5°l0 22,054 5.0% 23,429 4.8% 23,756 4.7°l0
40.01-45.00 14,289 3.6% 15,298 3.5°l0 17,672 3.6% 18,478 3.6%
45.01-SO.OQ 2,170 O.Sio 3;375 0.8°!0 12,797 2.6°l0 15,327 3.040
SO.Q1-55.00 242,86A 35.8% 162,098 36.9°fo 175,524 35.9°/"0 183,300 36.0%
SS:QI-60.QOi 0 0.0% 0 Q.0% 0 0.0°r'a 0 0.0% '
60.01-65:00 45,404 11.4°a 50,506 11.Sf 56,Q55 11.5% S&,591 11.S1
65.01-70.00 0 �.0°!o Q 0:0°l0 4 0.0°l0 0 0.0%
7otal 399,199 104A% 439,657 lOQ,O% 488,514 lOQO% 509.779 100.Q°10
Nofes: '
1. kbsence o(VMT in the 55.01-6Q.Q0 mph speed bin is due fo network assumptions and congested speed calculations.Congested speeds did not fall in this range. ��
Source:NiCOG�Model,as summarized by Fehr&Peers,November2612 '�
Appendix B City of.Ukiah GlimateAction Plan �
��C��ht�1�?�� �`-
DRAFT AGENDA
Climate Action Plan WorkshopjPlanning Commission Meeting
Apri124, 2013, 6:00-8:00 PM
City Council Chambers ,
300 Seminary Ave., Ukiah, CA 95482 '
Welcome
Climate Action Plan Overview Presentatian(30 minutes)
+ Climate Change,the Greenhause Effect, and Greenhouse Gases
• What is a "Climate Action Plan?"
• Why plan for future greenhause gas emissions reductions?
• What are Ukiah's emissions now and where do they need to be?
o GHG Inventories, Future Projections, and Reduction Target
• What kinds of emission reduction strategies is Ukiah considering?
• Describe Breakout Session
Community Feedback:We Want to Hear from You! (30-45 minutes)
• Breakout stations for Energy,Transportation, Water, and Solid Waste:
o What steps can the City take to increase:
■ Energy efficiency for the Ukiah's homes, businesses, industry, and
transportation?
■ Renewable energy generation?
■ Reduction in solid waste generation and water consumption?
o What are the challenges and barriers to integrating sustainable opportunities into
the community?
o What programs or policies would help overcome these challenges and barriers?
Breakout Results and Concluding Remarks(15 minutes)
Adjourn
� n n � o c -a � -o n �
c o��o -a �D � g' � °-'� � o A$�C�� �1t71�,'tlt �
o r* �
. � o � � � � �
n
� °' �. � rr `� � � o�i' � .�. • • � � _
oa � � a � � a- � z o '� �o 0
� �- c�, 3' ^ " c�, Z � a. O � � � � �
�D c�' < oAi
�. 0�1 (p {n p�j �' N � � I'1'I ,.�.h ,.�.f 1� W N F� r�t fSD 7
d 3 X fl! � � 's � � v rt � C
'ti. fnD y 3 � n �n C. � 0 � �
y C. p�' y fD � O � 70 70 3 3 � C 7C
� 7 O _ Q, � �1 0'q rr (D (D n n � (n
v �
= O � ~p N � Q' !'1 �: � N C C (D (D f� fD S
Q- C � � j � p � Q � 3. (nD (�D v�i v�i 3 -�s a'
� � � � fD � 7 7 ,� � � 3 S � (D � 3 'rt
C n � tn 7 tn fD .-�, � .a (p lD (D 3 � 01
.�• .p � r,�, c� � ,��, p � p � c� w � � C� A
� � v' � � n�i m � �• n' � � � `� � �G O
� � o N � �, � "h v, � o y rt
o -, � n� � a- �u �, 3
O
7 � N' y C
C" v' O N 3' cQ'D O � 7 � rt cp �j 7r 'a
� � � � � � � �• o � � � � � � N n
�' � � � rt .� �, � � _ � � r�r N � O S �
n, O � (D N � O � ti+ �' '� �^ � O�q � N �G
� ' 3 tn S N� O
� N N G=1 � S X� ,� Q � N � � 00 O G� ��
3 � � � � � =*. O � p � � � � C �
� � C
� "a � (�D .p (D � (p �O < �� N � � 7r � ,
� `� 7c � � � � � � � �-r �p � '"�: � �p � i
� � aq � � � v�i 0 O 0'�q �`� �=r O tn � G �
_' � v O � � N � 3 �' vf
Q' � X � '� � n� ru =* `^ � o �: e� �
Oq Q � N � � fD � W3 O � � 3 H 1
�. � N fp tn N
� � � rt � N � Q �, N � o A
,rt fD ^ � �D rt � C � 3 � �•
o -- a � w c Q.
