Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin 01-16-02MINUTES OF THE UKIAH CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting Wednesday, January 16, 2002 The Ukiah City Council met at a Regular Meeting on January 16, 2002, the notice for which had been legally noticed and posted, at 6:04 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. Roll was taken and the following Councilmembers were present: Larson, Smith, Libby, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. Staff present: Community Services Director DeKnoblough, Interim Fire Chief Grebil, Risk Manager/Budget Officer Harris, City Manager Horsley, City Attorney Rapport, Planning Director Stump, and City Clerk Ulvila. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Councilmember Baldwin led the Pledge of Allegiance. SPECIAL PRESENTATION (REMIF) City Manager Horsley introduced Jeff Davis, General Manager for the Redwood Empire Insurance Fund (REMIF), who would present information regarding REMIF's annual report to the City Council. Jeff Davis, General Manager for REMIF, advised that the City's decision to pool its resources, to belong to a joint powers authority that handles its claims, loss coverage, risk management, safety oversight and training, and risk transference remains very timely and wise. Currently there are seven member cities and nine associate member cities belonging to REMIF. He explained that Workers' Compensation has been very successful since it was expanded to all lines of coverage in 1978 including risk management and claims handling. He advised that the City of Ukiah has been practicing good risk management procedures. He continued to discuss the City of Ukiah's insurance coverage that includes a comprehensive general and auto liability, Workers' Compensation, property, fidelity, boiler/machinery, auto physical damage, USAIG non-owned aircraft, and earthquake and flood coverage. In closing, he discussed the various services provided by REMIF. Upon an inquiry by Councilmember Libby regarding skate parks, Mr. Davis advised that currently there are four permanent and one temporary skate park within the REMIF group of cities. So far no losses have been experienced by the current JPA, however, other JPA's have not been so lucky. He explained that good practices are in place that reduce the potential for loss. Special Note Regarding Ukiah Police Officer Shooting Mayor Ashiku stated, "On behalf of the City Council, I would like to express our sympathy to the officer and his family for the senseless act of violence that occurred on Saturday. This incident only underscores the real danger our officers face on a daily basis while protecting our freedoms. The Council truly appreciates their efforts and wants to express its gratitude and concern, and we are absolutely committed to apprehending this individual and seeing that there is full prosecution." 3. PRESENTATIONS Regular Meeting - Ukiah City Council January 16, 2002 Page 1 of 27 3a. Presentation by Paula Whealen Reqardin_cj Water Hydrology Studies and Water Issues City Manager Horsley introduced that Paula Whealen, Principal Water Rights Specialist and Nicholas Bonsignore, Principal Design Engineer with Wagner & Bonsignore in Sacramento. Paula Whealen, Principal Water Rights Specialist, explained that she has been working with the City on certain water right issues related to its appropriate water right permit. She explained that the firm of Wagner & Bonsignore has been working in the Russian River Watershed for a number of years. With regard to the City of Ukiah's water rights, it has two types of rights: 1 ) under a permit that is held by the City that was issued by the State Water Resources Control Board and 2) water that was being used prior to 1949. She explained that the water use prior to 1949 was water that was put to use prior to the building of Lake Mendocino and prior to the dam. The State Water Resources Control Board in its decisions involving the building of Lake Mendocino indicated that they recognized that there had been water use taking place prior to 1949 that was being used by not only the City of Ukiah, but also many agricultural and domestic uses along the river. She noted that there is some recent debate on what the natural flow of the Russian River is because it receives imports from the Eel River as well, and that may not be considered natural flows in the future. The priority that the City of Ukiah has for the pre-1949 rights is equal to about 2.8 cubic feet per second which equals a little over 2,000 acre feet annually. She went on to further explain that the City's Permit is for water right that was filed in 1954. The purpose of the permit was to divert water, year-round, from the Russian River at a rate of about 20 cubic feet per second, which is about 14,500 acre feet annually. The State Water Resources Control Board permit was for the direct diversion of water from the Russian River, six wells that are located along the Russian River, including the new Ranney Collector, and it provides water for all municipal water in the City of Ukiah. That right is in the process of being perfected. This means that the State Water Resource Control Board provides a time limit to perfect a water right and it is about one-third of the water has been put to use under that permit. Another part of the City of Ukiah's water rights involves the Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control, Water Conservation Improvement District (District)). She explained that at the time Lake Mendocino was constructed, water stored in Lake Mendocino is for the benefit of both Sonoma and Mendocino Counties and 8,000 acre feet of the water behind Lake Mendocino was reserved for uses in Mendocino County. Part of that water is for the uses of the City of Ukiah as well all other diverters along the Russian River to the extent that they are diverting the water in the summer when the water is being released. It is a water right permit issued by the state and the District is charged with the allocation and the maintenance of that water right by reporting the use under that water right to the state every year. They are diverting water that is the natural flow in the Russian River and are probably diverting some of the Eel River import. During the summer they divert water that is being released from storage in Lake Mendocino. That is where some of the confusion lies. The District right now is reporting water use based on the review of information that has been submitted to them over the years and they also review power records, and have Regular Meeting - Ukiah City Council January 16, 2002 Page 2 of 27 knowledge of actual diversions that are taking place. Mendocino County's portion of that water right was allocated a little differently that Sonoma County's and she went on to explain how that was established. When the water was allocated to Mendocino County the 8,000 acre feet was listed, as a "consumptive use allocation", meaning that it only accounts for water that has been consumptively used, not gross diversions. She explained that there is a difference because there are returned flows that would come off of that accounting and she felt it important because it means, in general, more water for Mendocino County, and more importantly more water for the City of Ukiah. She explained that there is a definite distinction between the two water allocations out of Lake Mendocino, and the District is aware of that and will be accounting for it accordingly in the allocation of their water right. She pointed out the three types of water that make up the City's water supply and there are certain things that need to be done to maintain and protect each of those different sources of water. One of which is to put the water to beneficial use under the City's permit, reporting that use to the state, and going through the inspections. The City is in compliance with the state requirements for its permit. The water use that the City has been making (the pre-1949 use) is about 2.8 cubic square feet and the City is making us of it every year. Thirdly is the water that will be allocated to the City in the formal allocation that the City has been using pursuant to the District's permit from the water released from storage in Lake Mendocino. Nicholas Bonsignore, Principal Design Engineer, explained that District holds their water right permit for the stored water in Lake Mendocino and are required to report the water used under that permit to the State Board annually. Some of the diverters have likely been reporting metered diversions to the District but a lot of agricultural diverters don't have meters and the District has had to estimate those diversions from year to year in order to report to the State Board. The District would need to have more documentation in order to obtain a water right license on their permit. In the summer of 2001 the District listed applications for individual allocations of their 8,000-acre foot entitlement. Applicants were required to state the basis of any water rights that they might hold and make a request for allocation of District water. The City filed an application because it may need an allocation if the natural flow in the Russian River was ever insufficient to meet the needs of the City on the basis of just direct diversion rights. Such a condition could occur during a critical drought period. In that instance, the City would need to divert some of the project water released into the River by the District from Lake Mendocino. The District analyzed each application and last fall informed all applicants and requested that they enter into an interim contract for that water. The interim contract requires all diverters to meter their diversions and the information obtained from metering would be used to support modifications to the allocations under a long term contract which the District hopes to enter into after the interim contracts have expired. He pointed out that a water right permit or an allocation is an entitlement to water if, and only if, the water is there. It's not a guarantee of water and, similarly, you can't divert water if it's not available when you might need it, no matter what your water right entitlements say. He explained that typically the hydrology study of a major river system may involve measurement and statistical analysis of rainfall and