Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin 06-05-02MINUTES OF THE UKIAH CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING WEDNESDAY, JUNE 5, 2002 The Ukiah City Council met at a Regular Meeting on June 5, 2002, the notice for which had been legally noticed and posted, at 5:48 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. Roll was taken and the following Councilmembers were present: Larson, Libby, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. Councilmember absent: Smith. Staff present: Community Services Director DeKnoblough, Assistant City Manager Fierro, Risk Manager/Budget Officer Harris, City Manager Horsley, City Attorney Rapport, Planning Director Stump, and City Clerk Ulvila. *5:48 p.m.: Adjourned to Closed Session *b. Conference with Legal Counsel C.C. §54956.9(a) - Existing Litigation Name of Case: Shoemaker v. City of Ukiah, Mendocino County Superior Court Case No. SCUK-CVG 00-83789 Reconvened: 6:30 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Councilmember Baldwin led the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. INTRODUCTIONS 3a. Introduction of Interim Fire Chief Cohn City Manager Horsley advised that the City has recently retained the services of Ron Cohn, retired Fire Chief, as Interim Fire Chief for the City of Ukiah for up to six months. Mr. Cohn was an employee of the California Department of Forestry (CDF) for 40 years in various capabilities including Division Chief, Deputy Chief, and finally Chief of the Madera-Mariposa-Merced Unit. He also served as Fire Chief of El Dorado County Fire Protection District between 1999 and 2002. She discussed his employment with the CDF. Since his official retirement in 1995, he has served in several other capacities with the fire districts and conservation camp programs. Chief Cohn lives with his wife in Shingle Springs, California. She welcomed him to the City staff. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4a. Regular Meeting of May 15, 2002 M/S Libby/Larson approving the Regular Meeting Minutes of May 15, 2002, as presented, carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Larson, Libby, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilmember Smith. ABSTAIN: None. 5. RIGHT TO APPEAL Mayor Ashiku read the appeal process. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR M/S Larson/Baldwin approving items a through j of the Consent Calendar as follows: a. Adopted Resolution 2002-38 Approving and Authorizing the Execution of Program Supplement No. M003 to Administering Agency-State Agreement for Federal Aid Regular Meeting June 5, 2002 Page 1 of 15 Projects No. 01-5049; b. Approved Budget Amendment Authorizing $2,000 Expenditure of Building Inspector Equipment Replacement Funds for Computer Replacement; c. Adopted Resolution 2002-39 Restoring 62 Feet of On-Street Parking Along North Oak Street; d. Awarded Bid for Purchase of Patrol Vehicle in the Amount of $24,667.50 to Downtown Ford Sales; e. Awarded Contract to Ferranti Construction, Inc. for Sidewalk Construction along the North Side of Mendocino Drive, Specification No. 00-06, in the Estimated Amount of $60,834; f. Awarded Time and Expense Consultant Service Agreement to Winzler & Kelly for Design Services Related to the Construction of Orchard Ave. Bridge at Orr Creek and Associated Street Improvements, in an Amount Not to Exceed $100,054, and Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Agreement; g. Awarded Contract to Lee Howard Construction Co. for the Construction of Half Street Improvements Along a Portion of the West Side of Waugh Lane, in the Estimated Amount Not to Exceed $23,000 and Approval of Budget Amendment Authorizing the Expenditure; h. Rejected Claim for Damages Received From Kenneth Joseph Mabery and Referral to Joint Powers Authority, Redwood Empire Municipal Insurance Fund; i. Approved Agreement for Services as Fiscal Agent with the North Coast Railroad Authority Depot Renovation Grant; j. Received Report to Council Regarding Contract with B.C. Schmidt Construction Inc. for Installation of Ace Aerial Hangar Door in the Amount of $6,500. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. Councilmember Smith. Councilmembers Larson, Libby, ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: 7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Jim Werner, Susan Ferris, and James Connerton, Ukiah, addressed Council concerning a fence constructed by Charlie Ruelle to block access between Oak and Bush Streets. It was their opinion that the fence should be removed so that it does not block public access to the open space area along Orr Creek. Mayor Ashiku noted that there is an item under Closed Session on the Agenda with regard to litigation with Mr. Ruelle and it will be discussed later in the meeting in Closed Session. City Manager Horsley advised that she has talked to some of the neighbors living in this area and noted that there were very specific legal reasons why the City was asked not to do anything until later this week, due to the City's involvement in litigation with Mr. Ruelle. She