°' � � � 3 � � A �
fD a' v� '� N � N !"f'
_ � � p � � fD � � � �
.�T Q � � � ni � � rt ;^ f�p O �
f�D (�D j p � Q ? N A
� �
� _ � � Q rt 3 3 1"1'�
� rt w � �; � � Q'
_ o � C �
� `* •�.l ' Z G �
3 N' N Q y � �
N N (D � A 0 .� O � fD 3' �
Q Q Q � � � � � n � �
� � `
� n O C"0 �
O
� � °' rt O
'�; N � �
piq' � � •y y �
3- � •,� N
� �
'v '`' C
� o 'a
� � �
o.
� � N
� �
\
o �
� �
A
O
�
�
fD
3
e�+
�
�
�. � 5 r�u c �. r�u � � � � n
°t � � Q- � 5 < o o � -a .�'
o + c�i �' 0 3 fD c�u m � � v n� D D o � � °_� � � O O
� C (D � � N� "� N "a � � fD 7� Q "a Cl � d (p (�p � � N �
r�i� � � � Q � N � O � � � � Cl fD V� W � n � � 0 �
O N . �- � .�7 � S �, O -s � �►
-�.s ,� Q Q.. fD 7 r�" n � � Q- fD �p � r+ � 0�. e� �� N 7' O � �
� � ,..� � � �^ O � � �p O '"�' �G [D Q C � � � � � � 3 O
� � 3 � � � � v�i � r+ � � � d � rt � '+ 3 01 � N �
� � v� p � � � �=r n � — �G 'a Q O_ 0'�q O' � � � T
y � O N j Q ? � � � 7r � < '� � ,=r �G "�' O �
3 � � o �'; � aa n ao p m � m � = m �• �' N
� r* ' � � m �- � a- o � m Q o -� � �
ru �' °i o c� � � � v, � s � v�i � w o. —• ...
` �' � v' r+ �' � � rD '"' �' C
�p °F = � � � �p S � ru �o y � � �' � 3
(D (D �^ '< � � ,.�-r.h o � v' �^ CJ 3 0 � �
� � �� �' y rt � O � 3 o�i Q � � O tp 7
. o� �, rr ,< u� n v� o„ � �, n� � � fl.
c� rt v, n� v . � � m v� fD -'�, n� 3 � � r
m c�u ° m Q � � � o � � °' + c o �
S � 3 � n �• N � � ,��• � � C f�D y 3
� � Q � .0 fl- p'� ,.�.f O pq o� � �n-r p a �
� n � � c '-o- � c c�i � � � � C
�- m � � � � � � 3 ru p o v�
u� v rt � Q � .< g• 3 � fD
� O � rt � � � � �
d�0 Q � p n �
� � � � N
Q' C
�
7r (D
fD �n
�
fD
N
01
�
- �
fD
Z
O
�
�
:
�
O
�
G
� � Q
� � �
� y� O
� � �
� �°• n.