river flows over a long period of time. It Regular Meeting - Ukiah City Council January 16, 2002 Page 3 of 27 would also consider natural losses of flows and consideration of the amounts and timing of manmade diversions from the source. If a major storage reservoir, such as Lake Mendocino, is part of the system, then the operation of the reservoir is a necessary component of hydrologic evaluation. A hydrologic study could be used to determine the yield of a reservoir project. He continued to discuss how the District had to develop criteria for the applicants in order to allocate the 8,000 acre feet of water. The District has been less clear as to the hydrological analysis it relied upon to support those allocation calculations. Apart from concerns over the allocation of the District's entitlement, there are other concerns with regard to the availability of water from the Russian River. The District has informed them that many diverters who believe they are diverting Russian River water under some claim of right, under certain circumstances may actually have been diverting Eel River water. If that supply is reduced these diverters may find themselves without a valid claim or right. In addition, there has been more and more attention focused on threatened and endangered fish species in all of the North Coast watersheds. He recommended the City develop some familiarity with inner relationships with all these elements on the River with an eye as to how the City's supply, both present and future, could be affected. An initial step might be to make a consurtive effort to gather and evaluate all pertinent public information from the District, the Sonoma County Water Agency, State Board, and possibly any federal agencies that have done some work Discussion followed with regard to the annual amount of diversion from the Eel River, and how to determine if water is to be considered ground water or consumptive water. The methodology for determining the effect of the Russian River flow from the dam and how it affects the amount of water in the underflow was discussed. It was noted by Mr. Bonsignore that historical data would need to be reviewed regarding well fluctuations as the river fluctuates, and also some technical data in order to be able to infer what's happening between wells and how water travels through different types of alluvium. 3. PRESENTATION 3b. Presentation by Mendo-Lake Parents Journal Regarding the Family Expo and Home Show City Manager Horsley advised that item 3b would be continued to the next City Council meeting. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4a. Regular Meeting of December 5, 2001 Councilmember Smith noted that a correction needs to be made to page 5, regarding clarification as to the maker and second of the motion. The draft minutes state "M/S Smith/Smith..." and he directed the City Clerk to listen to the tape recording for clarification. Councilmember Libby recommended a correction to page 16, second to last paragraph, second sentence should read, "She felt it should be noted that she had a formal complaint by the owner pertaining to a Planning Commissioner." Regular Meeting - Ukiah City Council January 16, 2002 Page 4 of 27 M/S Smith/Libby approving the minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 5, 2001, as amended, carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Larson, Smith, Libby, Baldwin and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN' None. 5. RIGHT TO APPEAL DECISION Mayor Ashiku read the appeal process. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4b. Regular Meeting of December 19, 2001 Councilmember Libby recommended a correction to page 1, first sentence under item 4a. Regular Meeting Minutes of November 7, 2001 to read, "Councilmember Libby recommended a correction to the first paragraph, on page 5 ..." She also recommended a correction to page 10, first sentence should read, "This week the California Endowment indicated they could receive a grant in the amount of $500,000 this year." M/S Baldwin/Ashiku approving the minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 19, 2001, as amended, carried by the following roll call vote: AYES' Councilmembers Libby, Baldwin and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN' Councilmembers Larson and Smith. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR M/S Smith/Larson approving items a through g of the Consent Calendar as follows: a. Approved Disbursements for Month of December 2001; b. Received Notification to the City Council Regarding Emergency Repairs to Fire Ladder Truck in the Amount of $6,647.54; c. Adopted Resolution 2002- 26 Approving City of Ukiah Qualified Contractors List for 2002; d. Adopted Resolution 2002- 27 Pertaining to Participation in the Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Program; e. Authorized to Transfer Title of Surplus Fire Ambulance to the Ukiah Rotary Club for Humanitarian Use; f. Awarded Bid to Ashford Heating and Cooling for the Purchase of Four Replacement High Efficiency Heating and Air Conditioning Units For the Civic Center in the Amount of $19,404.55; g. Awarded Bid for Sodium Hydroxide to LA Chemical in the Sum of $352 Per Dry Ton. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Larson, Smith, Libby, Baldwin and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN' None. 7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Mary Lindley, Ukiah, advised that she had placed a questionnaire and signature sheet in the Civic Center foyer for public comment on the future of the Palace Hotel asking whether it should be demolished or rehabilitated. She provided the City Clerk with the response notes from individuals as well as the signature sheet. 8. PUBLIC HEARING Regular Meeting - Ukiah City Council January 16, 2002 Page 5 of 27 8a. Consideration and Action Regarding the Hull/Piffero Subdivision and Use Permit (Appeal) Project Planning Director Stump advised that a couple months ago the City Council considered and acted upon an environmental document for the project and adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The project involves the subdivision of an approximate 40-acre parcel in the extreme western hillsides of the City Limits. The applicants propose to subdivide the site into five parcels ranging from five to 15 acres in size. As part of the subdivision application, they are requesting a number of exceptions to the Subdivision Ordinance related to road standards. Additionally, the applicants are seeking a Use Permit to construct a single- family residence on one of the parcels and to rectify a number of unauthorized grading and construction activities that occurred some time ago. He noted that, as discussed during the Negative Declaration hearing, the purpose of the Use Permit is to authorize those acts after the fact. The purpose of the hearing is also to discuss the merits of this project, the General Plan consistency, and the consistency with the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. He discussed the Planning Commission's consideration of the project on December 12, 2001 in which they deadlocked in a 2-2 vote. He advised that staff has arrived at a number of conclusions on this project. Staff believes there are a number of community issues that tentacle from this project that are deserving of discussion. These include the community housing goals and the protection of agricultural land. Staff has found the project to be consistent with the Zoning Regulations for the Hillside Zoning District in terms of lot size, the proposed single family home set back requirements, height standards, and all of the normal development standards. Staff also found the project to be consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance except for those areas in which the applicant is seeking exceptions. Staff concluded that the General Plan does not prohibit subdividing and developing land in the hillside area. It recognizes that it would likely occur and it lists the number of potential units that could be developed. However, it is very important to note that the plan clearly and strongly seek to ensure that future development does not create unacceptable visual and other impacts to the hillside area. Council needs to determine whether this particular hillside development project is consistent with the General Plan goals to ensure that the hillside development is designed and completed in a way that does not damage the views of natural resources. He reminded Council that many of those issues were discussed during the environmental document discussions in October 2001 for this project. He advised that an argument could be made that scattered rural residential development on large parcels in the hillside could help, although in a small way, to take the pressue of residential subdivision development off the agricultural lands to the east as well as away from the last remaining vacant parcels in the City that are perhaps more suited for higher density development. He reminded Council that they must make findings to support whatever decisions are made about the project. To grant the requested road exceptions, approve the subdivision, and the Use Permit; there are specific findings that Council must make pursuant to the Ukiah Municipal Code. He discussed other options available to Regular Meeting - Ukiah City Council January 16, 2002 Page 6 of 27 Council with regard to the project. Some letters were received by the City recently from Susan Brant-Holly, Nancy Roca, Concerned Standley Street Residents, and Tom Brigham and were distributed to Council. Public Hearing Opened: 7:10 p.m. Those speaking in support of the project throughout the Public Hearing process were Mary Lindley, Robert Weara, Ed Berry, Eric Sligh (not opposed to subdivision but opposed the actions taken by the applicant that were unauthorized) Judy Pruden, Dave Hull, Robert Clark, Phil Smith, Ken Secora, Tom Brigham, and Kim Dewey. Those speaking in opposition of the project throughout the Public Hearing process were Ms Bruni Kobbe, Daniel De La Peza, Lorie Leaf, Chamise Cubbison, Terry Poplowski, Susan Johnson Fritz, Jan Moore, David Nelson, and Suni Smith. David Nelson, Ukiah attorney representing some individuals that are opposed to the project, addressed the issue of the findings that Council needs to make in order to grant the exceptions to the