Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-07-15 PacketPage 1 of 3 CITY OF UKIAH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Regular Meeting CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 July 15, 2015 6:00 p.m. 1.ROLL CALL 2.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3.PROCLAMATIONS/INTRODUCTIONS/PRESENTATIONS a.Proclamation: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Pride Week in the City of Ukiah. b.Presentation: Wreaths Across America. c.Presentation: Mendocino Community Health Clinic. 4.PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS 5.APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.Minutes of June 30, 2015, a Special Meeting. b.Minutes of July 1, 2015, a Regular Meeting. 6.RIGHT TO APPEAL DECISION Persons who are dissatisfied with a decision of the City Council may have the right to a review of that decision by a court. The City has adopted Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, which generally limits to ninety days (90) the time within which the decision of the City Boards and Agencies may be judicially challenged. 7.CONSENT CALENDAR The following items listed are considered routine and will be enacted by a single motion and roll call vote by the City Council. Items may be removed from the Consent Calendar upon request of a Councilmember or a citizen in which event the item will be considered at the completion of all other items on the agenda. The motion by the City Council on the Consent Calendar will approve and make findings in accordance with Administrative Staff and/or Planning Commission recommendations. a.Report of Disbursements for the Month of June, 2015. b.Authorize the Mayor to Sign Letters of Support for California Senate Bill 508 Regarding Transportation Funds for Transit Operators. c.Authorize City Manager to Negotiate and Execute Agreements Associated with Tenant Relocation at the 1350 Hastings Road Property and Approve Corresponding Budget Authorization for Fiscal Year 15/16 (EUD). Page 2 of 3 d. Report of Acquisition of Professional Services from Alpha Analytical Laboratories, Inc. for Quarterly Water Sampling and Completion of Chemical Examination Reports for the Ukiah Landfill. 8. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS The City Council welcomes input from the audience. If there is a matter of business on the agenda that you are interested in, you may address the Council when this matter is considered. If you wish to speak on a matter that is not on this agenda, you may do so at this time. In order for everyone to be heard, please limit your comments to three (3) minutes per person and not more than ten (10) minutes per subject. The Brown Act regulations do not allow action to be taken on audience comments in which the subject is not listed on the agenda. 9. COUNCIL REPORTS 10. CITY MANAGER/CITY CLERK REPORTS 11. PUBLIC HEARINGS (6:15 PM) 12. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Adoption of Resolution Approving the Addendum to the Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. b. Approve Plans and Specifications for Grace Hudson Museum Grant Projects; Museum Building Improvements Spec No. 15-08, and Parking and Storm Water Improvements Spec No. 15-09. c. Approval of Amendments to Professional Services Agreements with GHD, Inc. in an Amount not to Exceed $8,318 for Construction Management and Inspection Services, and in an Amount not to Exceed $24,967 for Re-Design of Construction Documents, for the Northwestern Pacific Rail Trail Project Phase 1, Specification No. 14-01, and Approval of Corresponding Budget Authorization for FY 15/16. d. Authorize the Director of Public Works/City Engineer to Execute Change Order No. 2 in the Amount not to Exceed $130,000 for Construction of the Northwestern Pacific Rail Trail Project, Phase 1, Specification No. 14-01 and Approval of Corresponding Budget Authorization for FY 15/16. 13. NEW BUSINESS a. Consideration of Request to Utilize Eight Public Parking Spaces for a Tesla Motors Electric Vehicle Supercharging Station. b. Adoption of Resolution Reappointing Eric Crane to the Airport Commission. c. Discuss and Consider Allowing the City’s Fire Ad-Hoc Committee to Self-Determine Noticing and Outreach as Necessary for the Development of Work Product. d. Discussion and Direction Regarding the Possible Disposition of Two City-Owned Parcels at 345 North Main Street and 215 Norton Street. e. Discussion and Recommended Introduction By Title Only of an Ordinance Amending, Section 1001 in Division 1, Chapter 4, Article 1 of the Ukiah City Code to Reduce the Parks, Recreation and Golf Commission (PRGC) from Seven Members to Five Members and to Make Them All At-Large Members. Page 3 of 3 f. Award Contract for Slurry Seal of Local Streets and Airport Parking, Specification No. 15-07 and Approve Corresponding Budget Authorization for FY 15/16. g. Discussion and Consideration of Electrical Billing Over/Under Charges h. Nomination and Possible Adoption of Resolution Appointing Linda Sanders to the Planning Commission to Fill the Remaining Term of Judy Pruden. i. Discuss and Provide Direction Regarding the Request from Redwood Valley County Water District to Forgo a Portion of the City of Ukiah’s Contractual Right of Water with the Russian River Flood Control District to Provide Drought Assistance, and if Appropriate Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute Corresponding Agreements. 14. CLOSED SESSION – Closed Session may be held at any time during the meeting a. Conference with Legal Counsel – Pending Litigation Initiation of litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4) (1 case) b. Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Cal. Gov’t Code Section 54956.9(d)(2)Number of potential cases (1) c. Conference With Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation (Cal. Gov’t Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)) Name of case: Ukiah Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah, Mendocino County Superior Court, Case No. SCUKCVPT 14-63579 d. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation (Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)) Name of case: Ukiah Valley Sanitation District v. City of Ukiah, Mendocino County Superior Court Case No. SCUK-CVC-13-63024 15. ADJOURNMENT Please be advised that the City needs to be notified 72 hours in advance of a meeting if any specific accommodations or interpreter services are needed in order for you to attend. The City complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities upon request. Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the City Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at the front counter at the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482, during normal business hours, Monday through Friday, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm. I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing agenda was posted on the bulletin board at the main entrance of the City of Ukiah City Hall, located at 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California, not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting set forth on this agenda. Dated this 10th day of July, 2015. Kristine Lawler, City Clerk PROCLAMATION OF THE UKIAH CITY COUNCIL RECOGNIZING Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Pride Week, July 19 – 26, 2015 WHEREAS, throughout the United States during the months of June and July, celebrations, rallies, and parades will be held recognizing the diversity and strength that has developed in the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) community; and WHEREAS, lesbian, gay bisexual, and transgender individuals in Ukiah are productive, compassionate, and contributing members of the community; and WHEREAS, the United States Constitution clearly provides that all citizens are entitled to equal protection and basic civil rights under the law; and WHEREAS, the Supreme Court of the United States of America has affirmed the right of same sex couples to be wed; and WHEREAS, the Pride Alliance Network in Mendocino County was formed as a non-profit organization in October 2003 to help create safety, self-respect, and support for LGBT communities and their supportive families and friends; and WHEREAS, the Pride Alliance Network; the Mendocino County Chapter of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), the LGBT community and other community organizations support LGBT Pride Week in Ukiah and throughout Mendocino County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Ukiah City Council hereby proclaims July 19 – 26, 2015 as: “LGBT Pride Week in the City of Ukiah” Signed and sealed, this 15th day of July in the year Two Thousand and Fifteen. _______________________________ Douglas F. Crane, Mayor Agenda Item 3a Agenda Item 5a CITY OF UKIAH CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Special Meeting CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 June 30, 2015 3:00 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL Ukiah City Council met for a Special Meeting on June 30, 2015, which was legally noticed on June 26, 2015. Mayor Crane called the meeting to order at 3:08 p.m. Roll was taken with the following Councilmembers Present: Maureen Mulheren, Kevin Doble, Jim O. Brown, Stephen Scalmanini, and Mayor Douglas F. Crane. Staff Present: Sage Sangiacomo, City Manager; and Kristine Lawler, City Clerk. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT 3. NEW BUSINESS a. Adoption of Resolution of the City Council of the City of Ukiah Authorizing Continued Municipal Operations Pending Adoption of the Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Budget, and Review/Consider Budget Development Process and Work Product. Presenter: Sage Sangiacomo, City Manager and Karen Scalabrini, Finance Director. Staff Comment: Chief Dewey, Police Chief and Tim Eriksen, Public Works Director. Council Consensus to direct staff to schedule a work-study session on Capital Improvements to take place after the Strategic Planning session on Wednesday, July 29, 2015, and to schedule an Operations Budget work -study session on Thursday, August 6, 2015, to begin at 3:00 p.m. Motion/Second: Brown/Doble to adopt the resolution authorizing continued municipal operations pending adoption of the fiscal year 2015-2016 budget. Motion carried by the following roll call votes: AYES: Mulheren, Doble, Brown, Scalmanini, and Crane. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 4. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 3:44 p.m. ________________________________ Kristine Lawler, City Clerk CITY OF UKIAH CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Regular Meeting CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 July 1, 2015 6:00 p.m. 1.ROLL CALL Ukiah City Council met at a Regular Meeting on July 1, 2015, having been legally noticed on June 26, 2015. Mayor Crane called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll was taken with the following Councilmembers Present: Maureen Mulheren, Kevin Doble, Jim O. Brown, Vice Mayor Scalmanini and Mayor Crane. Staff Present: Sage Sangiacomo, City Manager; David Rapport, City Attorney; and Kristine Lawler, City Clerk. MAYOR CRANE PRESIDING. 2.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3.PROCLAMATIONS/INTRODUCTIONS/PRESENTATIONS a.Presentation by the Community Services Recreation Division. Presenters: Stephanie Young, Recreation Supervisor and Dustin Malanga, Recreation Coordinator. 4.PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS 5.APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.Minutes of June 17, 2015, a Regular Meeting. Motion/Second: Mulheren/Doble to approve the minutes of June 17, 2015, a Regular Meeting, as submitted. Motion carried by the following roll call votes: AYES: Mulheren, Doble, Brown, Scalmanini, and Crane. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 6.RIGHT TO APPEAL DECISION 7.CONSENT CALENDAR 8.AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Presenter: Phil Baldwin. 9.COUNCIL REPORTS Presenters: Councilmembers Mulheren and Doble. 10.CITY MANAGER/CITY CLERK REPORTS Presenters: Sage Sangiacomo, City Manager and Tim Eriksen, Public Works Director. 11.PUBLIC HEARINGS Page 1 of 4 Agenda Item 5b City Council Minutes for July 1, 2015, Continued: Page 2 of 4 12. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Adoption of a Resolution Certifying the Environmental Impact Report for the Talmage Road/Southbound U.S. 101 On-Off Ramp Realignment Project, Adopting Findings of Fact Pursuant to Public Resources Code (“PRC”) Section 21081 and California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines Section 15091, Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations in Accordance with PRC §21081(b) and Guidelines §15093 Approving Alternative 2 as the Project, and Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21081.6(a) – Planning and Community Development. Presenters: Charley Stump, Planning and Community Development Director and Leonard Charles, Leonard Charles and Associates. Public Comment: William Kopper, Ukiah Citizens for Safety First Representative; David Franklin, Costo Wholesale Corporation Representative; Jennifer Seward (speaking as a citizen); and Sabrina Teller, Remy, Moose, Manley, LLP. Motion/Second: Scalmanini/Doble to adopt a Resolution (2015-25) Certifying the Talmage Road / Southbound U.S. 101 On-Off Ramp Realignment project Environmental Impact Report, adopting Findings and a Statement of Overriding Consideration, approving the project (Alternative 2), and adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Motion carried by the following roll call votes: AYES: Mulheren, Doble, Brown, Scalmanini, and Crane. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. b. Discussion, Direction, and Approve Budget Amendment Regarding Pedestrian Facilities for the Crosswalk on North State Street at Redwood Empire Fairgrounds – Public Works. Presenter: Tim Eriksen, Public Works Director. Public Comment: Jennifer Seward, Redwood Empire Fairgrounds Manager; Selah Sawyer, Redwood Academy Assistant Principal; and Elna Gordon, Redwood Academy Principal. Motion/Second: Brown/Mulheren to approve a budget amendment (Gas tax fund 2107, Account No. 50124220.80230, in the amount of $27,995) regarding funding and construction of pedestrian facilities for the North State Street crosswalk at the Redwood Empire Fairgrounds, for temporary improvements. Motion carried by the following roll call votes: AYES: Mulheren, Doble, Brown, Scalmanini, and Crane. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Council Consensus directs staff to move forward with Option 2a. c. Award Professional Services Agreement in the Amount of $119,750 to Green Valley Consulting Engineers for Preparation of Plans, Specifications and Estimate for Summer 2015 Street Reconstruction Project and Approve Budget Amendment – Public Works. Presenter: Tim Eriksen, Public Works Director. City Council Minutes for July 1, 2015, Continued: Page 3 of 4 Motion/Second: Doble/Brown to award a professional services agreement (COU No. 1516-001) in the amount of $119,750 to Green Valley Consulting Engineers for preparation of plans, specifications and estimate for Summer 2015 Street Reconstruction Project, and approve budget amendment. Motion carried by the following roll call votes: AYES: Mulheren, Doble, Brown, Scalmanini, and Crane. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. RECESS 8:23 – 8:33 P.M. 13. NEW BUSINESS a. Designation of Voting Delegate and Alternates for 2015 League of California Cities Annual Conference – September 30 - October 2, 2015 – Administration. Presenter: Sage Sangiacomo, City Manager. Motion/Second: Doble/Brown to designate Councilmember Mulheren as a voting delegate, who will represent the City of Ukiah; and City Manager Sangiacomo as an alternate for the 2015 League Annual Conference; and authorize the City Clerk to submit the Voting Delegate/Alternate Form on their behalf. Motion carried by the following roll call votes: AYES: Mulheren, Doble, Brown, Scalmanini, and Crane. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. b. Discussion and Direction to Staff Regarding the Possible Development of a Development Impact Fee Deferral Program – Community Services. Presenter: Shannon Riley, Project and Grant Administrator. Motion/Second: Brown /Scalamnini to appoint Councilmembers Mulheren and Doble to a Development Impact Fee Deferral Program Ad Hoc. Motion carried by the following roll call votes: AYES: Mulheren, Doble, Brown, Scalmanini, and Crane. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. c. Update on Hydro Electric Bonds and Potential to Refund 2005 Water Bonds – Finance. Presenter: Karen Scalabrini, Finance Director. Update received. d. Consideration and Discussion of Interest in Appointing an Ad-Hoc Committee on Marijuana Legislation and Policy – Administration. Presenter: Sage Sangiacomo, City Manager and Councilmember Mulheren. Motion/Second: Mulheren/Doble to appoint Councilmembers Mulheren and Brown to an ad hoc Committee on Marijuana Legislation and Policy. Motion carried by the following roll call votes: AYES: Mulheren, Doble, Brown, Scalmanini, and Crane. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. e. Consideration of Initial Reorganization Plan for the New City Manager Transition and Approve the Corresponding Budget Adjustments to be Incorporated into the Fiscal Year 15/16 Budget – Administration. City Council Minutes for July 1, 2015, Continued: Page 4 of 4 Presenter: Sage Sangiacomo, City Manager. Motion/Second: Brown/Doble to approve budget adjustments to be incorporated into the Fiscal Year 15/16 Budget per a reorganization plan for the new City Manager transition. Motion carried by the following roll call votes: AYES: Mulheren, Doble, Brown, and Crane. NOES: Scalmanini. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. THE CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNED TO CLOSED SESSION AT 9:32 P.M. 14. CLOSED SESSION a. Conference with Legal Counsel – Pending Litigation Initiation of litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4) (1 case) b. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation (Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)) Name of case: Ukiah Valley Sanitation District v. City of Ukiah, Mendocino County Superior Court Case No. SCUK-CVC-13-63024 No action was taken on Closed Session items. 15. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:54 p.m. ________________________________ Kristine Lawler, City Clerk uk041 3 r 1 - 8 6 6 0 _ 8 - 5 x 1 1 . p s d PROJECT Recycled Water CEQA Addendum SCH #2013032072 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Approved on June 5, 2013 May 2015 Attachment 2 CEQA Addendum City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project SCH #2013032072 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Approved on June 5, 2013 Prepared by: SMB Environmental, Inc. May 2015 City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project CEQA Addendum May 2015  i Table of Contents Chapter 1  Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1-1   1.1  California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) ................................................................... 1-1   1.2  Purpose of this Addendum ................................................................................................ 1-4   1.3  Impact Terminology .......................................................................................................... 1-4   1.4  Organization of this Document .......................................................................................... 1-4   Chapter 2  Description of Proposed Project Changes ......................................................... 2-1   2.1  Background ....................................................................................................................... 2-1   2.2  Project Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................ 2-2   2.3  Original Proposed Project Description .............................................................................. 2-3   2.3.1  Potential Users and Phasing .......................................................................................... 2-3   2.3.3  Pump Station ................................................................................................................. 2-4   2.3.4  Storage Facilities ........................................................................................................... 2-4   2.4  Construction Considerations ............................................................................................. 2-5   2.5  Compliance with CCR Title 22 and State Water Board’s Recycled Water Policy ............. 2-7   2.6  Operational Plans ............................................................................................................. 2-7   2.7  Proposed Project Changes ............................................................................................... 2-7   2.3.1   Potential Users and Phasing ......................................................................................... 2-8   2.3.3  Pump Station ................................................................................................................. 2-9   2.3.4  Storage Facilities ........................................................................................................... 2-9   2.8  Evaluation of Potential for Wastewater Change Petition WW0082 to Impair Instream Beneficial Uses Due to a Decrease In Flow ............................................................................. 2-12   2.8.1  Incremental Decrease in Streamflow ........................................................................... 2-12   2.8.2  Potential to Impair Instream Beneficial Uses ............................................................... 2-12   Chapter 3  Environmental Analysis ....................................................................................... 3-1   3.1  Explanation of Environmental Review Process ................................................................ 3-1   3.2  Evaluation of Proposed Changes and Supplemental Environmental Instream Flow Analysis   Chapter 4  Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 4-1   List of Tables Table 1: Proposed Project Parameters……………………………………………………....……2-3 Table 1: Revised Proposed Project Parameters…………………………..……………….…....2-8 Table 2: Annual Recycled Water Demands…..…………………………………….……..……...2-4 Table 2: Revised Annual Recycled Water Demands…..………………………………………..2-9 Table 3: Proposed Pipeline Facilities….…………………………………………………………..2-5 Table 3: Revised Proposed Pipeline Facilities….…………………………………………..….2-10 Table 4: Environmental Review of Proposed Project Changes…………………..….…….…3-3 List of Figures Figure 1: Proposed Pipeline Alignment Changes...……………………………………………..2-9 City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project CEQA Addendum May 2015  1-1 Chapter 1 Introduction This Addendum assesses the environmental impacts of proposed changes to the City of Ukiah’s (City) proposed Recycled Water Project (Proposed Project). In addition, this Addendum will also revise the analysis related to the Proposed Project’s potential to reduce discharges to the Russian River. The City prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and on June 5, 2013 adopted the IS/MND and approved the Project (SCH #2013032072). The City, as the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), will consider the potential incremental environmental impacts of the Proposed Project changes and the potential effects of reducing flows to the Russian River when it considers whether or not to approve this Addendum to the Project. This Addendum is an informational document and is intended to be used by the City under Public Resources Code section 21166 and the related CEQA Guidelines, specifically sections 15162 through 15164.1 The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) is providing partial funding for the Proposed Project under the State Revolving Fund (SRF) Program and has requested additional environmental analysis to evaluate the potential effects of reducing discharges to the Russian River as a result of implementing the Proposed Recycled Water Project. Section 1211 of the Water Code requires that before making a change in the point of discharge, place of use, or purpose of use of treated wastewater, the owner of the treatment plant must seek approval from the Division of Water Rights (Division) by filing a Petition for Change. The City filed a Wastewater Change Petition with the Division and was given an identifier WW0082. Division staff prepared an analysis to evaluate: 1) the incremental decrease in streamflow that could result from the approval of WW0082; and 2) whether the decrease could impair instream beneficial uses. The conclusion of this Addendum is that the proposed changes will not result in new significant impacts, substantially increase the severity of previously disclosed impacts or involve any of the other conditions related to changed circumstances or new information that can require a subsequent or supplemental EIR under Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines section 15162 beyond those impacts and conditions already identified in the City’s Public Draft and Final IS/MND (SCH #2013032072) (also referred to as IS/MND throughout this document), which was certified and approved by the City on June 5, 2013. This Addendum also concludes that the reduction of discharges to the Russian River as a result of implementing the Proposed Recycled Water Project will not result in any substantial change in impacts, and does not result in any new significant impacts. Thus, an Addendum is the appropriate level of CEQA analysis and the appropriate method of amending the June 5, 2013 Adopted IS/MND, pursuant to Sections 15162 and 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines. As discussed in this Addendum, CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines do not require a subsequent or supplemental negative declaration or environmental impact report for the proposed alignment changes. 1.1 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) For a proposed modified project, State CEQA Guidelines (Sections 15162 and 15164) provide that an Addendum to an adopted IS/MND may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the following conditions calling for the preparation of a subsequent IS/MND have occurred: • Substantial changes in the project which require major revisions to the IS/MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 1 The CEQA Guidelines are contained in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project CEQA Addendum May 2015  1-2 • Substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which require major revisions to the IS/MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or • New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of IS/MND adoption, shows any of the following: i) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the IS/MND, ii) The project will result in impacts substantially more severe than those disclosed in the IS/MND, iii) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative, or iv) Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the IS/MND would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Specific CEQA language in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15164 is presented below. 15162. Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations (A) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project CEQA Addendum May 2015  1-3 c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. (B) If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required under subsection (a). Otherwise the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, an Addendum, or no further documentation. (C) Once a project has been approved, the lead agency's role in project approval is completed, unless further discretionary approval on that project is required. Information appearing after an approval does not require reopening of that approval. If after the project is approved, any of the conditions described in subsection (A) occurs, a subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall only be prepared by the public agency which grants the next discretionary approval for the project, if any. In this situation no other responsible agency shall grant an approval for the project until the subsequent EIR has been certified or subsequent negative declaration adopted. (D) A subsequent EIR or subsequent negative declaration shall be given the same notice and public review as required under Section 15087 or Section 15072. A subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall state where the previous document is available and can be reviewed. As described in Chapter 3 of this Addendum, none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 (which implements Public Resources Code section 21166) has occurred. Under such circumstances, CEQA Guidelines section 15164 allows for the preparation of an Addendum as described below: 15164. Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration (A) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an Addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. (B) An Addendum to an adopted Negative Declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. (C) An Addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR or adopted negative declaration. (D) The decision making body shall consider the Addendum with the final EIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project. City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project CEQA Addendum May 2015  1-4 (E) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an Addendum to an EIR, the lead agency's findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence. 1.2 Purpose of this Addendum The purpose of this Addendum is to evaluate proposed changes to the original project analyzed in the IS/MND and to demonstrate that the Proposed Project changes and additional instream flow analysis do not trigger any of the conditions described above. Based on the analysis provided below, an Addendum to the IS/MND is the appropriate CEQA document. 1.3 Impact Terminology This Addendum uses the terminology below to describe the levels of significance of impacts that the IS/MND concluded that Proposed Project would have. This terminology is helpful for determining how the environmental impacts, if any, of the proposed pipeline alignment changes compare to the environmental impacts described in the IS/MND. • The Proposed Project is considered to have no impact on a particular resource topic if the analysis concludes that it would not affect that particular resource. • An impact is considered less than significant if the analysis concludes that the impact would cause no substantial adverse change to the environment and that accordingly it would not require mitigation. • An impact is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated if the analysis concludes that, with the inclusion of mitigation measures to which the project proponent has agreed, the impact would cause no substantial adverse change to the environment. • An impact is considered potentially significant if the analysis concludes that the impact exceeds applicable regulatory thresholds of significance and cannot be reduced to a less-than-significant level with potentially feasible mitigation. In assessing the impacts of the proposed alignment changes to the project as originally approved, the City is not assessing whether impacts are significant compared with existing physical conditions (i.e., conditions without implementation of any part of the project). Rather, the City is assessing how the incremental impacts, if any, associated with the proposed pipeline alignment changes compare with the impacts disclosed in the IS/MND. This approach is expressly sanctioned by the governing statutory and regulatory provisions and case law. (See Public Resources Code, § 21166; CEQA Guidelines, § 15162; Bowman v. City of Petaluma (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1065, 1078-1082; Temecula Band of Luiseño Mission Indians v. Rancho Cal. Water Dist. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th, 425, 438-439). 1.4 Organization of this Document CEQA Guidelines do not specify the format of addendums. The content and format of this Addendum is as follows. • Chapter 1, “Introduction,” identifies the purpose, terminology, and organization of the Addendum. • Chapter 2, “Description of Proposed Project Change,” identifies the proposed project refinements in detail. City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project CEQA Addendum May 2015  1-5 • Chapter 3, “Environmental Analysis,” presents the analysis for each component of the project change. This chapter identifies the proposed project change's impacts in relevant resource categories. • Chapter 4, “Conclusion,” summarizes the conclusions of the environmental review in this Addendum. • Chapter 5, “List of Preparers,” identifies the individuals involved in preparing this Addendum and their areas of technical specialty. City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project CEQA Addendum May 2015  2-1 Chapter 2 Description of Proposed Project Changes This chapter provides a summary of the background, project goals and objectives, original Proposed Project description, and a detailed description of the proposed changes and additional intream flow analysis to the City’s Proposed Recycled Water Project (Proposed Project). 2.1 Background As originally described in the March 2013 Public Draft IS/MND and the May 2013 Final IS/MND, the City is located in Mendocino County in the northern coastal region of California. The City is situated in the Ukiah Valley approximately 60 miles north of Santa Rosa, 20 miles south of Willits, and 5 miles southwest of Lake Mendocino, and is surrounded by coastal ranges in southern Mendocino County. The Valley is bordered on the west by the Mendocino Range and on the east by the Mayacamas Mountains. Elevations in the nearby mountains reach over 1,800 feet above mean sea level (MSL), while elevations in the Valley range from about 560 feet above MSL in the south near El Robles Ranch to 670 feet above MSL in the north near Calpella. Interstate Highway 101 runs north to south through the City along its eastern boundary and the Russian River flows from north to south through the Ukiah area. Ukiah is the county seat for Mendocino County. Originally part of a Mexican Land Grant, the City began its history as a Valley settlement in 1856. Due to the City’s moderate climate and productive soil, lumber production became a major industry by the end of the 1940s. Agriculture is currently the largest industry in Ukiah and the rest of Mendocino County (www.cityofukiah.com). Ukiah is home to wineries, grape vineyards, pear orchards, and wood production plants, in addition to up-and-coming nonagricultural manufacturers. Surface waters, namely the Russian River and Lake Mendocino, and groundwater are the major water resources that sustain the people and industries of Ukiah area. The City and several other water service providers in the area use a combination of these water supplies to support the urban demands within their service area boundaries. Agricultural entities also draw groundwater and surface water to both irrigate their crops and protect them from frost and heat events. Over the years, these water resources have become increasingly taxed to meet urban and agricultural demands as well as in-stream flow requirements for endangered species. As a result, the need to procure alternative water supplies, including recycled water, has increased. Environmental groups have increasingly studied how river and groundwater diversions have negatively affected the species of the Russian River stream system and have requested increased regulation of these diversions. In 2009, the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) presented the State Water Board with information that water withdrawn from the Russian River for frost protection of agricultural crops poses a threat to federally threatened and endangered salmonids in the Russian River watershed. They documented two episodes of fish stranding mortality that occurred in April 2008, one on Felta Creek in Sonoma County and the second on the mainstream of the Russian River near Hopland in Mendocino County (Draft EIR Russian River Frost Protection Regulation, 2007). NOAA Fisheries requested the State Water Board take regulatory action immediately to regulate diversions for frost protection to prevent salmonid mortality. The State Water Board is currently considering regulatory action that would deem any diversions for frost protection from March City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project CEQA Addendum May 2015  2-2 15 through May 15 unreasonable, unless approved by the State Water Board through the completion of an extensive Water Demand Management Program (WDMP). In February 2012, the Courts granted a stay of the State Water Board regulations that declare frost protection diversions unreasonable in Mendocino and Sonoma Counties. Faced with this future regulatory consideration, farmers in the Ukiah area are looking for alternative water supplies to sustain their agricultural practices. In addition to this, during dry years, water service providers in the surrounding area are limited on the amount of water they can withdraw from the River and Lake Mendocino. Developing recycled water supplies in the Ukiah Valley and surrounding area would increase the overall water supply and its reliability under a range of hydrologic conditions. The recycled water supply that is being considered under this study is the treated wastewater effluent of the UWWTP. While water users are being limited by the water they can take out of the River, the City is limited on the treated effluent they can put in the River. The City must comply with increasingly stringent discharge requirements that regulate both the volume and quality of the water that can be discharged to the Russian River. As a result, when discharging to the River, the City currently discharges very high quality effluent that meets recycled water needs. Limited on the volume and time at which treated effluent can be discharged, the City could benefit from additional disposal alternatives including delivery of recycled water to irrigation customers. 2.2 Project Goals and Objectives The goal and objectives and purpose of the Proposed Project is to construct an approximately 8.6-mile pipeline system to serve a combined set of agricultural and urban landscape irrigation demands in the Ukiah Valley with approximately 1,348 afy of tertiary treated recycled water from the City’s existing Ukiah Wastewater Treatment Plant (UWWTP) that meets the requirements for disinfected tertiary recycled water “unrestricted use” as defined in California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 22, Sections 60301 through 60355. The City held a visioning workshop on February 28, 2011 early in the master planning process to ensure the Recycled Water Master Plan (RWMP) aligned with the goals and values of the City and other potentially affected interests. To ensure the master plan addressed both local and regional issues and provided local and regional benefits, the City of Ukiah invited City engineering, planning, management, and operations staff, water service providers in the surrounding area from Redwood Valley to Willow County Water District, and agricultural entities to partake in the visioning workshop. Attendees included representatives from the following entities: • City of Ukiah • Ukiah Valley Sanitation District • Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control and Water Conservation Improvement District • Mendocino County Farm Bureau • Millview Water District • Rogina Water District • Willow County Water District • Redwood Valley County Water District The group discussed values and challenges pertaining to the RWMP and identified several goals and objectives. The primary goals and objectives that were identified include: • Implementing a recycled water program that is safe and meets the needs of the City and surrounding communities, including local agricultural businesses; City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project CEQA Addendum May 2015  2-3 • Reducing withdrawals from the Russian River and Lake Mendocino surface waters; • Implementing a program that helps the City with its disposal options for its treated wastewater effluent; and • Implementing a program that is financially viable and minimizes costs to ratepayers. It was agreed during the workshop that implementing recycled water anywhere within Ukiah Valley and the surrounding area would improve the regional water supply from Redwood Valley to Hopland. The attendees also identified major water uses located near the recycled water source – the UWWTP. 2.3 Original Proposed Project Description As originally described in the March 2013 Public Draft IS/MND and the May 2013 Final IS/MND (collectively referred to as the IS/MND), the Proposed Project would consist of 9.4-miles of recycled water pipeline ranging in size from of 8- to 16-inches in diameter to provide recycled water from the City’s existing Ukiah WWTP to approximately 990 acres of agricultural and urban landscape irrigation lands within the Ukiah Valley. Specifically, a total of 44 parcels covering 703 acres would be supplied with 1,234 AFY of recycled water for irrigation purposes. In addition, about 284 acres would be supplied with 142 AFY of recycled water for frost protection. Table 1 provides a summary of the key parameters of the overall Proposed Project. What follows is a discussion of the major features of the Proposed Project. Table 1 Proposed Project Parameters Parameter Number of Units Irrigation Demand (AFY) 1,234 Irrigated area Served (Acres) 703 Parcels Provided irrigation (Number) 44 Frost Protection Demand (AFY) 142 Frost Protected land (Acres) 284 Parcels Provided Frost Protection (Acres) 17 Pipeline Length (Miles) 9.4 Pipeline Diameter (Inches) 8-16 Pump Station 1 2.3.1 Potential Users and Phasing There are two categories of potential users, agricultural and landscape irrigation. The Proposed Project will be developed in four phases. Table 2 provides a summary of the estimated annual demand for recycled water by phase as well as by irrigation and frost protection. City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project CEQA Addendum May 2015  2-4 Table 2 Annual Recycled Water Demand Summary Estimated Recycled Water Demand (AFY) Irrigation Phase Agricultural Urban Landscape Frost Protection Total by Phase Cumulative Total 1 309.2 0.0 94.6 403.8 403.8 2 210.4 0.0 4.8 215.1 618.9 3 311.8 22.2 42.3 376.3 995.2 4 0.0 380.6 0.0 380.6 1,375.8 Total 831.4 402.8 141.7 1,375.8 2.3.2 Pipeline Facilities As mentioned above, the proposed recycled water system includes 9.4 miles of recycled water pipelines ranging between 8- and 16-inches in diameter. The recycled water would be pumped from the existing UWWTP to those landowners with storage, and would also be available up to the UWWTP and pump station capacity to those landowners without storage facilities. The pipeline will be constructed in paved streets and in existing agricultural service roads. The first phase is anticipated to be entirely within the Ukiah WWTP and along agricultural and would not be along paved roads. Phases 2 and 3 would be along both agricultural easements where possible, or along paved roads, primarily River Road, Babcock Lane, and Hastings Frontage Road. Pipelines installed as a part of Phase 4 would be along paved streets, and are routed to enter the urban area from the east to minimize the total length of pipeline along paved streets. The pipeline route would cross six ephemeral streams and/or drainages that lead to the Russian River. 2.3.3 Pump Station A single pump station is included in the alignment at the Ukiah WWTP. Initially, it is planned that two (2) 100 horsepower electric pump units will be installed in the pump station, with spare bays for an additional two (2) 100 horsepower electric pump units, which would be installed in Phase 2. Phase 3 and 4 are not anticipated to require any additional pump units, since the demands for frost protection are significantly higher than what would be required for urban landscape irrigation. 2.3.4 Storage Facilities The Proposed Project also includes the construction and operation of a new single tertiary treated recycled water storage pond at the wastewater treatment plant sized at a capacity of approximately 1.6 MG and encompassing approximately 5 acres of a 43-acre parcel, which is owned by the City. The storage pond at the wastewater treatment plant will accommodate the variation in potential customer demand patterns and also serve as an equalization basin to buffer the potential variation in effluent flow at the WWTP. This storage pond will be setback from the Russian River by approximately 500 feet and will be designed and lined with a synthetic liner to prevent the movement of recycled water and pollutants such as salts and nutrients to groundwater or surface waters. In addition to this storage pond, individual farmers will either use their existing storage ponds and/or develop additional storage ponds on their own which will be designed to the same water quality design standards as the City’s proposed storage pond. These specific farmer activities are not known at this time, but will be developed once individual agreements are made with each farmer/individual. These activities will be further identified and explained in the City’s Report of Waste Discharge and Recycled Water Technical Report that the City will submit to the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (North Coast RWQCB) for approval prior to implementation. City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project CEQA Addendum May 2015  2-5 Table 3 Proposed Pipeline Facilities Phase Type of Alignment1 Diameter (inches) Length (feet) Length (miles) Construction Schedule 1 Ukiah WWTP Site Piping 16 1,300 0.25 2015 - 2016 1 Agricultural Land Service Roads 12 5,600 1.06 2015 - 2016 Phase 1 Subtotal 6,900 1.31 2015 - 2016 2 Paved Public Street 16 5,600 1.06 2020 - 2021 2 Agricultural Land Service Roads 16 4,200 0.80 2020 - 2021 Phase 2 Subtotal 9,800 1.86 2020 - 2021 3 Agricultural Land Service Roads 16 9,000 1.70 2025 - 2026 3 Paved Public Street 16 4,000 0.76 2025 - 2026 3 Agricultural Land Service Roads 12 400 0.08 2025 - 2026 3 Paved Public Street 8 1,000 0.19 2025 - 2026 Phase 3 Subtotal 14,400 2.73 2025 - 2026 4 Paved Public Street 12 4,700 0.89 2031 - 2032 4 Paved Public Street 8 13,800 2.61 2031 - 2032 Phase 4 Subtotal 18,500 3.50 2031 - 2032 Proposed Project Total 49,600 9.40 2015 - 2032 Note: 1). Laterals to individual agricultural parcels are assumed to be the responsibility of the farmer or landowner and are not included in the lengths presented here. 2.4 Construction Considerations As shown in Table 3 above, construction of the Proposed Project is expected to begin in the summer of 2015 and continue over approximately a 20-year period as each of the four phases are planned to be developed in five (5) year increments. Construction work will typically be done within normal working hours, weekdays between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., and