�' � �
� S �
� ° �
H y Q
1 � �
� � fD
Q.
a
� � �
` �� �
0
c
�
0
3
N
'O � Q- � ' � 'G n 70 (D C fD � (D 70 (D 70 (D d � A
� � O �p -s 3 � � O fD cn 3 fD lD 7 7 3 � �
°' � 3 < o � o o � n. � ro m < � <, � < �u � � �' � .�
y � � � VI � � � � � �O �CI (� • Vf • Vj � ..S (� Q- � O
3 0� � � O � O O Q fD � O �G O � tD � rD ,G s N � 'ti' �,
p� � � m c� N �D n �� fD 'a n � n � tD u� � �*. 5. C
�-+' � Q � n y tn cn � � � ;* �; � N C y C �j � O v � ?C; � IT1 �►
� � < n '-r . rr , n � p � �
� °r �. � n�i � n� e, m � � �" m' � � � d �. cu � � � � S `� fD 0
ni � � � v' � � � � � � c, � �' � � � p m � uo N �o � y
°�' o � fD � � � r�u n �u � - � °-' � °-' � � � � m � o � -�
Q- � o m �, � ? �,. � m . G1 Q � Q n • o� � � -� � � I'7'I
p' N C � fD (D N �• :� 7 � ry vi Q cn Q y � S 3 fD �, �
� S � K O O � Ci O � � � S � S � -n Q- � p��q � � �i•
y � vi n cn tn � Q � � � W � 0 7 � � � � �G �' �
� v� N -i � �-r r* � C � C � � � � � �
(D � (D (D y (D (n Vf (p N� S � S � [D r+ � n
N � tn O tn �n � � � Q n. � � � � � lD O C�'i -��'�' �
Q � O O (D v� � v� � � �; �
� � (D `G pj pj rF � � N� � N N � � C� Ol O i+ � (D
� Vf l'1 - (D r+ �
p�j �^ '� 7 (D fD (�p � � O C "a � y � � � � p� � cCp
rr 0? Q v� -• � Q_ (D �
00 0 � y (D fD 0 O 3 � �; � C � C � (D � ?� �� O
� � � N ,G G � W �' � � � Q 'rt Q A (D 7� � � cn
v � fD n��i' � � a°'o � � m N � � � � � � � 3 � �
m �' '+ + � � c � ° � c � a- n� � � s �
o '� � m m � � m o -• o � � c c
m � � � � � �; � ua c � � � n °- °. � �
� a a N � o o � °—' co m °v4, o�a c�n C � a a
r+ `G Vf � � � � �'i n e-r y Q '�: N y
X ' Q � t� � � C n � � p � rr p n
a � �? o � 3 � Q' � � � � =h y °�°. �
N 3 n � C � � ` ''�;
(D 7 Z m �' f� � y 'a �' C y x O �
� m �: i m � °� ro t�D Q ,.�.� � i
. O � 00 7:
� � s p � � 7� O � � �
vrti 00 � - p O N � � � w N
�' � Q- � "a � � � 7 Q- Q
? � r3y, � � (p � � p� cn
o D O � � lD
� m � i �
� m y O dp � ci �
� � .0 � — W
�G
fD
N
0!
�
C'
fD
Z
O
� �
O tp
G :
O C
� �
O
n '�
� `' D
� �• c°'.
'� � o
N `Q �
�. � �
� � H
�� y
p �0
� �
� �
W
X C � Q 0 � � n ny� � '� Q p rt � � X � � O 7�' C � � � A�}
'a O' O O � O � � •'G � lD Q � t^ UU 'O 'a 'p — cD O F-' v� G `G
�. n O � � O � c�i� '�' p r*. 'O c� � v' N Q < � � ORI� � p � p �,
°� o °' � u c�i � C C n� o � � � 3 � � rn m O rt � a� v01i � C
� -a H• °�' °' fD � � � a c � Q- N � � °�' c�u+ °m o a � Q° �. ,� °�' o � o�i' a p �
o � rt m v s ? g s n 0� Q �; r+ c . � m '< � m � -a X s y � °- � � _.