ordinance that are noted in the Staff Report. Additionally, the City Attorney has prepared an opinion on that matter and Mr. Brigham, attorney for the applicant, has responded to that issue. He referred to Government Code Section 8320b that requires Council to make findings in three areas in order to allow an exception to the Subdivision Ordinance. Section 8320b states, "The exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner." Council would need to make a finding that in order to grant these major exceptions to the Subdivision Ordinance, that there's some substantial property right that would be taken away. This substantial property right is not the right to subdivide. He was of the opinion that City Attorney Rapport misinterpreted what they meant by that. He was of the opinion that the substantial property right that Council needs to find is something other than the right to subdivide. He referred to City Attorney Rapport's interpretation of the Subdivision Ordinance. If a technical interpretation of the Subdivision Ordinance requirements would deprive the owner of all economic viable uses of the property, then that would be a reason to find that a substantial property right has been taken away and an exception to the Subdivision Ordinance could be granted. He did not think it could be found in this case. He advised that there is nothing preventing Mr. Hull and Mr. Piffero from building one house on the 40-acre parcel as Mr. Nix did next door. If they needed exceptions to build the house, they could come before Council and request exceptions to that. But they don't have to propose a subdivision and ask for exceptions. Mr. Brigham wrote a letter to try to attempt to show how their costs were so huge that they need this exception in order to make it economically viable but the costs that he is referring to are the cost of the subdivision, not the cost of building one house. What they really wanted to do was build two residences and that's where the trouble lies and triggered the subdivision issue because they had to meet subdivision standards. Mr. Brigham's letter discussed this "right of return on investment" (profit) however, there is no substantial property right to make a profit off your land. If they didn't make a good investment choice, they should not now be Regular Meeting - Ukiah City Council January 16, 2002 Page 7 of 27 coming forward asking for exceptions at the expense of the public. He noted that Mr. Brigham's letter doesn't mention the biggest issue, which is the length of the road. He referred to the Subdivision Ordinance requirements, Fire Code and CDF standards with regard to road requirements. He referenced the Western Hills Constraints Analysis (Analysis) and did not see how a finding could be made after reading that this subdivision would not be detrimental to the public welfare. The Analysis indicates that the more homes built on the hillside, the more homes and lives are at risk. In closing, he once again referred to the Planning Commission discussion of the project and noted that all four Commissioners present did not approve of the five-parcel subdivision for various reasons. He discussed the issue of County land around the subject property, some of which the applicants have been purchasing. The City has no control over how many homes are going to be built on the County land surrounding the project site. Input from that Analysis and from other issues should be part of a new Hillside Zoning Ordinance that can define what you want in roads, slopes, etc., not by granting exceptions to the existing ordinance and stumbling into development of the hillside in that way. Tom Brigham, attorney representing the applicants, responded to comments made by Mr. Nelson with regard to the exceptions. Mr. Nelson's reference to the Government Code is incorrect. It is the City Code. He drew attention to three major problems that he found with Mr. Nelson's analysis. City Attorney Rapport, in his letter, agreed with his (Mr. Bigham's) analysis in that there are several reasons why this exception applies to this situation. Secondly, the whole purpose of the exception is to allow for subdivisions where the subdivision does not otherwise strictly comply with the requirements. That's what it says in the heading to the section. Thirdly, the cost would be the same for one home as it would be for five parcels or homes. Councilmember Larson inquired with regard to the costs incurred and if any costs arose since the purchase of the property. He inquired if some manner of regulatory action changed the assumptions of the buyers from the time they bought the property until the time they proceeded to develop the property. He further inquired if the applicants were aware of what road improvements would be required for their intentions. He inquired if anything changed with regard to City policy to affect it. He also inquired if it was Mr. Brigham's clients' intention, initially when they purchased the property, to subdivide the parcel into five parcels. Mr. Brigham explained that some of the costs have occurred since the purchase of the property. He agreed that the costs would be the same for one house and for five houses. However, he explained that it was their initial belief that these road standards don't necessarily apply and they still have an on-going disagreement with staff as to whether the road requirements apply to this development. It is not true to conclude that his clients thought that they were going to have these expenses when they bought the property. He advised that it was not his clients' intention to subdivide the property when they purchased it. Dave Hull, one of the project applicants, explained that he and Mr. Piffero did not purchase Regular Meeting - Ukiah City Council January 16, 2002 Page 8 of 27 the property for an investment and didn't pay a lot for this particular piece of property. They do own other property but are not developers. He felt that the circumstances are very unique because he and Mr. Piffero began by wanting to purchase property and build a home for their families and had originally planned to split the property into two 20-acre parcels. Their project was reviewed at a Project Review Committee meeting. They were going to split the property and ended up doing to a subdivision. He was about to secure a building permit for his home when they found out that the road requirements for one additional home on that piece of land was going to constitute a 20 foot paved roadway with curb, gutter, and sidewalk, as required by the City's Municipal Code. By that time they had already proceeded with the development and had spent considerable money just to construct one home. He discussed the Hillside Ordinance and how it pertains to their project. With regard to the five parcel subdivision, he explained that after tallying various costs incurred and projected costs for road improvements, etc. and other costs necessary to do to make it work for their families, they decided they needed to sell a couple parcels to defray some of the costs. They stared out with five parcels because if they sold three parcels they had hoped they could develop enough income to offset a portion of what the costs would be to develop the road, power, water, etc. He advised that they have agreed to meet all mitigation they have not said they would include because they want the project to be right. He discussion the Planning Commission's decision and their discussion of the project. He submitted documents for the record that included a firm bid on projected road costs and also for the water tank. It would cost them close to $1 million to develop the property. He and his partner want to live in a desirable place in Ukiah with their family. Councilmember Baldwin inquired of Mr. Hull that after he realized there was going to be a costly problem related to dividing the property, if he and his partner began to buy other parcels in the surrounding area? If cost was such a concern, why weren't they saving money to develop their two homes rather than purchasing other land? Mr. Hull explained that he was offended that he needs to disclose that. It was a piece of property that was land locked and approximately 1.5 miles from their property. The property was on the market for a considerable period of time, had problems associated with it, and made the acquisition very cheap. He disclosed his investment within the last six months of another 250 acres that was one acquisition and that his monthly payment is $18o. Public Hearing Closed: 8:16 p.m. Recessed: 8:16 p.m. Reconvened: 8:29 p.m. Councilmember Smith reference Conditions of Project Approval, page 2-20, item 56, "A note shall be placed on a final subdivision map stating that a portion of the subdivision access road on subject 39.2 acre shall be restricted to serving only the five parcels created by the subdivision and shall not be used to serve additional parcels in the future." He inquired if there is another section that talks about developing future parcels? Mr. Stump explained that Mr. Hull and Mr. Piffero have not indicated plans to subdivide the Regular Meeting - Ukiah City Council January 16, 2002 Page 9 of 27 property further. Councilmember Smith referred to item 58 in which it states, "Any action to modify the language in the final subdivision map or on the deeds for the five lots shall first be reviewed and approved by Ukiah City Council." Mr. Stump confirmed that if the applicants desire to subdivide the property further, the matter would be heard by the City Council. Councilmember Baldwin explained that in several staff reports, staff used the term "scattered" regarding the development of houses. However, the hillside regulations say we need to cluster development and he inquired how staff reconciles these documents. Mr. Stump explained that it is not a mandate of the General Plan but it says "where feasible". Based on a field review of the site, topography, and characteristics of the land, staff felt that if the homes were clustered, on that particular parcel, it would produce more impacts than spreading them out (scattering). Councilmember Baldwin inquired about the Hillside District regarding in which minimum sight development standards and the average slope for these parcels. Mr. Stump advised that the current ordinance which reads, "Any grading or construction activities