thanked the neighbors for keeping her informed of the situation. al UNFINISHED BUSINESS Adoption of Ordinance Amending Division 1, Chapter 2, Article 2, Section 62 of the Ukiah City Code Regarding Councilmembers Salaries Regular Meeting June 5, 2002 Page 2 of 15 At its May 15, 2002 meeting, the City Council introduced, by a 3 to 1 vote (with one member absent), an ordinance modifying the monthly salary for Councilmembers effective after the November 5, 2002 election. The Ordinance is now ready for Council adoption. M/S Baldwin/Larson adopting Ordinance 1037, Amending Ukiah City Code, Chapter 2, Division 1, Article 2, Section 62 Establishing the Salaries for Councilmembers, carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Larson, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: Councilmember Libby. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilmember Smith. 9. NEW BUSINESS 9a. Discussion and Approval of Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority MSWMA) Annual Budget City Manager Horsley advised that the City Council annually reviews and approves the MSWMA annual budget before its final adoption by the MSWMA Board. M/S Ashiku/Baldwin approving MSWMA's 2002/03 Budget. Councilmember Larson explained to the audience about the budget document for MSWMA. He recommended the City provide a copy of MSWMA's budget at the counter. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Larson, Libby, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilmember Smith. 9. NEW BUSINESS 9b. Interpretation of Ukiah Municipal Code Definition of "Sign" and Determination of Possible Sign Ordinance Violation - Rainbow Construction/294 West Smith Street, Ukiah Planning Director Stump advised that staff was recently alerted to a situation at the Rainbow Construction building located at 294 West Smith Street in which six large banners/signs/flags were placed on the roof of the building. He received a phone call from Peter Richardson, General Manager of Rainbow Construction, late yesterday requesting this item be continued because he didn't think he would be able to attend this meeting. This is Mr. Richardson's second request to continue the matter. The devices displayed are very unique looking on top of the building. Staff reviewed the Sign Ordinance and it was Staff's initial reaction that the devices constituted signs. When this matter was brought to the attention of Mr. Richardson, he indicated that they are simply "art" and/or may fit the category of "corporate flag". The Code does not define what a corporate flag is. If Council determines that the devises are banners, they would only be allowed for a 30-day period with the Planning Director's approval for a special event. He requested Council look at the definitions of sign, banner, and flag and determine what the devices are, then direct Staff appropriately. Regular Meeting June 5, 2002 Page 3 of 15 He read the description of "sign" and noted that with the Rainbow Construction logo on the devices that the devises should be considered signs. City Attorney Rapport explained that even if Council determined it was a flag, he did not think it inconsistent with determining it is a sign. The term flag is used in a section of the City Code which lists prohibited signs. One example of a prohibited sign is a flag other than a flag of a nation or corporation..That would be a further indication that a flag is considered a sign under the Sign Ordinance. Director Stump explained that the Code would not allow signs to be placed on rooftops. Councilmember Baldwin inquired if there is a policy for constructing murals. Director Stump advised that it is included in the Sign Ordinance, but is not common knowledge of the public. Murals appear now and then without any review. Staff's initial determination was that the devices constituted signs and are in violation of the City Code. There was discussion concerning Iogos used by other businesses and enforcement of the Sign Ordinance. Complaints received and investigated by staff were also discussed. It was noted that usually, Staff obtains voluntary compliance from the property owner. Discussion continued with regard to the display of official flags. Mary Lindley, Ukiah, was of the opinion that the banners being flown on the rooftop of Rainbow Construction are beautiful rainbows and calls attention to Rainbow Construction's business. Mayor Ashiku was of the opinion that the devices should be considered signs because they use corporate colors. That makes it a sign and is meant to call attention to the identity of the company. He noted that the rainbow corporate colors are displayed on the company's trucks and is part of their signage. Councilmember Baldwin agreed that the devices display the logo of the businesses and are designed to advertise the business. If these devices are found to be other than signs, then it could become a free for all in the community and anyone who says anything is art could construct six flags on top of their building. He felt it is clear that these devices are signs and the City has to