Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-01-16 PacketITEM NO. 6:00 pm- 6:30 pm DATE: January 16, 2002 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: SPECIAL PRESENTATION BY GENERAL MANAGER OF THE REDWOOD EMPIRE MUNICIPAL INSURANCE FUND (REMIF) Jeff Davis, General Manager for the Redwood Empire Municipal Insurance Fund (REMIF), will be presenting information regarding REMIF's annual report to the City Council. This will also provide an opportunity for Councilmembers to ask questions of Mr. Davis on any of the various programs the City participates in through REMIF for insurance liability protection. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive presentation and participate in dialog with Mr. Davis regarding City's insurance program through REMIF. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. N/A Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Attachments: N/A Candace Horsley, City Manager Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Memorandum from Jeff Davis Candace Horsley, City Manag~ 4/Can. ASRRemif. 102 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MAYOR ASHIKU AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL JEFFREY J. DAVIS, GENERAL MANA~ JANUARY 16, 2002 CITY'S MEMBERSHIP IN THE REDWOOD EMPIRE MUNICIPAL INSURANCE FUND {REMIF) OF UKIAH I wish to thank the city council for giving me time to discuss your city's membership in the Redwood Empire Municipal Insurance Fund (REMIF). We have all been profoundly affected by the events of September 11, 2001. Once the emotional affects of the human tragedy and the personal feelings are sorted out, the financial af[ermath of such a tragedy begins to raise its ugly head. The mind once again is numbed by the numbers that are being discussed regarding the human and material losses. Each week when I review the various insurance periodicals, the numbers change, never for the better, always for the worse. In terms of the human element, numbers like $2-5 billion in the workers' comp appear on a regular basis. In terms of property losses, numbers in the area $30-50 billion appear to be the range. In terms of ancillary losses, such as lost business, $30-50 billion appear as a possible loss range. As a result, our unshaken belief in the insurance industry is now questioned. Some very basic questions arise as to whether or not the insurance companies can weather this storm; and if so, what will be the costs in the future. This all comes down to the local, city level and decisions that were made by you and your predecessors years ago. Your city's decision to pool your resources, to belong to a joint powers authority that handles your claims, loss coverage, risk management, safety oversight and training, and risk transference remains very timely and very wise. As I have told city councils in the past, and I will tell you again, you are self-insured (uninsured) in the two big areas that count, workers' compensation and general/automobile liability. As a result, there will be some minor cost fluctuations to our program in spite of the fact that we are uninsured, but we will not feel the main affects that will be experienced by the insured community at large. Your decision to get out of the cyclical worm of insurance and to self insure your major losses remains one of the best, basic decisions, your city made and will remain so for years to come. My short oral presentation will briefly highlight REMIF and your part in the organization. I have attached some fact sheets that you may find useful in understanding what a risk sharing JPA is and the benefits it has to your city. As I go through the presentation, please feel free to interrupt and ask questions. JJD:dd Attachments ~DWOOD EMPmE MU~C~?AL r~StmANCE FUND (AN OVE~VmW) HISTORY: Created in 1976 (15 current participants) · Response to enabling Legislation and Tight Insurance Market · Seven Members Cloverdale Cotati Healdsburg Rohnert Park Sebastopol Sonoma Ukiah · Nine Associate Members Arcata Crescent City (expelled 6/93) Eureka Fort Bragg Fortuna Lakeport St. Helena Willits Windsor Workers' Compensation Successful Expanded to all lines of coverage in 1978 Risk management Claims handling · Crisis//2- 1986 Insurance Industry abandons cities Co-created CJPRMA $2-4 billion away from insurance companies Funding · Self funded (REMIF) $500,000 deductible for general/auto liability $300,000 deductible for workers' compensation $25,000 deductible for property Actuarially determined rate each year 75% confidence level Minimum funding level Experience modification Self funded (CJPRMA) $10,000,000 coverage, no insurance (1986-1998) $15,000,000 coverage, re-insurance (1998 - Present) Premium based on payroll Stockholders versus Insureds · REMIF cities are the stockholders REMIF refunds (last 5 years experience) CJPRMA refunds · Why we want to be stockholders Proactive (skateboard parks) Set own fate CASA Formulate own claims handling process Sensitivity to city' s needs Look for coverage versus denying for the good of the "company" Coverages Services Conclusions $$ BOTTOM LINE $$ How does being a member of REMIF financially benefit the CITY OF UKIAH FIVE YEAR PERIOD (FY 95-96 thru FY 99-00) Workers' Compensation Refunds $1,353,043 Percent of Premium 158% General/Auto Liability Refunds $848,205 Percent of Premium 75% FY 2000-2001 DECLARED REFUND TOTALS FOR ALL ELIGIBLE REMIF CITIES Workers' Compensation General/Auto Liability $ 313,514 $1,015,620 How does being a member of CJPRMA financially benefit REMIF and, in turn, the CITY OF UKIAH FIFTEEN YEAR PERIOD £FY 86-87 thru FY 00-01) REMIF'S GENERAL/AUTO LIABILITY REFUNDS $3,385,799 PERCENT OF REMIF'S TOTAL PREMIUMS 46.8% DECLARED CJPRMA REFUNDS EFFECTIVE 6/30/01 $331,000 Our philosophy is to encourage REMIF and entity staff to anticipate, react, and handle issues in order to avoid negative financial surprises. CITY OF UKIAH INSURANCE COVERAGE AS OF JULY 1, 2001 COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL AND AUTO LIABILITY COVERAGE: Self-insured through Redwood Empire Municipal Insurance Fund for $500,000 Self-insurance and re-insurance through the California Joint Powers Risk Managemem Authority for $14,500,000 xs $500,000. (Through 11/16/01). $24,500,000 xs $500,000 effective 11/16/01 through June 30, 2002. Deductible: $25,000 WORKERS' COMPENSATION COVERAGE: Self-insured through Redwood Empire Municipal Insurance Fund for $300,000. Excess Carder: United States Fidelity & Guaranty - Statutory xs $300,000 Deductible: $10,000 PROPERTY COVERAGE: Self-insured through Redwood Empire Municipal Insurance Fund for $25,000. Two commercial carriers for coverage of $300,000,000 in excess of $25,000 (excluding flood and earthquake). Deductible: $10,000 FIDELITY INSURANCE Public Employee Dishonesty/Faithful Performance/Depositors' Forgery Bond. Excess Carrier: The Fidelity and Deposit Companies; Public Employee Dishonesty/Depositors' Forgery Bond $2,000,000 xs. $25,000 and Faithful Performance $1,000,000 x $10,000. Deductible: $25,000 BOILER/MACHINERY COVERAGE: Excess Carrier: The Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company $20,000,000 xs. $1,000 per accident Deductible: $1,000 AUTO PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE: Excess Carrier: Fireman's Fund $1,485,000 xs. $15,000 Deductible: $10,000 USAIG NON-OWNED AIRCRAFT COVERAGE: $5,000,000 including personal injury each occurrence/aggregate and $3,000 medical coverage each person. Aircraft seating is limited to sixty (60) seats including crew members. No S.I.R. Deductible: None EARTHQUAKE AND FLOOD COVERAGE: Royal Indemnity; RLI; Greenwich Ins. Co. and Agricultural Ins. Co. $25,000,000 any one loss occurrence; $25,000,000 annual aggregate. Deductible: $25,000 or 5% of value of building. As a means to maintain low cash payment rates, to protect the city and public, and to handle claims when losses do occur, REMIF provides a whole host of services to the p~tidpating cities. The following is a highlighted list of the maior services provided: Employee Assistance Program (confidential) available to all employees and their dependents; · investigation and claims handling of workers compensation claims; early investigation and d~ims handling, on a regional basis, of General/Auto Liability, Property and Auto Physical claims; · maintenance of health, dental, life insurance, and vision care coverage programs, through self insurance and group purchasing; tr~i~g for line, supervisory, and administrative city staff in the areas of loss prevention, risk management and general safety; maintenance and coordination of the mandatory Department of Transportation drug and alcohol testing, education and rehabilitation program for covered employees; consultation on an in-house and contract basis for risk management, personnel, safety, and loss prevention areas of concern; · resource for the cities when unusual or specialized insurance is needed on an individual city basis; city staff training and education through membership in state and national risk management assodafions; legislative advocacy of city and JPA 'needs through efforts with the California Association of Joint Powers Authority (CAJPA); · resource and training provider for the risk transference program including issuance of certificates and endorsements; ske inspection when unusual, new, or potentially dangerous property conditions present themselves; · ~nnual police chief training for spedal police risks; · representation for the cities on the excess coverage JPA (CJRMA) board of directors; · annual city manager tra~rdng meeting; · video library and safety manuals for city staff training purposes; · magic kingdom cards; · maintenance of Auto Physical Damage, Property Boiler and Machinery, Earthquake/Flood, Underground Storage coverages; · coordination and control of litigation between ciries and I~IVflF legal staff. As with any coverage/insurance program, not everything is covered by the JPA/insur&nce company. In addition, some actions are not insurable by law. In those cases where it appears a hwsuit may not be covered by REMIF, before 1LEMIF denies coverage on the