require discretionary review by the City Planning Commission and to the City Council upon Appeal." He continued to discuss slope requirements with Council. Mayor Ashiku referred to section 9139, paragraph 6 on page 2-23 of the Staff Report related to Hillside Zoning Ordinance regulations for subdivisions in which it states "Subdivision developments with full City streets" and then it goes on to discuss fire breaks, etc. Because of this language, it seemed to him that there would be subdivisions with less than full width City streets. Mr. Stump responded that, potentially, yes. Councilmember Baldwin inquired if the City has budgeted any money for widening of Standley Street or if survey work is being implemented in that area at the present time. Ms. Horsley explained that the only work the City is doing, survey wise, is to determine a monument between a private property owner and the City as to where the median and property line begins. Councilmember Larson addressed the issue of how this project would affect the housing availability in the Ukiah valley. The lack of availability of Iow income housing was also discussed. Mr. Stump explained that any vacant land that the City has available for residential development would be potentially susceptible. If opportunities for detached single family homes are no longer available in the Hillside District, it is his belief that any high density Regular Meeting - Ukiah City Council January 16, 2002 Page 10 of 27 zoned vacant land left in the City may be subjected to rezoning to lower residential densities to develop those sites with single family homes. Discussion continued with regard to creating housing through innovative infill development or redevelopment type activities to meet those housing needs. The issue of protecting the agriculture lands to the east of the City was briefly discussed. It was noted by staff that there is other vacant land at the base of the western hills that is suitable for upscale single- family residential development. Staff continued to discuss road requirements necessary at the time the applicants purchased the property. Discussion continued with regard to proportional costs associated with construction of one home compared to five homes with regard to utilities, water, fire hydrants, undergrounding utilities, and road improvements. Councilmember Larson explained that he has difficulty in seeing where there is financial justification for the change in the application and since the findings that Council must make seems to be tied into that aspect, in terms of any depravation of property rights, he needs more information in order to make a decision. Mayor Ashiku referred to the Analysis and discussed the process that came forth to develop the study. Many people have felt that because of the slope and complexity of building in the area, that it would be unlikely that the hillside would support the type of development that would demand such wide roads. The yet to be approved Analysis reflects that there are about 41 buildable parcels in the western hills. He noted that staff has provided documentation of evidence of compliance with the City's General Plan and it was anticipated at the time that there would be building or subdivisions in the hills. Further discussion followed regarding the matter. Mayor Ashiku discussed making the necessary findings to support exceptions to the road standards and felt the reduction to the standards lives to the best spirit of the General Plan in preserving the terrain of the hillside without mandating wide cuts to support a modest subdivision on that hillside. To be consistent with the spirit the regulations that came about through the General Plan, it is appropriate, and it's anticipated by the Hillside Ordinance, that there will be subdivisions with less than full width streets and felt that those exceptions should be granted. Councilmember Smith explained that he lives on a street where the roadway is 19 feet wide. He felt the applicants are aware of their situation with regard to the terrain and are willing to meeting the conditions and mitigations for the project. As a resident within close proximity to the project, he felt comfortable that the applicant will be exercising diligent care. Discussion continued with regard to living in a dangerous fire area and the importance of maintenance. It was noted that the installation of a better road serving the area it would better enable the City to defend the hillside areas. Regular Meeting - Ukiah City Council January 16, 2002 Page 11 of 27 Councilmember Baldwin inquired of Interim Fire Chief Grebil with regard to the Analysis and felt the Analysis was very well done. However, he did not find anything in the Analysis that would be supportive of the proposed project. He referred to page 39 of the Analysis with regard to fire danger and the possibility that the City or CDF would decline to send engines to a site on the hillside for fear for those firefighters having to pass through a fire line or being trapped by the fire. He also expressed concern with the sudden appearance of a new time factor for fire trucks to respond to a fire in the hillside area. Interim Fire Chief Grebil explained that he was instrumental in the development of the Analysis and he explained response issues. He noted that the road width on the proposed project would assist the City's Fire Department in defending the west hills. He explained that the previous response times discussed during the EIR were estimated times and now the road to the proposed project is improved and drivable. He also explained there is a requirement regarding clearance of underbrush from the roadway to allow for the Fire Department to have a buffer zone along the roadway and turnouts. He explained that both Mr. Hull and Mr. Piffero have taken every opportunity to meet with the City Fire Department and attempted to mitigate all items of concern. Councilmember Libby explained that her main concern with regard to the western hills is fire danger and noted that the City has been doing what it can to protect the hills. As noted in the Analysis a westside Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) is in place. In reading the Analysis, she was pleased with the findings of the Analysis and felt it is an accurate assessment in that new homes would reduce the chance of ignition from trespassers since fewer trespassers would be expected in the area. She was of the opinion that homeowners have a vested interest in their surroundings and she expected them to be at least, if not more aware of fire dangers. Councilmember Baldwin explained that this project requires a significant decision by Council because it is precident setting. He explained that the fact that a group is buying land around the City who is associated, either directly or in a friendship way, with the applicants shows that the precident that they are looking to establish is key to future development of the parcels they are currently purchasing. He referred to the City's economic development brochure that contains a photo of the western hills on its cover. He also noted that the way in which the City makes the City attractive to tourists or business recruitment includes the backdrop of the western hills. He noted that the project does fulfill one goal of the General Plan in that it encourages continuous public participation to monitor open space and conservation elements of the General Plan. He felt the project is an investment venture, even if only for a dream home, and there are investment risks. The rights to enjoy concessions, which are the exceptions in this case, were jeopardized, in his opinion, by the illegal grading activity that occurred prior to the applicants filing for permits. He felt the biggest problem with this project is that we didn't ask for an EIR. He found the project, as proposed, to be inconsistent with the General Plan. He noted that there was no attempt to cluster the homes. If this is a cluster, then another 50 to 100 acres should be set aside for open space. He also referred to the General Plan's position with regard to hillside development not destroying the visual quality of the western hills. He noted that if the mobile home currently on the property were visible Regular Meeting - Ukiah City Council January 16, 2002 Page 12 of 27 from Highway 101, then certainly a large home would be too. He referred to the General Plan with regard to site and design development in that it is suppose to minimize the impacts of use in the valley. Additionally, it states that clearings for roads and buildings shall be sited in the least visible and ecologically damaging locations possible and screened with vegetation where feasible. He felt that the clearing required for fire protection contradicts the need to screen the houses to protect the view shed from the valley. He noted that if you want an expensive home on the hills, you most likely want a view and if you want a view, you can't have the screening of vegetation. It is another contradiction. He felt that there is no limitation on additional dwellings to be constructed. It was his opinion that the project does not meet the Hillside Zoning regulations and it also calls for clustering and that 95% of the land has to be kept in a natural state. He questioned how this could be enforced. He discussed the special circumstances, as noted by the applicant's attorney regarding the existing road up Gibson Creek. The reason why the road is so wide is because it was illegally graded. Regarding open space, parks, and trails he noted no interest has been shown by the applicants in helping this community achieve its visions, policies and goals for the hills and the need for a trail system. There is no assurance, according to the General Plan's Open Space and Conservation Element 1.2, that development guarantees the future inclusion of open space. He agreed with some of the comments that there is not a huge difference in the visual impact between three, four, or five parcels. He felt that the applicants could, if they wanted to make amends and do something nice for the community, they could dedicated open space in Gibson Creek Canyon. He felt the Use Permit should be conditioned so there would be no second residence or additional garages, barns, etc. He felt there is a need for a moratorium on new subdivisions, land divisions, and