enforce the rules. Councilmember Larson explained that the City couldn't regulate the use of a corporate logo in terms of the color or design in any way other than size and placement according to the Sign Ordinance..The device represents a corporate logo and tells people that the building is that of Rainbow Construction. Signage is not allowed on the rooftop and he felt it is in violation of the Sign Code. Councilmember Libby explained that she views the flags as corporate flags and inquired as to how many corporate flags can be hanging on a building. She noted that this is not the only business in the City that has corporate flags on its roof and that Regular Meeting June 5, 2002 Page 4 of 15 Council should not be selective in enforcing the Code. She felt they look like corporate flags and didn't view them as signs. M/S Ashiku/Baldwin supporting the Planning Director's position that the signs above Rainbow Construction on West Smith Street be removed and that Council supports the position that they are signs. Director Stump advised that there is an issue with displaying flags on a rooftop. If the flags were placed elsewhere on the property, they could potentially be allowed, provided they complied with the allowable square footage for signage for any one business. Staff is willing to work with Mr. Richardson to relocate the signs on the property. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Larson, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: Councilmember Libby. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilmember Smith. 9. NEW BUSINESS 9c. Review, Discussion, and Formation of Comments Concerning the Mendocino County Draft Ukiah Valley Area Plan Planning Director Stump advised that Mendocino County has prepared an "Area" Plan for the unincorporated area in the Ukiah Valley. The Mendocino County Planning Commission has reviewed it and is making recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. The Board is now soliciting comments for its review. This plan was begun as part of the Ukiah General Plan update. It included County staff and residents from the County and Steering Committee that developed the Ukiah General Plan that included a blue print for the areas within the valley. The County has made some changes to what the City had envisioned in 1995 and he highlighted those changes in the Staff report. The Ukiah Planning Commission discussed the UVAP. He recommended Council consider their comments. The main areas he found that Council may want to focus on is the County's creation of an "urban boundary line" for the area outside the City Limits that is not entirely consistent with the City's Sphere of Influence. These areas stretch beyond what the City's revised Sphere of Influence will encompass. It is meant to capture existing development and also to promote areas around the City with a compact development theme. The UVAP retained the compact development theme that was envisioned in the City's General Plan and staff is supportive of it. He noted that one difference it does have is that the City's plan calls for a joint City/County design review body and the UVAP suggests that it be deleted in lieu of using the City's guidelines or developing guidelines similar to the City's for commercial development, so that there will be cohesive design guidelines for the City and the areas adjacent to the City. Staff is supportive of this concept. There is one controversial element in UVAP that suggests the deletion of the "rim trail" and "river trail" visions that were contained in the City's General Plan. Through the County's review process, they received significant opposition from landowners and they Regular Meeting June 5, 2002 Page 5 of 15 also felt it would be more prudent to expand and enhance the existing trail systems in the valley rather than attempt to establish new rim or river trails through agricultural land. The County is also suggesting that the UVAP have stronger policies for agricultural preservation and looser policies for hillside development. Councilmember Larson questioned the County Planning Departments memo regarding the area plan element and questioned the County having direct control over the City's Sphere of Influence. It was the Consensus of Council to postpone the item until 8:00 p.m. when County staff could be present at the meeting for further discussion. 7:19 p.m.: Mayor Ashiku left the meeting. 