possibly on Saturdays between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. The Proposed Project would be constructed primarily within existing paved and unpaved roadways and any damages occurring during construction will be returned to the pre- construction condition or better. Detailed below is a summary of the construction techniques and activities. • The majority of the pipelines would be installed using conventional cut and cover construction techniques and installing pipe in open trenches. It is assumed that up to a 50-foot wide construction corridor would be used to help maximize the efficiency during construction. However, in most places a 25-foot construction corridor could be realized, especially for the smaller diameter pipelines. It is anticipated that excavation would typically be no more than 3-5 feet wide and 3-6 feet deep. • The Proposed Project would also require crossing six small ephemeral creeks and/or drainages that flow to the Russian River. Each of the crossings will be done using trenchless construction techniques and will be done in the dry season and will not occur during rainy weather and during the months between October 15 and through April 1. • Dewatering of the pipeline as a result of hydrostatic testing during construction as well as any dewatering as a result of operations and maintenance activities shall be discharged to land and not City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project CEQA Addendum May 2015  2-6 into any creeks, drainages, or waterways and shall require prior approval from the North Coast RWQCB. Construction activities for this kind of project will typically occur with periodic activity peaks, requiring brief periods of significant effort followed by longer periods of reduced activities. In order to characterize and analyze potential construction impacts, the City has assumed that each phase of the project would be constructed by two (2) crews of 10-15 workers each and would proceed at a rate of approximately 500- 1,000 feet per day. However, specific details may change or vary slightly. Staging areas for storage of pipe, construction equipment, and other materials would be placed at locations that would minimize hauling distances and long-term disruption. Excavation and grading activities would be necessary for construction of the Proposed Project. Excavated materials resulting from site preparation would either be used on-site during construction or disposed of at a fill area authorized by the City. It is not anticipated that any soils would be imported for this project. Additional truck trips would be necessary to deliver materials, equipment, and asphalt-concrete to the site. During peak excavation and earthwork activities, the Proposed Project could generate up to 40 round-trip truck trips per day. In support of these activities and for the assumptions for this document, the types of equipment that may be used at any one time during construction may include, but not limited to: • Track-mounted excavator • Backhoe • Grader • Crane • Dozer • Compactor • Trencher/boring machine • End and bottom dump truck • Front-end loader • Water truck • Flat-bed delivery truck • Forklift • Compressor/jack hammer • Asphalt paver & roller • Street sweeper It is recognized that details of the construction activities and methods may change slightly as the specific details will be developed during final design and by the selected contractor. However, this description provides sufficient information to base the conclusions to probable environmental impacts associated with construction activities for this kind of project. Therefore, as long as the construction methods are generally consistent with these methods and do not conflict with any of the City’s design standards or established ordinances, and does not create any new potential environmental impacts that are not described within this document, then no new environmental analyses will likely be required for any minor change in construction activities, timing, and/or schedule. City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project CEQA Addendum May 2015  2-7 2.5 Compliance with CCR Title 22 and State Water Board’s Recycled Water Policy The Proposed Project will be designed and operated in accordance with the applicable requirements of California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22 and any other state or local legislation that is currently effective or may become effective as it pertains to recycled water. The State Water Board adopted a Recycled Water Policy (RW Policy) in 2009 to establish more uniform requirements for water recycling throughout the State and to streamline the permit application process in most instances. As part of that process, the State Water Board prepared an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the use of recycled water. That document and the environmental analyses contained within are incorporated by reference for this document and Proposed Project. The newly adopted RW Policy includes a mandate that the State increase the use of recycled water over 2002 levels by at least 1,000,000 AFY by 2020 and by at least 2,000,000 AFY by 2030. Also included are goals for storm water reuse, conservation and potable water offsets by recycled water. The onus for achieving these mandates and goals is placed both on recycled water purveyors and potential users. The State Water Board has designated the Regional Water Quality Control Boards as the regulating entity for the Recycled Water Policy. In this case, the North Coast RWQCB is responsible for permitting recycled water projects throughout the North Coast Area and including Mendocino County. The Proposed Project will be provided high quality unrestricted use tertiary treated recycled water from UWWTP and made available to users within the Ukiah Valley. All irrigation systems will be operated in accordance with the requirements of Title 22 of the CCR, the State Water Board Recycled Water Policy, and any other local legislation that is effective or may become effective as it pertains to recycled water and any reclamation permits issued by the North Coast RWQCB. Recycled water permits typically require the following: • Irrigation rates will match the agronomic rates of the plants being irrigated; • Control of incidental runoff through the proper design of irrigation facilities; • Implementation of a leak detection program to correct problems within 72 hours or prior to the release of 1,000 gallons whichever occurs first; • Management of ponds containing recycled water to ensure no discharges; and • Irrigation will not occur within 50 feet of any domestic supply wells, unless certain conditions have been met as defined in Title 22. 2.6 Operational Plans The City will enforce an irrigation schedule among its users. The irrigation schedule is assumed as follows: • Agricultural Irrigation: 6 AM to 6 PM • Landscape Irrigation: 6 PM to 5 AM • Frost Protection Irrigation: Only as required By irrigating using the above scheduling, peak flows are reduced and pipe sizing is optimized. 2.7 Proposed Project Changes Detailed below are the Proposed Changes to the Proposed Project as originally described in the March 2013 Public Draft IS/MND and the May 2013 Final IS/MND (collectively referred to as the IS/MND). City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project CEQA Addendum May 2015  2-8 The Proposed Changes are shown in Strikeout for deletions and in Red for additions. For consistency and to avoid confusion, the numbering system of the Original Project Description has been kept the same in the discussion of this section. The Proposed Project would consist of 9.4 8.6-miles of recycled water pipeline ranging in size from of 8- to 16 24-inches in diameter to provide recycled water from the City’s existing Ukiah WWTP to approximately 990 762 acres of agricultural and urban landscape irrigation lands within the Ukiah Valley. Specifically, a total of 44 65 parcels covering 703 762 acres would be supplied with 1,234 1,348 AFY of recycled water for irrigation purposes. In addition, about 284 259 acres would be supplied with 142 124 AFY of recycled water for frost protection. Table 1 provides a summary of the key parameters of the overall Proposed Project. What follows is a discussion of the major features of the Proposed Project. Table 1 Revised Proposed Project Parameters Parameter Number of Units Irrigation Demand (AFY) 1,234 1,348 Irrigated area Served (Acres) 703 762 Parcels Provided irrigation (Number) 44 65 Frost Protection Demand (AFY) 142 124 Frost Protected land (Acres) 284 259 Parcels Provided Frost Protection (Acres) 17 19 Pipeline Length (Miles) 9.4 8.6 Pipeline Diameter (Inches) 8-16 8-24 Pump Station 1 2.3.1 Potential Users and Phasing There are two categories of potential users, agricultural and landscape irrigation. The Proposed Project will be developed in four phases. Table 2 provides a summary of the estimated annual demand for recycled water by phase as well as by irrigation and frost protection. Table 2 Revised Annual Recycled Water Demand Summary Estimated Recycled Water Demand (AFY) Irrigation Phase Agricultural Urban Landscape Frost Protection Total by Phase Cumulative Total 1 309.2 238.5 0.0 79.4 94.6 77.0 403.8 394.9 403.8 394.9 2 210.4 361.3 0.0 4.8 215.1 366.1 618.9 761.0 3 311.8 265.8 22.2 45.6 42.3 42.6 376.3 354.0 995.2 1,115.0 4 0.0 380.6 357.1 0.0 380.6 357.1 1,375.8 1,472.1 Total 831.4 865.6 402.8 482.1 141.7 124.4 1,375.8 1,472.1 2.3.2 Pipeline Facilities City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project CEQA Addendum May 2015  2-9 As mentioned above, the proposed recycled water system includes 9.4 8.6 miles of recycled water pipelines ranging between 8- and 16 24-inches in diameter. The recycled water would be pumped from the existing UWWTP to those landowners with storage, and would also be available up to the UWWTP and pump station capacity to those landowners without storage facilities. The pipeline will be constructed in paved streets and in existing agricultural service roads. The first phase is anticipated to be entirely within from the Ukiah WWTP to the south of the Ukiah WWTP, and along agricultural and would not be along paved roads. Phases 2 and 3 would be along both agricultural easements where possible, or along paved roads, primarily River Road, Babcock Lane, Oak Manor Drive, and Hastings Frontage Road. Pipelines installed as a part of Phase 4 would be along paved streets, and are routed to enter the urban area from the east to minimize the total length of pipeline along paved streets. The pipeline route would cross six eight ephemeral streams and/or drainages that lead to the Russian River. 2.3.3 Pump Station A single pump station is included in the alignment at the Ukiah WWTP. Initially, it is planned that two (2) 100 four (4) 40 horsepower electric pump units will be installed in the pump station (three duty and one standby). with spare bays for an additional two (2) 100 horsepower electric pump units, which would be installed in Phase 2. Phase 3 and 4 are not anticipated to require any additional pump units, since the demands for frost protection are significantly higher than what would be required for urban landscape irrigation. 2.3.4 Storage Facilities The Proposed Project also includes the construction and operation of a new single tertiary treated recycled water storage pond at the wastewater treatment plant sized at a capacity of approximately 1.6 3 MG and encompassing approximately 5 2.9 acres of a 43-acre parcel, which is owned by the City. The storage pond at the wastewater treatment plant will accommodate the variation in potential customer demand patterns and also serve as an equalization basin to buffer the potential variation in effluent flow at the WWTP. This storage pond will be setback from the Russian River by approximately 500 1,000 feet and will be designed and lined with a synthetic liner to prevent the movement of recycled water and pollutants such as salts and nutrients to groundwater or surface waters. In addition to this storage pond, individual farmers will either use their existing storage ponds and/or develop additional storage ponds on their own which will be designed to the same water quality design standards as the City’s proposed storage pond. These specific farmer activities are not known at this time, but will be developed once individual agreements are made with each farmer/individual. These activities will be further identified and explained in the City’s Report of Waste Discharge and Recycled Water Technical Report that the City will submit to the North Coast RWQCB for approval prior to implementation. City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project CEQA Addendum May 2015  2-10 Table 3 Revised Proposed Pipeline Facilities Phase Type of Alignment1 Diameter (inches) Length (feet) Length (miles) Construction Schedule 1 Ukiah WWTP Site Piping 24 590 0.11 2015 - 2016 1 Ukiah WWTP Site Piping 16 1,300 20 0.25 0.00 2015 - 2016 1 Agricultural Land Service Roads 12 5,600 4,100 1.06 0.78 2015 - 2016 Phase 1 Subtotal 6,900 4,710 1.31 0.89 2015 - 2016 2 Paved Public Street 16 5,600 7,400 1.06 1.40 2020 - 2021 2 Agricultural Land Service Roads 16 4,200 6,940 0.80 1.31 2020 - 2021 Phase 2 Subtotal 9,800 14,340 1.86 2.72 2020 - 2021 3 Agricultural Land Service Roads 16 9,000 5,070 1.70 0.96 2025 - 2026 3 Paved Public Street 16 4,000 2,520 0.76 0.48 2025 - 2026 3 Agricultural Land Service Roads 12 400 250 0.08 0.05 2025 - 2026 3 Paved Public Street 8 1,000 40 0.19 0.01 2025 - 2026 Phase 3 Subtotal 14,400 7,880 2.73 1.49 2025 - 2026 4 Paved Public Street 12 4,700 8,570 0.89 1.62 2031 - 2032 4 Paved Public Street 8 13,800 9,880 2.61 1.87 2031 - 2032 Phase 4 Subtotal 18,500 18,950 3.50 3.49 2031 - 2032 Proposed Project Total 49,600 45,380 9.40 8.60 2015 - 2032 Note: 1). Laterals to individual agricultural parcels are assumed to be the responsibility of the farmer or landowner and are not included in the lengths presented here. In addition, since the IS/MND was adopted on June 5, 2013, the City is considering changing a portion of the alignment to coincide with design efficiencies. Figure 1 also shows those changes graphically on the project map. The diameter of the pipelines for the Proposed Changed Project is the same as the Original Proposed Project. The Proposed Project construction may actually begin in the summer of 2016 instead of 2015. All other construction phasing would coincide with the planned development of phasing in 5-year increments over a 20-year period. U S H w y 1 0 1 State Rte 222 S t a t e R t e 2 5 3 U S H w y 1 0 1 R e d w o o d H w y S S t a t e S t S D o r a S t N B u s h S t N S tate S t Low Gap Rd Talmage Rd E G o b b i S t Ford Rd V ic h y S p ri n g s R d B o o n ville R d N O a k S t E l m S t S O a k S t Watson Rd W M ill S t R i v e r R d W C l a y S t H e l e n A v e S t a nle y A v e W S t a n d l e y S t F o r d S t E P e r k i n s S t Briggs St A i r p o r t R d T a y l o r D r M a p l e A v e S O r c h a r d A v e Q u ail D r Empire Dr W a u g h L n W C h u r c h S t Brush St C l a r a A v e Lewis Ln L e s l i e S t S M a i n S t N P i n e S t K n o b H ill R d Despina Dr R e c r e a t i o n R d J e f f e r s o n L n F ir c r e s t D r Beacon L n Vichy Hills D r W a l n u t A v e Laws Ave Redemeyer Rd D o r a A v e P o m o D r N o r g a r d L n Lor r a i n e S t L u c e A v e B r u n n e r S t Wab ash A ve View Dr Tokay Ln S S c h o o l S t F r a c c h i a L n M e n d o c i n o D rHillview A v e Hastings Ave Toyon Rd Gibson St Eunice Ct N C o u r t R d P e r r y S t River St Po ulos Ct E G o b b i S t R e d w o o d H w y N S t a t e S t $0 1 Miles May 20 15 2-9 CEQ A AddendumCity of Uki ah Recycl ed Water Project Legend Old Pipe lin e Alignme n t 8" Pip e 12" P ipe 16" P ipe 24" P ipe Storage P ond WW T P Agricultu ra l Custome rs La ndscap e Custom ers Russian River Major Roads Local Streets Figure 1PROPOSED P IP ELINE ALIGNMENT CHANG ESCITY O F UKIA HRECYCLED WATER PROJECTCEQA ADDEN DUM Storage Pond Old Pip eli ne Al ignment City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project CEQA Addendum May 2015  2-12 2.8 Evaluation of Potential for Wastewater Change Petition WW0082 to Impair Instream Beneficial Uses Due to a Decrease In Flow Pursuant to Water Code section 1211, the City filed WW0082 to request to change the place of use and purpose of use of treated wastewater discharged from the Ukiah WWTP. Division staff prepared an analysis2 to evaluate: 1) the incremental decrease in streamflow that could result from the approval of WW0082; and 2) whether and how the decrease could impair instream beneficial uses pursuant to the Policy for Maintaining Instream Flows in Northern California Coastal Streams (Policy) section 3.3.2. A summary of the analysis is provided below. 