new grading on the hillside until the City adopts a trail system and a new Hillside Development Ordinance. He can't support the project as proposed, but would with certain compromises. He asked the applicant if they would consider dedicating land they own in Gibson Creek Canyon to the City or to the Inland Mendocino Land Trust for open space in perpetuity for eventual controlled access in exchange for a unanimous vote by Council for the Use Permit and the number of parcels for subdivision. Dave Hull explained that Councilmember Baldwin's request caught him off guard and he wasn't prepared for such a request. Rather than bargain over the project, he was looking towards meeting the current standards and guidelines, and the requests for exceptions to his project. At this time he did not feel he nor Mr. Piffero were interested in giving up any of their property to the City. Councilmember Smith noted that the General Plan calls for a ridge top trail, however, the ridge does not go through this particular property. Regular Meeting - Ukiah City Council January 16, 2002 Page 13 of 27 Councilmember Larson stated that in order to approve this subdivision, Council has to make findings relative to Section 8320, subsections a, b, and c regarding subdivision. He has no problem with subsection "a" and felt there are always special circumstances that can be found. He expressed concern with subsection "c" because he believes, especially based on the Analysis, that fire danger and expected development of the hillside is something that has not been assessed fully. He stated that in the City ttorney's written opinion to Council suggested a dialog by Council to further define the terms of "substantial property right" in relation to the requirement for making the exception, per Subsection "b". When the issue of a two-parcel split arose, it was necessary to make exceptions. The exceptions that are being proposed concerning the 18 foot road width is the major exception being made. The other exceptions concern the length of the road and fire considerations. Most of the engineering, paving, and utility development costs would have applied to one single residence. He could see making an exception under the arguments that have been put forth for the two-parcel split so that both property owners could enjoy the use of that property at basically the same cost. However, to expand it to five parcels stretches the intent and purpose of the definition of making legal findings to support an exemption. He stated that he would support an exception for two parcels because there is an argument to be made that the owners began the project with the expectation that they would be required to meet certain minimal development rights as those individuals that apply for a building permit, or in this case, a Use Permit. Because there are two owners and they had the expectation of splitting the property, which triggered the subdivision. This is his support of 8320b as a two-parcel split because they had a certain expectation and there are no additional requirements being accepted that would not be present for a single parcel. He was supportive of a two-parcel split and the Use Permit, as well as a second Use Permit for the other parcel. He felt there is adequate legal standing to support it. It was his opinion that the requirements for 8320b for the proposed subdivision cannot be met. Discussion followed regarding the road width and if an exception applied to two parcels and could be extended to five parcels. The financial investment of the property owners were discussed with regard to whether is has some bearing on the exercise of their substantial property rights. M/S Smith/Ashiku granting exceptions to the road standards with Findings 1 through 12 as listed in the Planning Commission Staff Report. Councilmember Baldwin expressed his concern for the motion and read aloud Section 8320b, which stated why the exception is necessary 'flor the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner". He felt the arguments of the petitioner is that he can't build his dream house unless he receives a profit by selling three other parcels. He felt Council is on the verge of saying that a substantial property right is the right of the applicants to make a profit off of their property so that they can then afford to build a rather large dream house. Councilmember Smith was of the opinion that it is a privilege they have as a property owner and should be allowed to exercise that privilege. Regular Meeting - Ukiah City Council January 16, 2002 Page 14 of 27 Mayor Ashiku noted that the most substantial investment a person makes is buying their home. To deny them the exception would deny a person of any economic viable use of that property. Councilmember Baldwin advised that court decisions deny what was just said by Mayor Ashiku and Councilmember Smith. Mayor Ashiku disagreed with Councilmember Baldwin's views regarding court decisions. City Attorney Rapport advised that the California court of Appeals in the Cavanaugh Case discussed the law thoroughly and it is based on a case called Penn Central versus The City of New York. The Penn Central case talked about three different factors the courts will evaluate in deciding whether that has occurred. One of which is the economic impact of the regulation on the claimant. The second one is the extent to which the regulation has interfered with "distinct investment backed expectations". The third is the character of the governmental action. In elaborating on that, the Cavanaugh Case said that what the courts evaluate is the importance of the governmental interests served by the regulation against the degree of economic harm resulting to the property owner. Whatever use of the property you want, you balance the economic impact and so the cost of development and the cost of the property and potential return on investment are factors that the courts will take into consideration in deciding whether there is an over-regulation or not. They balance that against the importance of the regulation to the public interest. There are three different exceptions. The third exception is that you have to make a finding that it won't be detrimental to the public welfare in order to grant that exception. It seemed to him that if Council can make that finding, that would abide a fair amount of latitude, in his opinion, as to what degree of limitation on the property owner's use of his property, Council would be willing to either accept or not accept in granting the exception. He felt that Council has more discretion than the argument that's been going on. Councilmember Baldwin asked City Attorney Rapport what standing the City would have in court for the neighbor who asks for the same exceptions for the same reasons. City Attorney Rapport explained that every time Council makes a decision, it has to evaluate the facts that are presented in the given case. Therefore, if the neighbor made such a request, it would depend on what the development costs were, the potential uses of the property, and what potential returns on investment are. The courts look at whether there was substantial evidence presented to Council during the hearing upon which it could base the findings that you are making and rely on in either granting the exceptions or not. In summary, it depends on what facts are presented and how Council applies them. There was discussion concerning advancing the community's interest by advancing the parameters that are established in the General Plan for housing and the design and preservation of the land along the road. Councilmember Larson requested that the motion be read. City Clerk Ulvila reread the motion for Council's consideration. Regular Meeting - Ukiah City Council January 16, 2002 Page 15 of 27 M/S Smith/Ashiku granting exceptions to the road standards with Findings 1 through 12 as listed in the Planning Commission Staff Report; carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Smith, Libby, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: Councilmembers Larson and Baldwin. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. M/S Smith/Libby to conditionally approve the subdivision based on Findings 13, 14, 15, and 16a through 16h supporting the major subdivision for five parcels as defined in the Staff Report. Councilmember Baldwin explained that he opposes the motion because he believes it is not supported or consistent with the General Plan and the Hillside Ordinance, and did not feel it advances the community's interest in any way. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Smith, Libby, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: Councilmembers Larson and Baldwin. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. M/S Smith/Larson to conditionally approve the Use Permit with findings #17, 18b and 18c, and #1 through 58, supporting the permit. Councilmember Libby commented that a short time ago, this Council looked at a considerable amount of material and after thoughtful study and deliberation, this Council decided that the massive amounts of information compiled by various experts exceeded what an Environmental Impact Study (EIR) would produce. Council made the decision to not insist that an EIR be completed for this project. She voiced her support for the five- parcel subdivision and she considered her vote as a vote for a safer Westside hills. Her comments apply to the Use Permit as well. Councilmember Baldwin noted that the Western Hills Constraint Analysis is worthy of all your reading and felt the fire analysis states that the new development would not reduce, but rather increases the fire danger to that area. He hoped the applicants would consider, retroactively, the possibility of a dedication to the community of some open space. Mayor Ashiku thanked the applicant for designing a wrap around structures rather than a high rise as a potential option. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Larson, Smith, Libby, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: Councilmember Baldwin. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Recessed: 9:54 p.m. Reconvened: 10:08 p.m. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9a. Discussion of Fire Service Options and JPA Document City Manager Horsley advised that the City of Ukiah and Ukiah Valley Fire District Joint Powers Authority Subcommittee met on December 12, 2001 to finalize its Regular Meeting - Ukiah City Council January 16, 2002 Page 16 of 27 recommendations regarding the joint exercise of powers agreement for the Ukiah Fire Authority. All representatives of the subcommittee were present except for the City's career firefighters. The subcommittee agreed on a few minor changes in the existing draft document and requested that the document go to each of the agencies for discussion and approval. In the meantime, the Ukiah Valley Fire District (District) met on January 9th to discuss the JPA and the District Board made several key decisions. An item of pertinence is that they are terminating the personnel agreement for Dan Grebil's services with the last day to be on February 10, 2002. The City is in contact with a professional public service employment group and contacting their fire chief list to see if they are able to provide interim services. Secondly, the District Board expressed their support of the valley wide JPA concept and asked that prior to revisiting the draft Joint Powers Agreement, the sections which delineate the City of Ukiah as the sole contracting agency for personnel services be deleted. This will allow discussions to broaden with regard to the eventual staffing of the combined department." Thirdly, the District Board expressed its appreciation to the City Council for its participation and efforts in this endeavor. The Board feels that consolidation is the best option and is in favor of continuing towards that end. She commended the subcommittee for the many hours and intense effort its members have given toward this document and to produce the language that is acceptable to the agencies. Councilmember Larson explained that the District's recommendation would delete the authority's obligation to contract with the City for fire service employees. The authority wouldn't be able to pay them unless the District and City contributed money in their budgets for that purpose. He noted the option of the District considering offering services contractually in the same manner as the City, which would probably be based on a different delivery model. There are a number of other options to explore including Amadore Contracts with the California Department of Forestry (CDF) for any, all, parts of the District or City, and could be pursued jointly through a Joint Powers Authority. No one wants to close any doors right now other than the specific proposal, which necessitates the City contracting all of the services other than what's covered by the Amador to the north. Interim Fire Chief Grebil updated the Council on the December 12th District Board meeting in which the District Board recommended some minor changes to the JPA agreement. One of which was to eliminate the prohibition of the JPA employing people, because that was a prohibitive power and is included in Section 2.5. Another minor change at the committee level was that Section 7.1, concerns the identification of the vehicles and apparatus, and it was recommended that all equipment would be identified as "Ukiah Fire", rather than "Ukiah Fire Authority". There was also a recommended change to Section 9.3 in which the District recommended at the committee level that the operational date become effective March 1, 2002 and the JPA Board would determine the actual operational date. The agreement would be adopted by both governing bodies, the JPA would become effective March 1,2002, and from the Council and District would have been selected who would then work at determining what date this would actually come together. The District is now recommending to the City Council that it take out Sections 1.5, 2.4 and 2.4a that stipulate that the City of Ukiah will be the provider of personnel services for the JPA. This would allow the Joint Powers Authority and the Commissioners to determine where those career personnel services would come from. Regular Meeting - Ukiah City Council January 16, 2002 Page 17 of 27 Discussion continued with regard to any changes of service that would be provided. It was noted that if the City wanted to maintain its present services of fire protection and advanced life support services, the Fire District could be prepared to contract and provide those services with measurable performance objectives within the contract. Options discussed included 1 ) all employees could be employees of the Fire District, 2) all personnel could be employees of the JPA, and 3) contracting with CDF under Schedule A contract for personnel. This allows the JPA to explore all those options and for the JPA to determine where the personnel will come from. There was also discussion concerning how the JPA would be a benefit to the community. Duplication of equipment, services, training, prevention activities, and supervision of shifts were noted. The JPA would provide an opportunity for efficiency and delivery of service to the community. It was noted that CDF has a strong six month precence in the Ukiah valley and Ukiah could have them here year- round under contract. Thre was discussion regarding the future growth of the City outlying areas. Councilmember Larson expressed support of the District's recommended changes and felt the City should continue to support a JPA. M/S Larson/Baldwin directing staff to revise the draft JPA document to eliminate all references to the City being the primary contractor personnel services exclusively and proceed with forming the JPA and electing the City's representatives to it. Councilmember Larson explained that there was long term concern among the subcommittee members with getting back together with the City. The main focus in the beginning was ironing out all the reservations, concerns, and trust issues that the District and the City might have for each other, and putting them in writing to develop the agreement as to how we are going to dissolve the JP^ if it doesn't work out. They successfully completed it and one issue that didn't get dealt with is the City's paid staff, which is Council's responsibility. He explained that the City's system has evolved to a paramedic, advanced life support system that's an ambulance company. He did not know if that is what Council originally envisioned but he felt it may have been developed to fulfill a certain need for cross training. That is a basic public policy that we need to continually address and decide what direction we should go. It affects staffing levels, staff performance, the nature of the training, delivery of the services, and our ability to suppress fire to some degree. Mayor Ashiku explained that this goes back to the problem we had in April or May or 2001 in which the City and the District were in agreement that the JPA was important enough to proceed and yet the City's own personnel stood between a successful agreement and we are not there today because of the same reluctance to participate. Councilmember Larson advised that some changes have occurred in that initially the recommendation from the paid staff or union representatives was that we maintain the joint administrative services but keep separate departments and that joint administrative operations were fine. However, they proceeded to attack that very thing because it was in Regular Meeting - Ukiah City Council January 16, 2002 Page 18 of 27 operation with Chief Grebil acting as Chief for both departments and affectively implementing that policy. Mayor Ashiku was of the opinion that the JPA concept was a very viable plan and felt the subcommittee worked very hard. He felt that Council has made it very clear to the City's personnel that this is Council's will, desire, and the direction that it wants to bring to the community. In that spirit, he felt that the level of firefighting service and the level of service for life support could be enhanced for the valley. He felt that the City needs to pursue the other options and review them, and understand the ramifications of what's involved. He was of the opinion that staff should bring back the amended agreement for Council's approval. At that time, Council could appoint Board members to the JPA if the District accepts the agreement. Motion carried by unanimous consent. Mayor Ashiku expressed his appreciation to Chief Dan Grebil for all his efforts over the past 20 months and that he has provided a great service to the community. He also wanted Chief Grebil to express to the Board that Council appreciates them lending him to the City during this time and that Council is aware of the hardship it created at the District and upon him and his family. Consensus of Council was in agreement with Mayor Ashiku's comments concerning Chief Grebil's efforts. Councilmember Larson advised that, from working with Chief Grebil for many months, he has found him to be a gifted firefighter, administrator, and an easy person to get along with. He expressed his appreciation for Chief Grebil's efforts and his reluctance to let him go. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9b. Discussion of Water Issues For Mendocino County Inland Water and Power Commission Video City Manager Horsley advised that she contacted Ms. Janet Pauli after the last City Council meeting. She also attended the Mendocino County Inland Water and Power Commission (IWPC) meeting where there was more discussion concerning this matter. Ms. Pauli has indicated that it will be a 10 to 15 minute video and hopes to do a series of videos because this short timeframe will not be able to describe everything that is going on in the valley. It was Ms. Pauli's opinion that the IWPC will want to present the major issues such as the Potter Valley Project, Eel River diversion, and Section 7 on the Russian River. Redwood Valley sent a letter identifying their particular water concerns. She noted that Council had previously identified two issues that were germane to the City which are water storage and the need to expand the City's water treatment plant because of our decrease supply from the wells and Ranney Collector. She felt that there may not be enough time to discuss individual districts, or the City, in the video because of the complexity of the other large issues will take longer than 15 minutes. Another thing that may be germane to everyone in the valley would include a small discussion about water conservation in times of drought, how important it can be and what it can mean in the Regular Meeting - Ukiah City Council January 16, 2002 Page 19 of 27 difference. Councilmember Baldwin expressed concern with becoming involved in this project because we may or may not have the same interests as the primary economic interests (agricultural) pushing this video. He felt there is a wonderful potential for education but we should be aware of the motives of the people we are working with. Discussion followed with regard to agricultural interests in Potter Valley and the Ukiah valley that may benefit from the video. Issues related to raising the dam, diversion, and preservation of agricultural lands were also discussed. It was rcommended that the City ask IWPC for a copy of the narration of the video so it can be reviewed. Councilmember Larson expressed and interest in the video providing an emphasis on conservation and cooperation. The video need not show infrastructure developments within the City of Ukiah; however, raising the dam is a large environmental consideration and may have growth inducing consequences. He felt it important that Council be allowed to review any videos or dialogue in which the City is going to be aligned with because these are long term, land use decisions. City Manager Horsley advised that Ms. Pauli met with a representative from the Army Corp of Engineers and they are moving forward with the $100,000 study, however, he said that this is a very small part of it and to be prepared because they are going to come back to the community for additional funding for any further dealings with raising of the dam and those types of issues. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9c. Approval of 60-Day Extension For County of Mendocino's Negotiation~ Regarding Transfer Station Contract City Manager Horsley advised that the City had requested that the County of Mendocino sign a 15-year contract for use of the Taylor Drive Transfer Station in return for receiving the same fee schedule as the City of Ukiah residents. A 60-day period for negotiations was given to the County to sign a contract. The City's concern is with the costs and if the County withdrew, our costs would increase for Ukiah's citizens based on the contact prices and the contract schedule. In the meantime, Solid Wastes Systems, Inc. (SWS) has signed an agreement that they will not charge the City extra if the County decides to withdraw from the use of the Transfer Station. However, SWS would like to have a contract and have been attempting to meet with the County to discuss and negotiate a five to fifteen year contract. She recommended an additional 60-day time period for negotiations to be completed between SWS and the County. Discussion continued with regard to the County formulating a contract with SWS. It was noted that currently the County does not have a contract with SWS and the County's self- haulers will not be able to go to the SWS site unless the County has a contract. It was noted by City Manager Horsley that the City Council recently revised the City's contract to allow SWS to charge a higher rate to the County if they did not sign a 15-year agreement. There was also discussion concerning the County's incentive, or lack thereof, to negotiate a contract with SWS Regular Meeting - Ukiah City Council January 16, 2002 Page 20 of 27 M/S Baldwin/Smith approving an additional 60-day timeframe for negotiations with the County of Mendocino for use of the Taylor Drive Transfer Station. Discussion followed regarding a contract between the County and SWS. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmember Larson, Smith, Libby and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: Councilmember Baldwin. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 10. NEW BUSINESS 10a. Approval of 2001/02 Mid Year Budget Amendment Risk Manager/Budget Officer Harris advised that the Mid Year Budget Amendment is the opportunity to address any issues with financial implications that have occurred since the budget was adopted or are anticipated to arise throughout the remainder of the fiscal year. Upon questioning by Councilmember Baldwin concerning fund balances, Mr. Harris explained that the General Fund has $20,000 in new revenue and approximately $75,000 in new expenditures, making a net of $55,000 to the budget. Councilmember Baldwin also inquired about the City's revenue received on the City's investments in previous years, and Mr. Harris explained that the investments appear to be on budget this year. M/S Smith/Libby approving Mid Year Amendment to the 2001/2002 Budget as specified in the 2001/02 Mid Year Budget Amendment-Summary of Transactions; carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmember Larson, Smith, Libby, Baldwin, and Mayor ^shiku. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 10. NEW BUSINESS 10b. Discussion Concerning Mendocino Council of Governments Road Tax Survey - (Councilmember Larson) City Manager Horsley advised that there have been some developments within the last couple of days. She explained that the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) met and hired the consultants who have already begun work to survey Mendocino County regarding the citizens' interest in an additional half-cent sales tax for road repair and maintenance. She distributed a draft of the Mendocino County Transportation Survey. Phil Dow is requesting that the City's comments be returned by January 18th because they will be finalizing the survey. The consultants are moving very quickly because of the timelines for the ballot measure. She reviewed the survey as it relates to the City of Ukiah and noted that if the measure passed, it would mean an additional $1 million per year to the City of Ukiah. The list of projects that are recommended by staff include State Street/Main Street revitalization, ADA accessibility, rail trail (improve part of the side part of the rail as a walking or bicycle path), increased parking availability, and drainage. Those would be additional questions asked of Ukiah citizens only. She explained that the tax, if approved, would be in place for 20 years. She advised that, whatever projects Council selects, it has been recommended by Mr. Dow that these projects be oriented toward road improvements. Discussion followed relative to the status of the Pavement Management System (PMS) and it was noted that it would take $1 million per year to maintain the current level of service. Regular Meeting - Ukiah City Council January 16, 2002 Page 21 of 27 City Manager Horsley noted over the past few years the City has received additional funding from MCOG but that funding may not be available much longer. She advised that the League of California Cities is asking Council to send a letter of support to them concerning Proposition 42. She continued to discuss other sales tax efforts. Discussion continued with regard to what type of information the City needs from the public opinion survey in terms of citizen priorities. Once the priorities are determined, Council can then make an informed decision about whether to put it on the ballot. Discussion followed with regard to possible proposals that may be presented to the voters in November concerning increasing sales tax. City Manager Horsley referred to "survey strategy" and explained that concept in further detail. There was discussion related to the survey and suggestions were made to pose questions of the public with regard to possibly undergrounding utilities, improving parking in the downtown area and improving bike and pedestrian paths. Discussion continued with regard to referendums, sales tax, and other options available to generate revenue to maintain roads. Councilmember Baldwin noted that "rail path" or "rail trail" might need to be explained more to the voters. City Manager Horsley continued to discuss to Prop 42 and noted that its purpose is to realign it from the General Fund to the cities and counties. Councilmember Libby inquired about the negative aspects of Prop 42. Ms. Horsley explained that if that money were eliminated from the General Fund, they would need to fill those funds in other ways. However, that will be a decision made by the state. Councilmember Larson explained that a positive aspect of Prop 42 is that it is a protection of local revenue. Dollars that are spent on gasoline should be used to repair roads and transportation. Part of the funding the City receives through MCOG's STIP is this money. Consensus of Council was to send a letter to the League of California Cities in support of Prop 42. Councilmember Libby stated her objection to Prop 42 due to the condition of the state's finances and if this money is taken out of the General Fund it is only reasonable that the state will increase a tax elsewhere to make up that difference." She is not supportive of the measure at this time and therefore, there was not a full consensus of Council on the matter. Consensus of Council agreed with the projects proposed by staff for the survey. There was a brief discussion with regard to undergrounding of utilities and it was decided that this Regular Meeting - Ukiah City Council January 16, 2002 Page 22 of 27 issue should not be included in the survey. Parking and fixing potholes were discussed and it was decided to allow those questions to be asked in the survey and to review the results of the survey once completed. 10. NEW BUSINESS 10c. Adoption of Resolution Approving an Application for the Riparian and Riverine Habitat Grant Program For Riverside Park Development Community Services Director DeKnoblough advised that Council previously approved grant applications under the recently passed Park Bond Act for different projects within the City sponsored by the Community Services Department. Another component of that same Bond Act is the Riparian and Riverine Habitat Grant Program. The prior projects were under the Roberti-Z'Berg-Harris Urban Open Space and Recreation program. These projects targeted areas around creeks and aspects along River Park. The intent of the grant program is to provide "funds on a competitive basis to increase public recreational access, awareness, understanding, enjoyment, protection, and restoration of California's irreplaceable rivers and streams." Individual grant applications must be a minimum of $20,000 and may not exceed $400,000. No matching funds are required for this program. The funds would provide some of the initial improvements to the River Park such as parking, trails, riverbank stabilization, and habitat enhancements. Although $400,000 may not go very far, it would provide evidence that the park has viable public access should the City request funding from the Coastal Conservancy or the Department of Fish and Game. Councilmember Baldwin referred to the Staff Report in which it mentions the conceptual design previously approved by the City Council and inquired if the initial park concept could be changed. 