9. NEW BUSINESS 9d. Report to City Council Concerning Interest in Developing Mixed Commercial-Residential Development Projects and Setting of Date for Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting Planning Director Stump advised that Staff was recently approached by two different landowners who expressed interest in developing mixed commercial-residential projects within the City. Both land owners had progressive visions of integrating attractive affordable housing with small to medium sized commercial land uses. 7:21 p.m.: Mayor Ashiku returned to the meeting. He advised that there is an interest in creating more affordable housing with small and medium intensity commercial development. He felt it is time for a joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting to discuss some of the broader planning issues that the City is embarking upon. It is hoped that the joint meeting would allow time to discuss broad community planning and development issues, problems, and alternative solutions. Consensus of Council was to set the date of August 21, 2002 at 5:00 p.m. for the annual joint meeting of City Council/Planning Commission. The regular City Council meeting would begin at 6:30 p.m. Recessed: 7:24 p.m. Reconvened: 7:30 p.m. 9. NEW BUSINESS 9c. Review, Discussion, and Formation of Comments Concerning the Mendocino County Draft Ukiah Valley Area Plan Matter continued from earlier in the meeting. Councilmember Larson referred to Ms. Townsend's Memo dated May 30, 2002, "Section 1.03 The Planning Area" and inquired as to what the County does not control in the Sphere of Influence that is outside the City Limits. Regular Meeting June 5, 2002 Page 6 of 15 Pam Townsend, Mendocino County Senior Planner, explained that the Sphere of Influence is set by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), and in order to change the Sphere of Influence it is up to LAFCO, not the County. The Sphere of Influence, as proposed by the City when its General Plan was adopted in 1995, included areas such as the western hills that wouldn't be appropriate for urban densities, yet there are a number of policies in the General Plan regarding urban growth into, at that time, the Sphere of Influence. Therefore, the County thought that it would set a different boundary that corresponds to the urban classifications and the existing County General Plan. In proposing the boundary of the Ukiah Urban Boundary, the Planners simply went around the urban classifications that are currently in the County General Plan, and then the County Planning Commission made some revisions. Councilmember Larson inquired why the County would want to create a new designation in an Ukiah Urban Boundary. Ms. Townsend explained that the City would be the agency that would propose changes to LAFCO with regard to the Sphere of Influence. She also noted that the Sphere of Influence also includes lands that are appropriate for annexation. There are a number of policies in the UVAP that say that urban growth should be directed into a Ukiah Urban Boundary, where it used to say into the Sphere of Influence. Director Stump reminded Council that staff would be pursuing an amendment to the City's Sphere of Influence soon. He thought that the City Council and Planning Commission could discuss the topic of whether the City's Sphere of Influence is consistent with the General Plan vision of 1995 or if it has changed. Judy Pruden, Ukiah, discussed working on the City's General Plan, the Planning Commission and working with the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors on these documents. She strongly urged the City and County interface when setting developmental standards. She felt Council should consider what it wants to see happen to the City's contiguous borders. She recommended that information be provided to County staff so that the County does not duplicate items already completed by the City. Councilmember Baldwin inquired why the County Planning Commission decided to delete any reference to a rim trail. Ms. Townsend explained that the County Planning commission felt there was a fairly large public outcry opposing a rim trail, mainly due to invasion of private property rights. They took the approach of increasing the connection of the existing trail system in the valley and not specifying any particular locations for new trails. Councilmember Baldwin noted a reference in the UVAP saying that we are at a near water crisis and lack of water, which may mean that development would be discontinued. All plans, both agricultural and developmental are dependent on a resource that is basically tapped out. He inquired if that is what the State Health Department told us. Regular Meeting June 5, 2002 Page 7 of 15 Ms. Townsend explained that the state document identified some deficiencies. There is a crisis occurring now but there are some measures that may be put into place, particularly conservation, and noted that most of the districts do not have a conservation plan in place. She noted there are other political issues having to do with ground water wells and whether to look at ground water as surface water. Councilmember Baldwin noted that the County Planning Commission has deleted every reference to medium and high-density housing. Ms. Townsend responded that the County Planning Commission's focus was on working from the existing County General Plan land use maps rather than working from the maps that the City had adopted. Under the existing County classification there is a classification called "suburban residential" which includes the density ranges encompassed by the medium and high-density classifications adopted by the City. Councilmember Baldwin inquired if there was any discussion by the County