�+ <' °? � 3 fl+ • N �D rF = O • 3 0� O ,�. � p rp y • y tD
"� c, � m � co � � rr p� fp N o ua � `-" � o `-^. � o �, � � � rr � �. Vf
� � o � m �' Q- °- °+ ° � m x � o n a' o � � X m � v � �, m °+ ° C m
� � � �. H o g � c� � � ' m m � .� � °, c, -a v � — o 0 3 fD � � 70
� °. o � m � � �'; � ° *k �. � � o 0 0 � a � �� n� w Q- � m � o in �
� --h r+ � � . � N � e�h � �q �D 3 �' �
� fl '� e-F rF e-F 0 � _/ fD N � � � pq "S C2 V1 C � e-F � (� �
� � � � fD p 7 4 � •� O N y � � � OA O N' (-iD � � G) � �
� ' -a � � l� 7 � f� � -h Q- � (�� fyD � O � G1 3 � � O
� fD fN'1 � _�.,,' 7 Q- � c�'f (D 7rt' 0� 03U � 'O � C�i � — � �-h �
_ y _' n tn O � �p 7 (D � rr � �+ � Q- �' � � ^ � � d
' "a Q �• !D � (D Q Q � p. 7' Q f1 ,rt � p N n � �D '�
� �' 3' � � r+ � .G y =+; N O ' p� � -s O �
� O � '� � G� O 7 � N ^ j p � � � rr O W � � � (D
� � 'a p N (D
� p., C v S v�i N [�'� � Q Q" � O � � Q- v � � � A�
n 3 � fD O � � � � = y '"f � Q. d � � � � �
Q 3 � � � � o� �n n 0 0 �n O o� p X. v�i � � �
� � °° m ,°� Q- �' o `°'" � � y �' 3 u °�' ° �. �
co .. -ti � .
°r+' X � �, o � 3 o N � r�n � � � f�D
fD '"' � 5 — �-,. �? � � o � m z m C.
v � °' � � � n�i � �°e, � ^ `" � �
'a� y., O N� O Q � � • � n r+ C � 1"F
� � � � N n c�' �• p 'y, �
� � � � � � 00 fD O �
O
O � � � � n = y y 7 3 n �
� � � � � � � Q � O � y
cn �. 'rt S fD O �
� N O_ �
_ �
(J7
� � V
N N
Ol 0!
� �
� �
fD fD
Z Z
O O
a a
a a
0 0
c c
� �
a a
� �
H �
�
� D o � °�' � o � o "—• � rQ"u ° � � � �
� c�D N n o � rt � � � �, � � � O � �
fD � rr d � O � � � ,�y. � � � ,��+ y O
�- � N V� � 7� � C (D � n � r+ V� �
rr C � N r+ �. cn "a � n � � Q � 7' (p C
� 7C' tn � ,.�.f < � �=r 3' � rN-r � -s � � ?� � � '� ^
f? 'y (D fD C N lD � Q- � f� � � d p � � �
. � `� � O lD � N O�U ,�-r rt � � � a s (�p • • • • • • � � �
� (�p � p�j � p) fl' 3 � �• �, r�-y,� � n A � Q � � �
t� N C � � � O 3 'a Q" �' c^ � Q �2 '* � C O � 3 O � � �. T
-� a e� � � v c� v v rD n — 7 70
o3i �? � � � �G �D � n � � O � ' � � O �, N � t�p � � ' �
� � o�o v � n � n � � c� � -�a � � " � y ��„ � � -�+ O�i
oa � � o� ,rt � -�+ v, � � 5 ,-� �, � O
...
� � °+ v c � 3 v, o � � � 3 �, y`",+ �: � a°'a O Q °o Q' c� 's
Q- �' c _ o. N. � � 7' � °- N �^ o � �- p� �' (�
n� O -s ' fp N (D ,-* -�+ — 7� rt w � "* 3 n� � �. � �' � �
"a A 4J � (D � '+ Q'p n GJ 7 0�0 � N e-���h � Q- �U ti+ � �
c � cn c��i o 7 � � ,�N+ d � � N Q" °' �° � C `n =': � °—' °r°
� � t�i� fD e-tA+ Q" � � � � fD � ol � f�D � Q- p� � (�p O y � �
� .�' � o, m Q va rt °' �- � Q m v o � m �^ � � 3 f�D
p � n ��'-r c� � � i�„ c� n � Q. � �,, � � v� m � -o
�, �, r,: • � D � �; � � � �, � �, ,� o � x. 3 � A
_ .� � r+ a � v,' � oo, � �o � � n. � -� o ,..,. S
o� � �' � � e'�i o °cn' -�e, � e3i � � � ��"' v � �' 0 3
�• � � � •
y y N rr 7 � O � � � r�r � ,C-�,� p � N Z fp
�-r 7 rr O y fD
,.A.�. v � �- v 7 � y N � � ,� ,�. � � 0 C � �
< 7 f� 'D �'�' � :� 'a N � 3 y (SD (D C� � � � �
o� Cl f�D �. fD � C fp y � y �• O � p < Q � 'At
7 7 y '"f � � 7 r�y. rt 'ti: � 3 � � !A � 0 � �
G� 0'q
"a C Q- � '� d � � N Q , C ��-r � � � n N
O� � � O • � � � � N � �
� � d �G � ....