2.8.1 Incremental Decrease in Streamflow The North Coast RWQCB issued a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit3 to the City on September 6, 2012. The NPDES permit prohibits discharge of wastewater effluent from the Ukiah WWTP to the Russian River during the period from May 15 of each year to September 30 of the succeeding year. In addition, during the period from October 1 of each year to May 14 of the succeeding year, discharges of wastewater are limited to no more than one percent of the daily flow of the Russian River measured at USGS gage 11462500 (Russian River near Hopland). From 1987-2014 recorded daily flow at USGS gage 11462500 (Russian River near Hopland), during the October 1 through May 14 discharge season, ranges from a minimum of 21 cubic feet per second (cfs) recorded on February 23, 1991 to a maximum of 27,400 cfs recorded on December 31, 2005. Accordingly, the corresponding discharge could potentially range from 0.21 cfs to 274 cfs (e.g. one percent of the daily flow). Assuming 100% of the wastewater will be redirected upon petition approval, the incremental decrease in streamflow could have historically ranged from 0.21 to 274 cfs. 2.8.2 Potential to Impair Instream Beneficial Uses . The Policy defines the Russian River as a flow-regulated mainstream river. A flow-regulated mainstream river is a river or stream in which scheduled releases from storage are made to meet minimum instream flow requirements established by State Water Board Order or Decision. In 1986, the State Water Board issued Decision 1610 requiring Sonoma County Water Agency to maintain specific minimum instream flows in the Russian River. The minimum instream flow requirements were developed to protect, preserve, and enhance fish and wildlife, and recreational resources within the Russian River4. WW0082 does not propose modifications to the minimum instream flow requirements established in Decision 1610. Therefore, Division staff has determined the incremental decrease in streamflow resulting from the approval of WW0082 does not have the potential to impair instream beneficial uses. 2 State Water Resources Control Board. “Memorandum to File for WW0082,” May 13, 2015. 3 North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, “NPDES No. CA0022888,” September 5, 2012, http://www.uvsd.org/Order%202012-0068[1].pdf. 4 State Water Resources Control Board, “Decision 1610,” April 17, 1986, pp 28-34, http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/board_decisons/adopted_orders/decisions/d1600_d1649.shtml. City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project CEQA Addendum May 2015  3-1 Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis This chapter evaluates the potential for the proposed changes and/or the additional instream flow analysis to have new significant impacts on the environment that were not previously addressed in the IS/MND, substantially more severe environmental impacts than were addressed in the IS/MND or trigger the new information standards stated in CEQA Guideline section 15162. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the categories in terms of any “changed condition” (i.e. changed circumstances, project changes, or new information of substantial importance) that may result in a changed environmental result. A determination that no such changed condition exists does not necessarily mean that the overall project will have no potential impacts in an environmental category, but that the change to the Project will result in a reduction or no change in the condition or status of the impact since it was analyzed and addressed with mitigations in the IS/MND. 3.1 Explanation of Environmental Review Process Table 4 evaluates any potential environmental impacts from the construction and operation of the proposed pipeline alignment changes with the environmental impacts of the original pipeline alignment as discussed in the IS/MND. This comparative analysis has the following elements, which are the basis for the discussion in Table 3 below: (A) Were the Impact(s) were Analyzed in the IS/MND? This column provides a cross-reference to the pages of the IS/MND where information and analysis may be found relative to the environmental issue listed under each topic. (B) What were the Environmental Impact Conclusions in the IS/MND? This column provides a summary of the original environmental impact conclusions for implementing the Proposed Project in the IS/MND. (C) Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether the new pipeline alignments that are part of the proposed project change will result in new significant impacts that have not already been considered and mitigated by the IS/MND or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact. (D) Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether there have been changes to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which have occurred subsequent to the City’s adoption of the IS/MND that would result in the revised pipeline facilities having new significant environmental impacts that were not considered in the IS/MND or that substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact. (E) Any New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(3)(A-D) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the City adopted the IS/MND is available requiring an update to the analysis of the IS/MND because the new information shows that: (1) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the IS/MND; or City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project CEQA Addendum May 2015  3-2 (2) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the IS/MND; or (3) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or that (4) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the IS/MND would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. If the answer to any of the above questions (C) through (E) for the incremental impacts of the project change is ‘Yes,’ then the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental IS/MND or an EIR could be required. However, if the additional analysis completed as part of this Addendum finds that the applicable conclusions of the IS/MND remain the same and no new significant impacts are identified, or identified environmental impacts are not found to be more severe, or additional “considerably different” mitigation unacceptable to the proponent is not necessary, then the question would be answered ‘No’ and no supplemental or subsequent IS/MND or EIR is required. (E) Are Prior Mitigation Measures Sufficient for Addressing Any New Potential Changes or Impacts This column indicates whether the prior environmental documents provide mitigation measures to address effects in the related impact category. In some cases, the mitigation measures have already been implemented. A “yes” response will be provided in either instance. If “NA” is indicated, this Addendum concludes that the impact does not occur with this project change and therefore no mitigation measures are needed. (F) Discussion and Mitigation Section IS/MND Discussion A discussion of the relevant portions of the IS/MND is provided under each environmental category in order to clarify the answers. The discussion provides information about the IS/MND’s treatment of the particular environmental issue and the status of any mitigation measure that the IS/MND required or that has already been implemented. IS/MND Mitigation Measures Applicable mitigation measures from the IS/MND that apply to the project are listed under each environmental category. Project Change Discussion A discussion of the environmental impacts, if any, of the revised pipeline alignment under the standards established by CEQA Guidelines section 15162(a) for each environmental resources section or category. 3.2 Evaluation of Proposed Changes and Supplemental Environmental Instream Flow Analysis Table 4 evaluates the potential for the proposed changes and/or the additional instream flow analysis to have new significant impacts on the environment that were not previously addressed in the IS/MND, substantially more severe environmental impacts than were addressed in the IS/MND or trigger the new information standards stated in CEQA Guideline section 15162. The purpose of this review is to evaluate City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project CEQA Addendum May 2015  3-3 the categories in terms of any “changed condition” (i.e. changed circumstances, project changes, or new information of substantial importance) that may result in a changed environmental result. A determination that no such changed condition exists does not necessarily mean that the overall project will have no potential impacts in an environmental category, but that the change to the Project will result in a reduction or no change in the condition or status of the impact since it was analyzed and addressed with mitigations in the IS/MND. Table 4 Environmental Review of Proposed Project Changes Environmental Issue Area Where Impact(s) were Analyzed in Prior Environmental Documents. What were the Environmental Impact conclusions for the Original Proposed Project? Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Are Prior Mitigation Measures Sufficient for Addressing Any New Potential Changes or Impacts? Aesthetics/Visual IS/MND Page 3-2 LTS No No No N/A IS/MND Discussion: As identified in the IS/MND, implementation of the Proposed Project would have no to less than significant potential impacts to aesthetic and visual resources. As a result, implementation of the Proposed Project as described in the IS/MND would not result in significant unavoidable impacts to the visual character or add substantial amounts of light and glare. IS/MND Mitigation Measures: • None identified or necessary. Project Change Discussion: The proposed changes to the Proposed Project would have the same impacts to aesthetic/visual resources as the Original Proposed Project. The construction activities associated with the revised pipeline alignment would be substantially the same as they were originally described in the IS/MND as they would also be constructed within existing roadways, highly disturbed areas, and/or public right-of-ways. In addition the incremental decrease in streamflow resulting from the approval of WW0082 does not have the potential to impair instream beneficial uses and/or aesthetic/visual resources. The Revised Proposed Project therefore would not have any incrementally significant aesthetics/visual effects as defined in CEQA Guideline section 15162(a). Agricultural Resources IS/MND Pages 3-3 and 3-4 LTS No No No N/A IS/MND Discussion: As identified in the IS/MND, implementation of the Proposed Project would have no to less than significant potential impacts to agricultural resources. The Proposed Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use. The Proposed Project would be primarily constructed within existing roadways within the City. In addition, the Proposed Project will not be located on any existing agricultural fields or farmlands. As a result, the Proposed Project would not convert any farmland to non-agricultural usage. No mitigation is required or necessary. IS/MND Mitigation Measures: City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project CEQA Addendum May 2015  3-4 Table 4 Environmental Review of Proposed Project Changes Environmental Issue Area Where Impact(s) were Analyzed in Prior Environmental Documents. What were the Environmental Impact conclusions for the Original Proposed Project? Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Are Prior Mitigation Measures Sufficient for Addressing Any New Potential Changes or Impacts? • None identified or necessary. Project Change Discussion: The proposed changes to the Proposed Project would have the same impacts to agricultural resources as the Original Proposed Project. The construction activities associated with the revised pipeline conveyance alignment would be substantially the same as they were originally described in the IS/MND as they would also be constructed within existing roadways, highly disturbed areas, and/or public right-of-ways. In addition the incremental decrease in streamflow resulting from the approval of WW0082 does not have the potential to impair instream beneficial uses and an/or agricultural resources. The Revised Proposed Project therefore would not have any incrementally significant effects to agricultural resources as defined in CEQA Guideline section 15162(a). Air Quality IS/MND Pages 3-5 through 3-10 LTS/M No No No Yes IS/MND Discussion: As described in the IS/MND, construction of the Proposed Project would result in temporary, but not significant and unavoidable, impacts to air quality. However, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s approach to analyses of construction impacts as noted in their BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines is to emphasize implementation of effective and comprehensive control measures rather than detailed quantification of emissions. As a result, the Proposed Project’s construction related dust impacts would be reduced further with the implementation of dust effective dust control measures and would remain less than significant. IS/MND Mitigation Measures: • Mitigation Measure AIR-1: Dust Control Project Change Discussion: The proposed changes to the Proposed Project would have the same impacts to air quality as the Original Proposed Project. The construction activities associated with the revised pipeline conveyance alignment would be substantially the same as they were originally described in the IS/MND as they would also be constructed within existing roadways, highly disturbed areas, and/or public right-of-ways. In addition the incremental decrease in streamflow resulting from the approval of WW0082 does not have the potential to impair instream beneficial uses and/or air quality. The Revised Proposed Project therefore would not have any incrementally significant air quality effects as defined in CEQA Guideline section 15162(a). Biological Resources IS/MND Pages 3-11 through 3-17 LTS/M No No No Yes IS/MND Discussion: As identified in the IS/MND, the Proposed Project could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS. Specifically, the construction activities of the Proposed Project have the potential to affect these species in various ways ranging from removal and/or disturbance. However, with the implementation of the following mitigation measures any impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project CEQA Addendum May 2015  3-5 Table 4 Environmental Review of Proposed Project Changes Environmental Issue Area Where Impact(s) were Analyzed in Prior Environmental Documents. What were the Environmental Impact conclusions for the Original Proposed Project? Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Are Prior Mitigation Measures Sufficient for Addressing Any New Potential Changes or Impacts? IS/MND Mitigation Measures: • Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Conduct Breeding/nesting Surveys • Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Conduct Pre-Construction Surveys for Western Pond Turtle • Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Avoid Cutting Through Creeks/Drainages • Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Implement Construction Best Management Practices • Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Develop and Implement a Frac-Out Contingency Plan • Mitigation Measure BIO-6: Obtain all Required Authorizations Project Change Discussion: The proposed changes to the Proposed Project would have the same impacts to biological resources as the Original Proposed Project. The construction activities associated with the revised pipeline conveyance alignment would be substantially the same as they were originally described in the IS/MND as they would also be constructed within existing roadways, highly disturbed areas, and/or public right-of-ways. In addition the incremental decrease in streamflow resulting from the approval of WW0082 does not have the potential to impair instream beneficial uses and/or biological resources. The Revised Proposed Project therefore would not have any incrementally significant effects on biological resources as defined in CEQA Guideline section 15162(a). Cultural Resources IS/MND Pages 3-18 through 3-21 LTS/M No No No Yes IS/MND Discussion: The IS/MND concluded that the construction of the Proposed Project would not have any direct impacts on identified historical and archeological resources. However, construction of the Proposed Project could have significant impacts on unidentified and undiscovered buried cultural resources. However, with the implementation of the following mitigation measures, any impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. IS/MND Mitigation Measures: • Mitigation Measure CR-1: Halt work if cultural resources are discovered • Mitigation Measure CR-2: Stop work if paleontological remains are discovered • Mitigation Measure CR-3: Halt work if human remains are found Project Change Discussion: The proposed changes to the Proposed Project would have the same impacts to cultural resources as the Original Proposed Project. The construction activities associated with the revised pipeline conveyance facilities would be substantially the same as they were originally described in the IS/MND as they would also be constructed within existing roadways, highly disturbed areas, and/or public right-of-ways. In addition the incremental decrease in streamflow resulting from the approval of WW0082 does not have the potential to impair instream beneficial uses and/or cultural resources. The Revised Proposed Project therefore would not have any incrementally significant effects on cultural resources as defined in CEQA Guideline section 15162(a). Geology and Soils IS/MND Pages 3-22 and 3-23 LTS/M No No No Yes City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project CEQA Addendum May 2015  3-6 Table 4 Environmental Review of Proposed Project Changes Environmental Issue Area Where Impact(s) were Analyzed in Prior Environmental Documents. What were the Environmental Impact conclusions for the Original Proposed Project? Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Are Prior Mitigation Measures Sufficient for Addressing Any New Potential Changes or Impacts? IS/MND Discussion: As described in the IS/MND, the Proposed Project may be located in areas that consist of medium dense to dense fine granular soils. In addition, perched groundwater could be present. As such, the soil in some areas of the alignment may have a high susceptibility to liquefaction during seismic shaking. Other portions of the Project may be less susceptible to liquefaction and related damage. Lateral spreading, often associated with liquefaction, is less likely because there are no steep banks or hard ground bordering the Project area, but could still potentially be a hazard. However, with the implementation of the following mitigation measure, any impacts are reduced to less than significant levels. As a result, the following mitigation is proposed: IS/MND Mitigation Measure: • Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Perform Geotechnical Investigation Project Change Discussion: The proposed changes to the Proposed Project would have the same impacts to geology and soils as the Original Proposed Project. The construction activities associated with the revised pipeline conveyance alignment would be substantially the same as they were originally described in the IS/MND as they would also be constructed within existing roadways, highly disturbed areas, and/or public right-of-ways. In addition the incremental decrease in streamflow resulting from the approval of WW0082 does not have the potential to impair instream beneficial uses and/or geology and soil resources. The Revised Proposed Project therefore would not have any incrementally significant effects on geology and soils as defined in CEQA Guideline section 15162(a). Greenhouse Gas Emissions IS/MND Pages 3-24 through 3-25 LTS No No No Yes IS/MND Discussion: With the implementation of mitigation, the Proposed Project would not result in any residual significant and unavoidable impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, project implementation would not result in any residual significant impacts related to greenhouse emissions. IS/MND Mitigation Measures: • None Identified or Necessary Project Change Discussion: The proposed changes to the Proposed Project would have the same chances to cause a generate greenhouse gas emissions as the Original Proposed Project. The construction activities associated with the revised pipeline conveyance facilities would be substantially the same as they were originally described in the IS/MND as they would also be constructed within existing roadways, highly disturbed areas, and/or public right-of-ways. In addition the incremental decrease in streamflow resulting from the approval of WW0082 does not have the potential to impair instream beneficial uses and/or greenhouse gas emissions. The Revised Proposed Project therefore would not have any incrementally significant effects on greenhouse gas emissions as defined in CEQA Guideline section 15162(a). City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project CEQA Addendum May 2015  3-7 Table 4 Environmental Review of Proposed Project Changes Environmental Issue Area Where Impact(s) were Analyzed in Prior Environmental Documents. What were the Environmental Impact conclusions for the Original Proposed Project? Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Are Prior Mitigation Measures Sufficient for Addressing Any New Potential Changes or Impacts? Hazards and Hazardous Materials IS/MND Pages 3-26 through 3-29 LTS/M No No No Yes IS/MND Discussion: With the implementation of mitigation, the Proposed Project would not result in any residual significant and unavoidable impacts related to risks of upset or accidental release of hazards and hazardous materials. Therefore, project implementation would not result in any residual significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. IS/MND Mitigation Measures: • Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Store, Handle, Use Hazardous Materials in Accordance with Applicable Laws • Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: Properly Dispose of Contaminated Soil and/or Groundwater • Mitigation Measure HAZ-3: Properly Dispose of Hydrostatic Test Water • Mitigation Measure HAZ-4: Consult with FAA, Ukiah Municipal Airport, USFWS, and CDFW Project Change Discussion: The proposed changes to the Proposed Project would have the same chances to cause a significant hazard to the public and/or the environment as the Original Proposed Project. The construction activities associated with the revised pipeline conveyance facilities would be substantially the same as they were originally described in the IS/MND as they would also be constructed within existing roadways, highly disturbed areas, and/or public right-of- ways. In addition the incremental decrease in streamflow resulting from the approval of WW0082 does not have the potential to impair instream beneficial uses and and/or cause a significant hazard to the public or environment. The Revised Proposed Project therefore would not have any incrementally significant effects on the potential to cause a significant hazard to the public and/or the environment as defined in CEQA Guideline section 15162(a). Hydrology and Water Quality IS/MND Pages 3-30 through 3-33 LTS/M No No No Yes IS/MND Discussion: With implementation of the mitigation measures listed in the IS/MND, implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in any residual significant impacts related to increased risk of flooding from stormwater runoff, from water quality effects from long-term urban runoff, or from short-term alteration of drainages and associated surface water quality and sedimentation. Based on these circumstances, the Proposed Project would not result in any residual significant and unavoidable adverse impacts to surface water hydrology and water quality. IS/MND Mitigation Measures: • Mitigation Measure HWQ-1: Implement Construction Best Management Practices • Mitigation Measure HWQ-2: Implement Recycled Water Best Management Practices Project Change Discussion: The proposed changes to the Proposed would have the same impacts to hydrology and water quality than the City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project CEQA Addendum May 2015  3-8 Table 4 Environmental Review of Proposed Project Changes Environmental Issue Area Where Impact(s) were Analyzed in Prior Environmental Documents. What were the Environmental Impact conclusions for the Original Proposed Project? Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Are Prior Mitigation Measures Sufficient for Addressing Any New Potential Changes or Impacts? Original Proposed Project. The construction activities associated with the revised pipeline conveyance facilities would be substantially the same as they were originally described in the IS/MND as they would also be constructed within existing roadways, highly disturbed areas, and/or public right-of-ways. In addition the incremental decrease in streamflow resulting from the approval of WW0082 does not have the potential to impair instream beneficial uses and/or hydrology and water quality. The Revised Proposed Project therefore would not have any incrementally significant hydrology and water quality effects as defined in CEQA Guideline section 15162(a). Land Use and Planning IS/MND Page 3-34 NI No No No N/A IS/MND Discussion: The IS/MND concluded that the Proposed Project would not have any adverse or significant effects on land use or land use planning. Specifically, the Proposed Project would not result in a disruption, physical division, or isolation of existing residential or open space areas. The Proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project area. The Proposed Project would also not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. As a result, no mitigation is necessary. IS/MND Mitigation Measures: • None identified or necessary. Project Change Discussion: The proposed changes to the Proposed would have the same impacts to land use and land use planning as the Original Proposed Project. The construction activities associated with the revised pipeline conveyance facilities would be substantially the same as they were originally described in the IS/MND as they would also be constructed within existing roadways, highly disturbed areas, and/or public right-of-ways. The Revised Proposed Project therefore would not have any incrementally significant land use and land use planning effects as defined in CEQA Guideline section 15162(a). Mineral Resources IS/MND Page 3-35 NI No No No Yes IS/MND Discussion: The Proposed Project is not located in an area identified as containing mineral resources classified MRZ-2 by the State geologist that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. As a result, the Proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources; therefore, no impact is expected. No mitigation is required. IS/MND Mitigation Measures: • None identified or necessary. Project Change Discussion: The proposed changes to the Proposed would have the same impacts to mineral resources as the Original Proposed Project. The construction activities associated with the revised pipeline conveyance facilities would be substantially City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project CEQA Addendum May 2015  3-9 Table 4 Environmental Review of Proposed Project Changes Environmental Issue Area Where Impact(s) were Analyzed in Prior Environmental Documents. What were the Environmental Impact conclusions for the Original Proposed Project? Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Are Prior Mitigation Measures Sufficient for Addressing Any New Potential Changes or Impacts? the same as they were originally described in the IS/MND as they would also be constructed within existing roadways, highly disturbed areas, and/or public right-of-ways. In addition the incremental decrease in streamflow resulting from the approval of WW0082 does not have the potential to impair instream beneficial uses and/or mineral resources. The Revised Proposed Project therefore would not have any incrementally significant mineral resource effects as defined in CEQA Guideline section 15162(a). Noise IS/MND Pages 3-36 through 3-38 LTS/M No No No Yes IS/MND Discussion: The Proposed Project has the potential to generate noise during the construction phase through the use of equipment and construction vehicle trips. Once constructed, the Proposed Project would not create any new sources of operational noise. Therefore, operation of the pipeline would not result in permanent noise impacts. Construction of the Proposed Project would generate temporary and intermittent noise. Noise levels would fluctuate depending on the particular type, number, and duration of use of various pieces of construction equipment. Back-up beepers associated with trucks and equipment used for material loading and unloading at the staging area would generate significantly increased noise levels over the ambient noise environment in order to be discernable and protect construction worker safety as required by OSHA (29 CFR 1926.601 and 29 CFR 1926.602). Businesses and residences in the vicinity of the project area could thus be exposed to these elevated noise levels. Construction activities associated with the project would be temporary in nature and related noise impacts would be short-term. However, since construction activities could substantially increase ambient noise levels at noise- sensitive locations, construction noise could result in potentially significant, albeit temporary, impacts to sensitive receptors. Compliance with the City noise ordinance and implementation of the following mitigation measures is expected to reduce impacts related to construction noise, to a less-than-significant level. IS/MND Mitigation Measures: • Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Limit Construction Hours • Mitigation Measure NOI-2: Locate Staging Areas away from Sensitive Receptors • Mitigation Measure NOI-3: Maintain Mufflers on Equipment • Mitigation Measure NOI-4: Idling Prohibition and Enforcement • Mitigation Measure NOI-5: Equipment Location and Shielding Project Change Discussion: The proposed changes to the Proposed would have the same impacts on noise and sensitive receptors as the Original Proposed Project. The construction activities associated with the revised pipeline conveyance facilities would be substantially the same as they were originally described in the IS/MND as they would also be constructed within existing roadways, highly disturbed areas, and/or public right-of-ways. In addition the incremental decrease in streamflow resulting from the approval of WW0082 does not have the potential to impair instream beneficial uses and/or have a significant effects on sensitive receptors due to noise. The Revised Proposed Project therefore would not have any incrementally significant effects on noise and sensitive receptors as defined in CEQA Guideline section 15162(a). Population and IS/MND City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project CEQA Addendum May 2015  3-10 Table 4 Environmental Review of Proposed Project Changes Environmental Issue Area Where Impact(s) were Analyzed in Prior Environmental Documents. What were the Environmental Impact conclusions for the Original Proposed Project? Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Are Prior Mitigation Measures Sufficient for Addressing Any New Potential Changes or Impacts? Housing Page 3-39 through 3-40 NI No No No N/A IS/MND Discussion: The Proposed Project would not induce population growth either directly or indirectly. The Proposed Project/Action would be to serve the City with up to 2,500 afy of tertiary treated recycled water for irrigation purposes. This would help supplement the City’s current groundwater supplies, but would not be a sufficient supply to induce urban growth in the area. Construction of the Proposed Project/Action would avoid the need to demolish any existing houses and would not affect any other housing structures. In addition, construction, operation, and maintenance would not result in any substantial increase in numbers of permanent workers/employees. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required. IS/MND Mitigation Measures: • None identified or necessary. Project Change Discussion: The proposed changes to the Proposed would have the same impact on population and/or housing as the Original Proposed Project. The construction activities associated with the revised pipeline conveyance facilities would be substantially the same as they were originally described in the IS/MND as they would also be constructed within existing roadways, highly disturbed areas, and/or public right-of-ways. In addition the incremental decrease in streamflow resulting from the approval of WW0082 does not have the potential to impair instream beneficial uses and/or population or housing. The Revised Proposed Project therefore would not have any incrementally significant effects on population and/or housing as defined in CEQA Guideline section 15162(a). Public Services IS/MND Page 3-41 NI No No No N/A IS/MND Discussion: The Proposed Project would not generate population growth and the operation and maintenance of the Proposed Project would not be labor intensive. In addition, the Proposed Project would not increase the demand for the kinds of public services that would support new residents, such as schools, parks, fire, police, or other public facilities. As a result, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required. IS/MND Mitigation Measures: • None identified or necessary Project Change Discussion: The proposed changes to the Proposed would have the same or less impact on public services as the Original Proposed Project. The construction activities associated with the revised pipeline conveyance facilities would be substantially the same as they were originally described in the IS/MND as they would also be constructed within existing roadways, highly disturbed areas, and/or public right-of-ways. In addition the incremental decrease in streamflow resulting from the approval of WW0082 does not have the potential to impair instream beneficial uses and/or public services. The Revised Proposed Project therefore would not have any incrementally significant effects on public services as defined in CEQA Guideline section 15162(a). Recreation IS/MND City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project CEQA Addendum May 2015  3-11 Table 4 Environmental Review of Proposed Project Changes Environmental Issue Area Where Impact(s) were Analyzed in Prior Environmental Documents. What were the Environmental Impact conclusions for the Original Proposed Project? Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Are Prior Mitigation Measures Sufficient for Addressing Any New Potential Changes or Impacts? Page 3-42 NI No No No N/A IS/MND Discussion: The Proposed Project would not contribute to population growth. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. As a result, no impact is expected and no mitigation is required. IS/MND Mitigation Measures: • None identified or necessary. Project Change Discussion: The proposed changes to the Proposed would have the same or less impact on recreation as the Original Proposed Project. The addition construction activities associated with the revised pipeline conveyance facilities would be substantially the same as they were originally described in the IS/MND as they would also be constructed within existing roadways, highly disturbed areas, and/or public right-of-ways. In addition the incremental decrease in streamflow resulting from the approval of WW0082 does not have the potential to impair instream beneficial uses and/or recreational resources. The Revised Proposed Project therefore would not have any incrementally significant effects on recreation as defined in CEQA Guideline section 15162(a). Socioeconomics IS/MND Pages 3-43 and 3-44 LTS No No No N/A IS/MND Discussion: While, not a specific CEQA resource category, the IS/MND conducted an evaluation on the Proposed Project’s potential to have socioeconomic impacts in order to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). As such, the IS/MND concluded that the Proposed Project would not have any socioeconomic impacts. The Proposed Project does not propose any features that would result in disproportionate adverse human health or environmental effects, have any physical effects on minority or low-income populations, and/or alter socioeconomic conditions of populations that reside or work within the City and vicinity. IS/MND Mitigation Measures: • None identified or necessary. Project Change Discussion: The proposed changes to the Proposed would have the same impact on socioeconomics as the Original Proposed Project. The construction activities associated with the revised pipeline conveyance facilities would be substantially the same as they were originally described in the IS/MND as they would also be constructed within existing roadways, highly disturbed areas, and/or public right-of-ways. In addition the incremental decrease in streamflow resulting from the approval of WW0082 does not have the potential to impair instream beneficial uses and/or socioeconomics. The Revised Proposed Project therefore would not have any incrementally significant effects on socioeconomics as defined in CEQA Guideline section 15162(a). IS/MND City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project CEQA Addendum May 2015  3-12 Table 4 Environmental Review of Proposed Project Changes Environmental Issue Area Where Impact(s) were Analyzed in Prior Environmental Documents. What were the Environmental Impact conclusions for the Original Proposed Project? Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Are Prior Mitigation Measures Sufficient for Addressing Any New Potential Changes or Impacts? Traffic and Transportation Pages 3-45 through 3-46 LTS/M No No No Yes IS/MND Discussion: Through the implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND, potentially significant traffic impacts resulting from the construction of the Proposed Project would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through proper construction sequencing, maintenance of two-way traffic, where possible, during construction, and measures to avoid the creation of traffic hazards. Based on these findings, the Proposed Project would not result in any residual significant and unavoidable impacts to traffic. IS/MND Mitigation Measures: • Mitigation Measure TRA-1: Prepare and Implement Traffic Control Plan • Mitigation Measure TRA-2: Return Roads to Pre-construction Condition Project Change Discussion: The proposed changes to the Proposed would have the same impact on traffic and transportation as the Original Proposed Project. The construction activities associated with the revised pipeline conveyance facilities would be substantially the same as they were originally described in the IS/MND as they would also be constructed within existing roadways, highly disturbed areas, and/or public right-of-ways. In addition the incremental decrease in streamflow resulting from the approval of WW0082 does not have the potential to impair instream beneficial uses and/or traffic/transportation esources. The Revised Proposed Project therefore would not have any incrementally significant effects on traffic and transportation as defined in CEQA Guideline section 15162(a). Utilities and Service Systems IS/MND Pages 3-47 through 3-48 LTS No No No N/A IS/MND Discussion: Construction and operation of the Proposed Project would not involve activities that would cause a significant impact to existing utility services. IS/MND Mitigation Measures: • None identified or necessary. Project Change Discussion: The proposed changes to the Proposed would have the same or less impact on utilities and service systems as the Original Proposed Project. The construction activities associated with the revised pipeline conveyance facilities would be substantially the same as they were originally described in the IS/MND as they would also be constructed within existing roadways, highly disturbed areas, and/or public right-of-ways. In addition the incremental decrease in streamflow resulting from the approval of WW0082 does not have the potential to impair instream beneficial uses and/or utilities/service systems. The Revised Proposed Project therefore would not have any incrementally significant effects on utilities and service systems as defined in CEQA Guideline section 15162(a). Mandatory IS/MND Pages 3-49 LTS/M No No No Yes City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project CEQA Addendum May 2015  3-13 Table 4 Environmental Review of Proposed Project Changes Environmental Issue Area Where Impact(s) were Analyzed in Prior Environmental Documents. What were the Environmental Impact conclusions for the Original Proposed Project? Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Are Prior Mitigation Measures Sufficient for Addressing Any New Potential Changes or Impacts? Findings of Significance and 3-50 IS/MND Discussion: With the incorporation of the previously identified mitigation measures, the Proposed Project will not substantially degrade the quality of the environment, reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Any impacts from the Proposed Project in these areas are considered here to be less-than-significant with the implementation and incorporation of the above mentioned mitigation measures. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the environmental analysis in this Initial Study was conducted to determine if there were any project-specific effects as a result of the Proposed Project. No direct project-specific significant effects were identified that could not be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measures incorporated herein mitigate any potential contribution to cumulative (as well as direct) impacts associated with these environmental issues. Therefore, the Proposed Project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. As a result of mitigation included in this environmental document, the Proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse effects to humans, either directly or indirectly. IS/MND Mitigation Measures: • See previous mitigation measures for each resource category as identified above. Project Change Discussion: The proposed changes to the Proposed would have the same or less impacts the environment and humans as the Original Proposed Project. The construction activities associated with the revised pipeline conveyance facilities would be substantially the same as they were originally described in the IS/MND as they would also be constructed within existing roadways, highly disturbed areas, and/or public right-of-ways. In addition the incremental decrease in streamflow resulting from the approval of WW0082 does not have the potential to impair instream beneficial uses and/or cumulative effects. The Revised Proposed Project therefore would not have any incrementally significant effects on the environment and humans as defined in CEQA Guideline section 15162(a). City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project CEQA Addendum May 2015  4-1 Chapter 4 Conclusion The conclusion of this Addendum is that the proposed changes will not result in new significant impacts, substantially increase the severity of previously disclosed impacts or involve any of the other conditions related to changed circumstances or new information that can require a subsequent or supplemental EIR under Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines section 15162 beyond those impacts and conditions already identified in the City’s Public Draft and Final IS/MND (SCH #2013032072) (also referred to as IS/MND throughout this document), which was certified and approved by the City on June 5, 2013. This Addendum also concludes that the reduction of discharges to the Russian River as a result of implementing the Proposed Recycled Water Project will not result in any substantial change in impacts, and does not result in any new significant impacts. Thus, an Addendum is the appropriate level of CEQA analysis and the appropriate method of amending the June 5, 2013 Adopted IS/MND, pursuant to Sections 15162 and 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines. As discussed in this Addendum, CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines do not require a subsequent or supplemental negative declaration or environmental impact report for the proposed alignment changes. Therefore it would be appropriate for the City to approve the Proposed Changes and supplemental analysis to the Proposed Project based on this Addendum. At t a c h m e n t 1 At t a c h m e n t 2 Attachment 3 GROUND LEASE This Lease (the “Lease”) is effective as of _______, 2015 (the “Effective Date”) by and between __________, a __________ (“Landlord”) and Tesla Motors, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Tenant” or “Tesla”). 1. CONTACT INFORMATION: Landlord's Address for Notices: [Landlord Name] [Address ] [Address] Attention: [ ] Phone: [ ] Email: [ ] Tenant's Address for Notices: Tesla Motors, Inc. 3500 Deer Creek Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 Attention: Supercharger Team Phone: (650) 681-5000 Email: superchargerlease@teslamotors.com 24-hour Technical Support & Service: 877-79-TESLA (877-798-3752) 2. PREMISES: Landlord hereby leases to Tenant eight (8) parking spaces, up to five (5) feet of additional parking width to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and approximately 200-400 square feet of landscaped space for equipment (the “Premises”) on the property commonly known as _____________, located at _______________ and as depicted on Exhibit A attached hereto (the “Property”) in order to build an electric vehicle charging station to charge Tesla vehicles (the “Supercharger Station”). 3. CONSTRUCTION: Upon delivery of possession of the Premises to Tenant, Tenant shall, at its sole expense, construct improvements as described in and pursuant to the procedures set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and will install certain trade fixtures indicated in Exhibit B (the “Trade Fixtures” as further described and defined in Exhibit B). 