Planning Commission concerning clustering, medium and high density, or townhouse development. He noted there is some concern as to what will happen in the area by the college, assuming water is available. Ms. Townsend replied that there is discussion of encouraging clustering and adding incentives for clustering in the hillside development section. It is encouraged, although there wasn't specific conversation about doing a particular project adjacent to the college. The County Planning Commission wanted to retain agricultural lands north of the Pinoleville area, west of Highway 101, and also on the valley floor. They thought that more growth should be developed in the eastern hills, recognizing that we do have a problem with Redemeyer Road and with some of the intersections coming into the City as being at a poor level of service. She provided Council with a map of the areas that would have density increases or decreases if the County Planning Commission's recommendation were adopted, compared to the existing County General Plan. Discussion followed concerning those areas and she noted that the new designations allow for more flexibility. Councilmember Larson was of the opinion that the County Planning Commission sees no relevance or benefit for a Parks and Recreation District. Ms. Townsend explained that the sentiment was that rather than focusing on establishing a new entity, they would rather look at options for partnerships, financing, a joint powers agreement between the County and the City, or some other mechanism. Councilmember Larson noted that the County Planning Commission changed a goal from development, or support, for the new community center to assisting in evaluating the need for recreation facilities. He explained that the community center is being developed and he did not understand why the County would be backing away from its development at this time. Councilmember Libby noted that the County is supportive of the community center. Regular Meeting June 5, 2002 Page 8 of 15 Ms. Townsend advised that she was not aware of the time frame when the community center would become a reality compared to when the County Planning Commission made its recommendation. She noted that the mindset of the County Planning Commission at the time may have been to wait and see what the existing facilities are and whether they could be more efficiently utilized rather than putting money into another facility. Discussion continued with regard to recreational facilities in the valley. Councilmember Larson noted the huge burden that currently exists on every facility that City personnel can locate for recreational purposes. He did not understand why the City and County shouldn't be pursuing a Parks and Recreation District which would be solely charged with that responsibility rather than trying to bring together two entities, one of which is struggling to sustain a program for the entire valley, and the other just maintaining the facilities that it has at a minimal level with no recreational programs. Ms. Townsend explained that just because they are investigating the matter, it doesn't mean that is what the solution would be after the investigation. Councilmember Libby referred to Community Design Element 12.01 and inquired if we will see more consistency in our guidelines between the City and the County. She did not see any strong wording in that section. Ms. Townsend responded that the mind set was to take the City's Guidelines and start from those and identify what parts would work in the County, at least in those areas where they want to maintain consistency. They realize they have a limited number of staff and resources that can be put towards enforcing or educating people about the guidelines. They have to take all of these things into account and consider what will be politically realistic. Councilmember Baldwin noted that the changes and deletions in the Open Space and the Parks and Recreation sections seem to be regressive and almost reactionary. If the City is going to become more densely populated in the future, then the City will need the County's assistance to make sure that there is some open space available for the public to utilize. He hopes that the policy-making body would take that into account and remove the County Planning Commission's deletions so that it would be more friendly to the public. Councilmember Libby was of the opinion that the City and County need to work closely in adopting similar guidelines concerning development through the valley. As far as hiking, bicycling, and trails, she thought it is more realistic to expand existing trails. Councilmember Larson referred to the Community Design portion of the document and noted on page 12 there is discussion of different design criteria in different areas that creates competition for development. It states "location is decided on the basis of fewer or least costly regulations." He thought that the volume of high quality businesses that have been drawn into Ukiah and have produced aesthetically pleasing projects by local standards, compromises