11:26 p.m.: Mayor Ashiku left meeting. Mr. DeKnoblough explained that it is a conceptual design and conceived from several public workshops that were held under the Planning and Technical Assistance Grant that was awarded by the Coastal Conservancy. Once an analysis is performed of specific development costs, some items may not be necessary. He cited an example of soccer fields which staff is looking to locate closer to town. The Parks, Recreation & Golf Commission will be reviewing the plan again and if the grant is awarded, then the plans would need to be finalized. 11:28 p.m.: Mayor Ashiku returned to the meeting. Councilmember Baldwin drew attention to the parking area being located in the middle of the park and south of the softball fields. He was not convinced that is the best location for parking and hoped that Council could revisit the issue again. Mr. DeKnoblough continued to discuss the grant and noted that it is stated clearly in the grant that it is strictly a conceptual design. M/S Baldwin/Larson adopting Resolution 2002-28 approving the application for grant funds for the Riparian and Riverine Habitat Program under the Safe Neighborhood Parks, Regular Meeting - Ukiah City Council January 16, 2002 Page 23 of 27 Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000; carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Larson, Smith, Libby, Baldwin and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 10. NEW BUSINESS 10d. Request for Discussion of MTA Facility at Former Fjords Location by Supervisor Delbar 11:31 p.m. -City Manger Horsley advised that staff had just been advised that the County representative would not be able to attend this meeting. Mayor Ashiku explained that Mendocino County Supervisor Michael Delbar had requested this item be placed on the agenda for discussion. He had a conversation with him last week in which he suggested a County representative would be in attendance to discuss their views of the MTA project at the old Fjords location. City Manager Horsley advised that the City of Willits was asked to consider opposing this project, however, they did not. She referred to correspondence from the County to MTA. Mayor Ashiku explained that the County is on record opposing the location of the site for the transit facility and preferred the site be located downtown. Councilmember Larson referred to the County's letter in which it objected to the decision by the MTA Board to proceed with condemnation of the site. Bruce Richard, General Manager of MTA, explained that the County's letter to MTA requested they reconsider the action they took but did not specifically mention condemnation. A great deal of the reason for that letter and their position was an interest in creating that facility at the train depot as MTA has attempted to do for some time. He explained that the depot project is still on the "back burner" and they needed to move their efforts to the north end of town and it's urgent they get that project accomplished for their operating efficiency. MTA intends to revisit the train depot as a separate facility sometime in the future. He explained that the train depot site would need to be smaller than originally planned because there would not be a need to have the intercity buses since it is planned that they be included at the north end of town. At the north Ukiah site, it is planned to have Greyhound, Amtrak buses, Mendocino Stage, and all of MTA's regional and local services, as well as Dial-A-Ride and private taxi services. The building at the site is very small and it would be staffed to provided route and schedule information, sell tickets, and handle Greyhound freight. They also hope to sell Amtrak tickets in the future. Zack Leventis, owner of Zack's Restaurant across the street from the proposed site, advised that he is not opposed to MTA services at the site; however, he expressed concern with Greyhound being located at that site. He discussed problems he had when Greyhound was formerly located at the site and how they interfered with the operation of his business. He inquired if it is necessary for MTA to have such a prime location with State Street frontage. He felt that since it is located at the first Ukiah exit, a nice building Regular Meeting - Ukiah City Council January 16, 2002 Page 24 of 27 should be located there instead of buses. Councilmember Baldwin noted that if the depot site were going to be a stop for MTA in the future, he would prefer that the land use not be utilized as a roadway for a bus unless it is for all carriers. Mr. Richard explained that what they need to be downtown, and the train depot site is the most logical site, is a place for the local service to meet each other and would greatly facilitate travel within Ukiah. There may be as many as four buses meeting each other as opposed to the 10 or 12 they had discussed previously. Councilmember Libby was of the opinion that the site needs to be developed but was opposed to condemnation proceedings against the wishes of the property owners in order to obtain the property. She was of the opinion that good reasons must be established, such as a threat to public safety, for condemnation and she did not think the property meets that criteria. She has objections to the site because of the way in which the land is being purchased. Mayor Ashiku had no problem with the site and he would like to see a central transit station at the train depot. He did not see a need to encourage MTA to change their position at this time. Councilmember Larson concurred with Mayor Ashiku's opinion. As an active participant in earlier plans for a transfer site in the downtown area, he did not recall any interest or support from Supervisor Delbar at that time. It was his opinion that both sites will eventually be operating. He did not see any need to take action at this time. 11. COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Smith provided Council with a copy of the newsletter from the League of California Cities meeting. Governor Davis stated at the conference "Let the VLF (Vehicle License Fees) continue to come to the cities." He also attended a presentation by a motivational speaker and a session sponsored by the Legislative Analysist about addressing the state's fiscal problems. Next week he will attend a NCPA Strategic Workshop in Sacramento and the following week he will travel to Washington, DC to attend the APPA meeting. 12. CITY MANAGER/CITY CLERK/DIRECTOR REPORTS City Manager Horsley distributed a flyer on the Sundays in the Park Chamber of Commerce Mixer that is scheduled for January 18th at the Todd Grove Room. She noted on February 9th, the Russian River Water Forum would hold their meeting in the Council Chambers and sponsored by the Farm Bureau and Janet Pauli from the Mendocino County Inland Water and Power Commission. Mayor Ashiku advised that he will be on vacation at that time and will not be able to attend the forum and Councilmember Baldwin would attend as the alternate. Ms. Horsley advised that the forum would present all the issues regarding water and Regular Meeting - Ukiah City Council January 16, 2002 Page 25 of 27 educating the public. She inquired if Council received the Ukiah Fire Department Awards Dinner invitation. She provided information to Councilmember Smith with regard to the APPA rally. She advised that Eladia Laines, owner of the Palace Hotel, has responded to the City's certified letter and was asked to attend the February 6th Council meeting to discuss the Palace Hotel. Mayor Ashiku advised that he will be absent from the meeting and preferred that the item be scheduled for the next meeting scheduled of February 20th. Consensus of Council directed the City Manager to contact Ms. Laines and invite her to attend the February 20th meeting when a full Council is expected to be in attendance. City Clerk Ulvila advised that, in cooperation with the Mendocino County Elections Department for the March 5t' Gubernatorial Primary election, a container will be available for holding voter registration cards in the lobby of the Administration Wing at City Hall. The registration deadline is February 19th. Statements of Economic Interests, FPPC Form 700, have been distributed and are due by April 2, 2002 in the City Clerk's office. She reported that on January 15, 2002, the City received the resignation of Susie Johnson, Chairman of the Parks, Recreation, and Golf Commission. Ms. Johnson's term expires on June 30, 2002. A Press Release will be issued announcing the vacancy with a deadline of February 25, 2002. Appointment to the Commission will be scheduled for the March 6, 2002 City Council meeting. 11:54 p.m.: Adjourned to sit as the Ukiah Redevelopment Agency. 12:03 p.m.: Reconvened as City Council. 12:03 p.m.: Recessed 12:10 p.m.: Reconvened 12:10 p.m.: Adjourned to Closed Session 13. CLOSED SESSION a. G.C. §54956.9- Conference with Legal Counsel Regarding Existin~ Litigation: Ruelle v. City of Ukiah (Case No. SCUKCVG-00-83733 No action taken. b. G.C. §54956.9-Conference with Legal Counsel Regarding Existing Legal Proceedings: WRCB v. Ukiah No action taken. c. Public Employee Performance Evaluation Title: City Manager Regular Meeting - Ukiah City Council January 16, 2002 Page 26 of 27 No action taken. d. G.C. §54957.6- Conference with Labor Negotiator Employee Negotiations: Fire Unit Labor Negotiator: Candace Horsley No action taken. e. G.C. §54956.9-- Conference with Legal Counsel Regarding Existin~n Litigation' Ukiah Firefighters v. City of Ukiah (Pending Before Public Employee Relations Board) No action taken. Reconvened at: 1:50 a.m. 14. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the City Council meeting was adjourned at 1:50 a.m. Marie Ulvila, City Clerk Regular Meeting - Ukiah City Council January 16, 2002 Page 27 of 27