4. INITIAL FOOTPRINT: Eight (8) parking spaces shall be outfitted with charge posts (“Superchargers”) to charge Tesla vehicles. Initially, four (4) parking spaces shall serve as dedicated charging stalls to be used only by Tesla vehicles (“Dedicated Stalls”), and four (4) parking spaces shall serve as charging stalls to be used by Tesla vehicles and will also be available for general parking of non-Tesla vehicles for a maximum of thirty (30) minutes (“Enabled Stalls”). The Dedicated Stalls and Enabled Stalls and any applicable restrictions shall be identified by signage similar to the signage depicted in Exhibit B. Tenant shall have the option to convert Enabled Stalls into Dedicated Stalls on ten (10) days written notice in order to meet demand for charging services, subject to Landlord approval, which shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. 5. POSSESSION DATE: The first date where Tenant may enter the Premises and Property to begin its work pursuant to the Lease is ____, 2015 (the “Possession Date”). Page 1 Tesla Motors, Inc. ©2015 (v.20150305) Attachment 3 6. COMMENCEMENT DATE: The Term shall commence on the date that the Supercharger Station is open to the public, which shall not be later than 150 days following the Possession Date (the “Commencement Date”), provided that no external permitting, utility or other requirements beyond Tenant’s control delay the installation, despite the best efforts of Tenant. 7. TERM: The initial term of the Lease is five (5) years commencing on the Commencement Date (the “Term”). Tenant shall have the right to twice extend the Term, each extension shall be for an additional period of five (5) years (each a “Renewal Term”) by providing written notice to Landlord no later than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the then current Term. In the event of a sale or transfer of the Property or Premises by Landlord while the Lease is in effect, Tenant’s rights shall be conveyed with the Property or Premises. 8. UTILITIES: Tenant agrees to arrange for and pay the charges for all Tenant-related utility services provided or used in or at the Premises during the term of the Lease. Tenant shall pay directly to the utility company the cost of installation of any and all such Tenant-related utility services and shall arrange to have the utility service separately metered. Landlord shall not be responsible for any damages suffered by Tenant in connection with the quality, quantity or interruption of utility service, provided that the cause of the disruption or damage was not due to Landlord’s gross negligence or willful misconduct. 9. USE: Tenant shall use and occupy the Premises during the Term for an electric vehicle charging station and incidental purposes, including generating photovoltaic electricity and operating an energy storage system. All use of the Premises by Tenant shall comply with applicable codes, laws, and ordinances. 10. PAYMENT FOR CHARGING SERVICES: Landlord shall have no right to request or accept payment from Tesla customers or any other third-parties in connection with Tesla charging services. 11. MAINTENANCE: Tenant shall be responsible for maintaining the Trade Fixtures. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Landlord’s normal responsibility to maintain the common areas of the Property shall also apply to the Premises, such as for snow removal and garbage collection. Landlord agrees to coordinate any parking lot maintenance with Tenant to ensure that charging stalls remain available for vehicle charging at all times. Tenant may, in its discretion and at its sole cost, install security cameras and other equipment to monitor the Premises from off-site. 12. LANDLORD COVENANTS: Landlord represents that they are the owner of the Property and that this Lease does not violate any agreement, lease or other commitment of Landlord. Landlord shall not take any action that would impair or interrupt the use of the Premises or the Trade Fixtures. Landlord agrees to notify Tenant within a commercially reasonable time if (i) it has knowledge of third-parties impairing or misusing the Premises or Trade Fixtures, or (ii) it obtains knowledge of a needed repair to the Premises or Trade Fixtures. If non-Tesla motorists repeatedly park in the Dedicated Stalls, thereby impairing use of the Dedicated Stalls, or if motorists repeatedly park in the Enabled Stalls for greater than the permitted duration, then the parties shall together determine and implement an appropriate and effective strategy for preventing such impairment, including, without limitation, alternative signage and painted asphalt. Landlord shall actively monitor the Premises to the best of their ability to ensure that use of the charging stalls is not impaired. Page 2 Tesla Motors, Inc. ©2015 (v.20150305) Attachment 3 13. ASSIGNMENT: Tenant shall not assign this Lease voluntarily or by operation of law, or any right hereunder, nor sublet the Premises or any part thereof, without the prior written consent of Landlord, which shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. 14. ALTERATIONS: Excepting the items of Exhibit B, Tenant shall not make or permit to be made any alterations, changes in or additions to the Premises without the prior written consent of Landlord, which shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. Upon termination of this Lease, unless terminated due to a default of Landlord, the Infrastructure (as defined in Exhibit B) shall become the property of Landlord; provided that all Trade Fixtures and all related intellectual property shall at all times remain the property of Tenant and all Trade Fixtures will be promptly removed by Tenant following termination of the Lease. 15. SIGNS: Tenant signage to be installed at the Premises is represented in Exhibit B, including an information placard and signs to identify Dedicated Stalls and Enabled Stalls. Any material revisions or additions to the signage depicted in Exhibit B shall be subject to Landlord approval, which shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. In addition, Tenant shall be permitted to maintain way-finding signage on the Property subject to Landlord approval, which shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. All signs shall be professionally prepared, installed and maintained at Tenant’s expense. 16. INDEMNIFICATION: Except to the extent of any gross negligence or willful misconduct of Landlord, Tenant hereby agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend the Property, Landlord, its managers, members, agents and representatives from all liability, damages, loss, costs and obligations, including, court costs and attorney’s fees, on account of or arising out of or alleged to have arisen out of directly or indirectly, any claim of any third party related to Tenant’s use of the Premises. Tenant shall promptly remove or bond any liens placed on the Property as a result of any claims for labor or materials furnished to or for Tenant at or for use on the Premises. Except to the extent of any gross negligence or willful misconduct of Tenant, Landlord hereby agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend the Tenant, its directors, officers, employees, consultants, agents and representatives from all liability, damages, loss, costs and obligations, including, court costs and attorney’s fees, on account of or arising out of or alleged to have arisen out of directly or indirectly, any claim of any third party related to Landlord’s actions with respect to the Premises. 17. DESTRUCTION: Any partial or total destruction of the Premises shall, at Landlord’s or Tenant’s election, terminate the Lease. 18. DEFAULT: Each of the following shall constitute an “Event of Default” by Tenant under this Lease: (1) the failure by Tenant to perform or observe any material term or condition of the Lease and such failure continues for a period of thirty (30) days after receipt of written notice thereof, provided however, that if the nature of such default is such that the same cannot reasonably be cured within said thirty (30) day period, then Tenant shall have such additional time as is reasonably required to cure such failure provided Tenant commences to cure such Page 3 Tesla Motors, Inc. ©2015 (v.20150305) Attachment 3 failure within such 30-day period and proceeds to cure such failure with diligence and continuity; or (2) the appointment of a receiver or trustee to take possession of all or substantially all of the assets of Tenant located at the Premises if possession is not restored to Tenant within sixty (60) days; or a general assignment by Tenant for the benefit of creditors; or any action or proceeding commenced by or against Tenant under any insolvency or bankruptcy act, or under any other statute or regulation having as its purpose the protection of creditors and in the case of involuntary actions filed against the Tenant the same are not discharged within sixty (60) days after the date of commencement. Notwithstanding the above, in the case of (1) above, Landlord shall provide Tenant with an additional thirty (30) day cure period (the “Cure Period”) during which Landlord may restrict access to the Premises, provided that no Event of Default shall be deemed to occur during the Cure Period. 19. REMEDIES: Landlord and Tenant acknowledge and agree that each party shall have all remedies available at law or in equity if the other party is in default under the terms of this Lease. If an Event of Default has occurred and is continuing, then Landlord, in addition to any other remedies given at law or in equity, may: (1) continue this Lease in effect by not terminating Tenant’s right to possession of said Premises and thereby be entitled to enforce all Landlord's rights and remedies under this Lease; or (2) bring an action to recover and regain possession of said Premises in the manner provided by the laws of eviction of the State where the Premises are located then in effect. 20. INSURANCE: Tenant shall carry commercial general liability insurance with limits of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) for bodily injury or death and property damage and an umbrella insurance policy of not less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000). A certificate evidencing such insurance shall be delivered to Landlord upon the execution of this Lease and from time to time thereafter as may be requested by Landlord. Upon request, Tenant shall include Landlord as additional insured on its commercial general liability and umbrella insurance policies. Tenant will also carry worker’s compensation insurance in accordance with state and federal law. 21. CONFIDENTIALITY AND PUBLICITY: Tenant and Landlord agree that the terms of this Lease are confidential information, and both parties agree not to disclose such confidential information to any person or entity other than (i) financial, legal and space planning consultants that have a “need to know” such confidential information and (ii) as required by law. Neither party will use the other party’s name, trademark or logo without such other party’s prior written consent. 22. NOTICES: All notices or demands shall be in writing and shall be deemed duly served or given only if delivered by prepaid (i) U.S. Mail, certified or registered, return receipt requested, or (ii) reputable, overnight courier service (such as UPS or FedEx) to the addresses of the respective parties as specified in Section 1 above. Landlord and Tenant may change their respective Page 4 Tesla Motors, Inc. ©2015 (v.20150305) Attachment 3 addresses for notices by giving notice of such new address in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph. 23. BROKERS: Landlord and Tenant represent to each other that each has dealt with no broker and each hereby agrees to indemnify and hold the other harmless from any claims for any such commissions or fees. 24. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS: This Lease shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of Landlord and Tenant and their respective successors and assigns. 25. GOVERNING LAW: This Lease shall be governed by the laws of the State where the Premises are located. 26. TIME: Time is of the essence in this Lease. 27. COUNTERPARTS: This Lease may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which together will constitute one agreement. Signed copies transmitted electronically in PDF or similar format shall be treated as originals. [Signature page follows.] Page 5 Tesla Motors, Inc. ©2015 (v.20150305) Attachment 3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto hereby execute this Lease as of the Effective Date first written above. LANDLORD: TENANT: ____________________ Tesla Motors, Inc. a ___________________ a Delaware corporation By: __________________________ By: _______________________________ Name: _______________________ Name: _______________________________ Title: _________________________ Title: _______________________________ Page 6 Tesla Motors, Inc. ©2015 (v.20150305) Attachment 3 EXHIBIT A Premises and Property Depiction and Address Property Address: Premises and Property Depiction: Attachment 3 EXHIBIT B Tenant Improvements Tenant shall install the Supercharger Station on the Premises pursuant to the terms of this Exhibit B. Tenant installation shall include the installation of the infrastructure for the Supercharger Station, which may include power supply, utility connections, concrete pads, conduit and wiring (the “Infrastructure”). The Supercharger Station will also include certain trade fixtures as determined by Tenant, which may include, without limitation, the charger cabinets (“Supercharger Cabinets”), Superchargers, switchgear, signage, fence or other visual barriers, canopy, solar panels, and an energy storage system (the “Trade Fixtures”). The Trade Fixtures to be installed as of the Commencement Date will include the following: • Four (4) Superchargers Cabinets • Eight (8) Superchargers • Switchgear and meter panel • Signage The installation of the Infrastructure and the Trade Fixtures is collectively referred to as the “Tenant Improvements.” Tenant will not perform the Tenant Improvements until the plans and specifications, including exact locations, have been approved by Landlord, which approval may be by e-mail communication and shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. All Tenant Improvements shall at all times comply with applicable laws, codes and ordinances and Infrastructure and Trade Fixtures shall be installed, maintained and replaced at Tenant’s sole cost. Signage Dedicated Stall Sign Example Enabled Stall Sign Example Attachment 3 Information Placard Example Approximate dimensions: 18” x 24” 1 ORDINANCE NO. 1020 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH AMENDING SECTION 1001 IN DIVISION 1, CHAPTER 4, ARTICLE 1 OF THE UKIAH CITY CODE, ENTITLED “PARKS, RECREATION, AND GOLF COMMISSION” The City Council of the City of Ukiah hereby ordains as follows. SECTION 1 Section 1001 in Division 1, Chapter 4, Article 1 of the Ukiah City Code is hereby amended to read as follows. §1001 MEMBERSHIP; APPOINTMENT The Commission shall consist of five (5) At Large members who may reside within the city limits or outside the city limits but within Mendocino County, provided that a majority of the five (5) Commission members reside within the city limits. All members of the commission shall be appointed by the City Council. SECTION 2 This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days after its adoption and shall be published as required by law. Introduced by title only on ___________, 2015 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Adopted on _________, 2015, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: _____________________ Douglas F. Crane, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________ Kristine Lawler, City Clerk Attachment 2