the statement. Regular Meeting June 5, 2002 Page 9 of 15 Ms. Townsend explained that the excerpt mentioned is contained in the City's General Plan and that the comment is meant to explain a phenomenon that often occurs, and felt developers would seek to go into the County rather than the City because the County has no guidelines or design standards. Director Stump advised that he did not think that to be the only factor for attracting businesses to Ukiah. Councilmember Larson referred to page 13-4 of the Land Use Element in which there is a comment of "directing urban residential uses shall be generally located in the City of Ukiah". At the bottom of the page there is a policy that discusses "sustainable and livable communities being developed through comprehensive, integrated, regional strategies to achieve balance among social economic and environmental systems". High density residential development is generally lower income people. He noted that if the County is focusing all of the high density residential development in one area, he did not understand how the County planned to achieve a social balance and integrated community that might be envisioned in other areas. Ms. Townsend explained that the term "suburban residential" doesn't mean that it's Iow density. A residential subdivision would allow for the highest density of 28 units per acre of multi-family use, which is a higher density than any of the projects developed in town. She felt that the document doesn't say that all the development should go into the City. She also noted that there are policies in the County's Housing Element, that are not part of this document, that say agriculture is a high priority and in order to make this document consistent with it, they have to strengthen the agricultural component. The Housing Element also includes some specific policies about social integration and not putting a lot of lower income housing in one area, but attempting to break it up. Mayor Ashiku referred to the agricultural lands known as the Lovers Lane Project. He recommended the County consider the designation of "SR" for those lands in light of what will be happening with the North State Project. It seems in direct contradiction with what has been County policy in the past where they want to locate their housing projects next to commercial/industrial areas. It doesn't promote development, but rather a circulation plan that makes it easier for individuals to get to work. He encouraged the County to increase the density and reconsider the zoning for a long-term view of these lands. He also felt that the comments made by the City's Planning Commission are relevant and should be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. Consensus of Council was to forward the City of Ukiah Planning Commission's comments to the Board of Supervisors. Councilmember Baldwin agreed with Mayor Ashiku's comments concerning the Lovers Lane area only if it could be classified as PD-Cluster. If the Lovers Lane area could be developed into clustered town houses, then there could be open space and development, simultaneously. If the Board of Supervisors insists on leaving out the concept of the rim trail, perhaps they would substitute a bicycle route from Ukiah High School to Mendocino College. Regular Meeting June 5, 2002 Page 10 of 15 Councilmember Larson referred to page 9-7 and quoted the sentence "However, while sewers may be extended to protect a remedy water quality, land use density should be governed by General Plan policies and the land use map, rather than driven by the availability of sewer and water services." He inquired if installing new sewer systems would encourage higher density. Ms. Townsend explained that when you prepare a General Plan, you should take into account facilities, water, sewer, etc. and use those as some of the factors to classify land. Water and sewer districts extend sewers and water lines for various reasons to different facilities or homeowners. It doesn't mean that the County is going to use that as the primary reason to add more land in an urban classification just because there is water and sewer available. She noted that once the Board of Supervisors approves the document and agrees that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is necessary the County would approach the City to adopt similar guidelines to the City's General Plan so that it would be consistent with that of the County. Councilmember Larson explained that at the environmental review of the County document, if lighting were an environmental issue and could not be fully addressed because the City had no such policy, it would benefit the EIR process for the City to adopt that portion of the UVAP. Councilmember Baldwin expressed his concern that water districts are taking action with no attention to the general planning process and they don't consider the impacts of their actions. Ms. Townsend explained that the issue might concern LAFCO's annexation laws. 1 NEW BUSINESS Award of Bid to Rainbow Construction for Construction of the Civic Center