i v� — � 70
� �
m ,=r �
oa — N
r� •
-. —
.� y cn .
rp � � fD
y � � A
`n
C �
� Q
3 � � •
��n �-r 3
� fD � C
� � o �
Q � S
Z ,�-r;. v�o
0 Vf ' '
Q
�
�•
....
D
�.
fl.
�
0
�
�
�.
fG
0!
�
�
y � � � � Q- C �' D A
7r � G � � O ?c ry � ,,.�'
�. -o m v � � oo �-* - � -o m � cn n� -o � � rp � � a�
ru � < � � m � �• � °� � to o v+ c� c `� � -, �n �' c� �, � � m � �
� �O a� o � m � ' Q '� Oq � Q- 'D p�i � 'a ��-r Q � 'a Oq � � "a 'y, 'h
n� � c 3 �. °� o Q" �; � ;° ,� � c s � o � � Q n 3 � °* � o�—i �—'. � �
3 � � � � � � n N � (D fD � r+ 0 =rj (D (D � rr fD
Q N ru m vo � m � cn � fl- o c o �- �, �' � � � ^ �. � � Q- n v � �-
� "'', X O O 'O � �3-r � O � 3 n O � n � y � y _ �-r 7' �-r '�p tD Vf
�. � <n' � n � C � f�D � � � O n � � � N rt 3 � (�D w � c'� � -�s
3 r,r, rr tn Cl � 3 � Q 3 . p -s rt f?. � O Q- � z .rt �. � � �
u° � � � _" �, � °' � � � a�o � � � °? � v�, o � � co
rX+ � �p � O � rt � � � ,d-r C� � C� 3 � � 7 � � �. (p Q' � � �
� � � � Q' � � v�D, �� � v+' � � 3 � n; �. � 3 a n ai `vfD, � c�
3 m dq � � '+ m d co rt c, � �u n o � °N' �
� � .� o c, � o� o �• � � � � ,rt -a � vo 3' � � �, � �, � c
� m � o o°'o c�o a � °' N � m a�i � o o � o- _ ° � * N' °o � �
a � ^ '+ �, ,rt • c n.
°rr' � �, � � s � c � � � � co °1 � � °- o ° � �' � �
cD t�i� (D — � rD a- t� � � -z �p -s � � �' 7 -+, lD � � _
N (D � — f D 'a � � c"f �n Q- C U� � � �
N 3
7 7 '� A � N d0 � ' r* � �- O �. � n �=r
� � n r+ CJ � � � � �' 7 �c S � O Q i
rt ,rt �G Q- � 7 � � N (D � �G d N �0 "a C G�
y (D 7 (D O' � � Q C y� dG = � � Q- � "� N
� Q N j � � -h G� � � O (D � � � � Q � p� e`�i �
n p, a' v� �p � � � N� O < -' � � �' y � �, '� Q-
� � � 7 � � � 'a 'a � �'* p
� 3 � �-,. � � n, N c, � � r`u' � 3 0 � o' o � �
°° v ao � m
,� 7 � p� -s � �, n �O fp N ,�ti. � (p r�r o�i � � �-r
N p � O cn -s 00
� � C Q' < � N �' � � C� � '� rt 3 � � � �
(D {�n C � � v Cl � -�i, � Q f�n y N -`�s h Q Oq �
� ,� . 7
� � � r�-r � Q. Q -fD_-r,, G� � (D Q � r+ � � y "p
� � aj 3 . � Q � � � f� OU �. O �
n N 3 � d v � (D `G p � �
,� �- � � � �n � 7 p
� �-
-<
fD
H
� �
`r
�
fD
z
0
a
fl.
�
0
c
�
Q.
m
d
�
o,