Addition in the Amount of $979,800 Community Services Director DeKnoblough advised that on April 25, 2002, staff issued a Notice to Bidder for construction of the addition to the Civic Center. In response to that Notice, bids were received from Rainbow Construction in the amount of $979,800, and from Cupples Construction in the amount of $992,569. The architect's estimate was $850,000. Several issues were raised during the bid process and the City Attorney has reviewed some of the complaints that were submitted. A second letter was received from Cupples Construction's legal representative. City Attorney Rapport explained that some bid protests have been filed from both contractors and most of the focus concerns subcontractors. Additionally, Cupples Construction alleges that Rainbow Construction did not follow one of the instructions in the bid documents to keep the bid package intact and only use City forms in preparing their bid. It is his understanding that Cupples is complaining that the roofing subcontractor that was listed by Rainbow Construction is both unlicensed and is not certified by the roofing manufacturer as qualified to install the roofing system that was Regular 'Meeting June 5, 2002 Page 11 of 15 identified in the bid specifications (specs). It is his understanding that neither contractor included that background information with their bids concerning the roofing subcontractor. Since the bids were opened, Cupples Construction has submitted information demonstrating that their subcontractor is qualified and purports to establish that the manufacturer did not certify Rainbow Construction's roofing subcontractor. It is his understanding that City Staff contacted the manufacturer and was told over the phone that the Rainbow Construction's roofing subcontractor was certified. He explained that Rainbow Construction complained that Cupples Construction's application didn't comply with the bid specs because it didn't identify the trade for each subcontractor that was listed in its bid. Both the Public Contract's Code and the Bid Specs require that be done. Mayor Ashiku inquired if Rainbow Construction has submitted a written complaint. Director DeKnoblough explained that staff only received a verbal complaint. City Attorney Rapport explained that he' reviewed Cupples Construction's bid and noted that they didn't specify the trades for each subcontractor as is required in the bid and the Code. Mayor Ashiku was of the opinion that he would like to review the issues and bring the matter back for further discussion at the next Council meeting. City Attorney Rapport noted that the bids were opened on May 22 and are good for 30days. Discussion followed concerning Council's options and requested Rainbow Construction submit information, in writing, concerning their complaints concerning Cupples Construction's bid. This would allow the City Attorney some basis in which to formulate an opinion for the record. Ginevra Chandler, attorney representing Cupples Construction on the matter, advised that they checked the State Contractor's Board today and it has the same information, noting that the license has expired for the roofing contractor. They believe that Rainbow Construction is not compliant either with State law or the bid package. She noted her conversation with the roofing company concerning a particular contractor. She felt that these are issues that rise to the level of not be responsive to a bid and felt it would be appropriate for the City Council to reject Rainbow Construction's bid on that basis. Peter Richardson, president of Rainbow Construction, felt his firm complied with this spec because they photocopied the document without removing it from the bound document, and turned in their bid on that photocopy. He cited the Public Contract Code section 4104. He noted that in the specification book only Section A was listed, however, all sections should have been listed. He felt his firm's bid is completely responsive and cannot be disqualified for any material reason. Regular Meeting June 5, 2002 Page 12 of 15 City Attorney Rapport requested that Rainbow Construction submit something in writing as soon as possible so that he would have a chance to review it before the next meeting. Mr. Richardson responded by saying he would try to provide something to the City by next Monday. He referred to the roofing section 7533, and discussed the type of roofing materials suggested by the City. Paul Anderson, Ukiah, recommended that Council not build the addition to the Civic Center and that those funds be used elsewhere, such as to pay the utility debt or for bike paths. Councilmember Baldwin inquired if there are any local zoning laws that require there be no violations against the contractor hired by the City. City Attorney Rapport advised that there is no relation between violation of zoning laws and criteria for award of the bid. Councilmember Libby inquired as to why the bids submitted are higher than the architect's estimate of $850,000, which Director DeKnoblough explained in detail. It was the consensus of Council to continue the matter to the next meeting. 9. NEW BUSINESS 9f. Discussion and Possible Action Concerning July 3, 2002 City Council Meeting City Manager Horsley advised that the first City Council meeting in July is scheduled for the evening of July 3rd, the night before the Fourth of July holiday. Staff has determined that there are no crucial items to bring forward at that meeting, and is asking for Council's approval to cancel the July 3rd Council meeting. Consensus of Council was to cancel the July 3, 2002 City Council meeting. 9, NEW BUSINESS Discussion of Possible Ballot Measures for the November 2002 Election City Manager Horsley advised that Council has discussed and considered several issues for possible inclusion on the November 2002 ballot, but there has not been a decision by Council. A brief discussion was had concerning the matter. Councilmember Libby advised she would tike to see some things on the ballot in order obtain the public's views. One item concerns what the public would prefer as far as the procedures for filling vacancies on City boards and commissions. The present resolution was amended, and now applicants need not submit completed applications, which it are voluntary, answering questions is voluntary, the application is completed if it is just signed, interviews are voluntary, and term limits have been abolished. Regular Meeting June 5, 2002 Page 13 of 15 Councilmember Baldwin explained that when several other measures were suggested to go before the voters, Councilmember Libby's complaint concerned the cost to the taxpayers of putting measures on the ballot. He has not heard any concern for the issues she has brought forth. Councilmember Larson noted that the voters elect Councilmembers, and the previous ballot measures were intended to ascertain the public's views and required voter approval. Ultimately, the public elects the City Council to make the policies for how the City will operate, including how we will implement committees and volunteers. Mayor Ashiku agreed with Councilmember Larson's views concerning the matter. Councilmember Libby commented that in the last election the public made very clear what it felt about term limits and then Council did the opposite as far as term limits for boards and commissions. Mayor Ashiku inquired if the issues related to terms of boards and commissions were presented to state voters or city voters? He did not recall that issue being on the ballot two years ago. Councilmember Libby stated that a second item she would like to see on the ballot is what the voters think, should a change be needed on a board or commission regarding whether it should be a four-fifths vote or a three-fifths vote. Discussion continued with regard to Councilmember Libby's recommendations which received no support from Council. City Manager Horsley advised that she received an update from MCOG today with regard to an urgency measure for an increase in sales tax for road improvements. Assemblywoman Strom-Martin will not place the measure on the November ballot. In March 2003, the City of Willits will be including a measure in their election. It was the Consensus of Council, with the exception of Councilmember Libby, that the City not present ballot measures to the voters at the November 2002 election. 9. NEW BUSINESS 9h. Consideration and Adoption of Resolution Approving Memorandum of Understanding for Eml~loyee Bargaining Unit- Fire Unit No action taken. 11. COUNCIL REPORTS None. 12. CITY MANAGER/CITY CLERK REPORTS City Manager Horsley reported that the City received an invitation to a catered lunch on June 8~h, sponsored by Rural Communities Housing Development Corporation (RCHDC) in celebration of Doolin Creek & Creek Court and the dedication of trees to the City of Ukiah. Regular Meeting June 5, 2002 Page 14 of 15 She drew attention to an article concerning "roundabouts" which are a form of traffic calming. There is a firm willing to provide the City with a demonstration. She reported that at the recent LAFCO meeting, Lee Howard made some comments regarding water issues. She provided Council with a copy of her letter of response that requested their attorney clarify the discussion with the City's attorney. The matter was clarified that they were discussing sharing water, not the taking of water. Recessed: 9:20 p.m. Adjourned to Closed Session: 9:25 p.m. 13. CLOSED SESSION a. Conference with Labor Negotiator G.C. §54957.6 City Designated Representative' Candace Horsley, City Manager Employee Organization: Fire Unit No action taken. *b. No action Conference with Leqal Counsel G.C. §54956.9(a) - Existin_¢;I Litigation Name of Case' Shoemaker v. City of Ukiah, Mendocino County Superior Court Case No. SCUK-CVG 00-83789 taken. el No action Conference with Legal Counsel- G. C. §54956.9(a)- Existing Liticjation -- Name of Case: Ruelle v. City of Ukiah Case No. SCUK-CVCV 00-83733 taken. 14. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the City Council meeting was adjourned at 10:35 p.m. Marie Ulvila, City Clerk Regular Meeting June 5, 2002 Page 15 of 15