matter, a coverage attorney reviews the hWsuit to determine if any coverage exists. Only when the attorney determines no coverage exists for both defense and indemnification does 1LEMIF deny coverage and return the matter to the city to be handled by the city attorney. The following list provides examples of the types of lawsuits that REMIF would not handle. The list is not exhaustive and each case where there may be a question of coverage is reviewed on ks merits. The specific exclusions of coverage are reviewed anm~,lly by the ILEMIF Board of Directors and provided to each city: · Intentional conduct by employees or elected officials with the willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others or with malice; · Punitive damages; · Acts of harassment, sexual harassment, or intentional infliction of emotional distress by an elected official (815.3 G.C.); · Inverse condemnation; · Long-term pollution; · Ownership and maintenance of an airport; · Land use regulation or planning, eminent domain or condemnation procee~t~t~gs; · t~e~mds or restitution, o£ taxes, £ees, o~ zssessmentsi Cost of accommodations requited under ADA, FEI-LA, o~ similar laws; Medical malpractice by health ca~e providers as defined in the B & P code. ITEM NO. 3a DATE: January 16, 2002 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: PRESENTATION BY PAULA WHEALEN REGARDING WATER HYDROLOGY STUDIES AND WATER ISSUES Paula Whealen has been working with the City of Ukiah and our Water Rights Specialist Attorney, Gary Weatherford. Her area of expertise is water rights and she works very closely with the State Water Quality Control Board. I have asked Paula to present the City Council some background on the current water issues within the Ukiah Valley and to describe the importance of hydrology studies for determining accurate use of water by the valley's residents and agencies. Her associate, Nicholas Bonsignore, will present the hydrology information. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive presentation by Paula Whealen ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. N/A Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Attachments: N/A Candace Horsley, City Manager Candace Horsley, City Manager APPROVED:~ ..~ !,~~ 4/Can. ASRWater. 102 Candace Horsley, Cit~)~Manager ~d~o~ F. ~, PZ ~obert C. ~, p.E. XV_agn. erSd3onsign, ore Consultin~ Civil Engineers, A Corporation Company Profile The firm of Wagner & Bonsignore Consulting Civil Engineers has extensive experience in the field of general civil engineering and consulting services related to water resources management and water fight analysis. The firm's areas of expertise include regulatory permit administration, hydrologic studies, groundwater and surface water adjudications, general engineering design of water storage and conveyance facilities, and litigation support. Robert C. Wagner, P.E. - Principal Water Resources Engineer Mr. Wagner is a registered civil engineer specializing in water resource management, water right analysis, watermaster services, administration of court judgements, litigation consultation, hydrologic analysis and general civil engineering services. Since 1991 Mr. Wagner has continuously supervised the collection and analysis of data for the Mojave Basin Area Adjudication and currently serves in the capacity of Engineer for the Mojave Basin Area Watermaster. Mr. Wagner regularly speaks to various groups in connection with water resources and adjudication of water rights in California. Paula J. Whealen - Principal Water Right Specialist Ms. Whealen's practice includes extensive work in water resources management, water right analysis, acquisition and administration, and litigation support. Her experience includes consulting services regarding riparian land studies, project permitting requirements and compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and Federal Endangered Species Act. Most recently she coordinated the compilation of water production and use data for over 100 producers in the Dry Creek Valley and is currently facilitating a water use agreement with the Sonoma County Water Agency. Ms. Whealen regularly speaks to various groups in connection with water rights in California. Nicholas F. Bonsignore, P.E. - Principal Design Engineer Mr. Bonsignore is a registered civil engineer and the firm's principal design engineer for water storage and conveyance systems. His practice also includes hydrology studies, water availability and flood impact analyses, water right acquisition and litigation consultation. Mr. Bonsignore has designed and supervised the construction of over 20 earthen dams under the jurisdiction of the California Division of Safety of Dams. Monique Robbins, P.E. - Associate Engineer Ms. Robbins is a graduate of Brigham Young University with a degree in Civil Engineering, and has four years of experience in water resource management in Utah and California. Her experience includes hydrology studies, municipal water rate studies and financial planning, water availability studies, and water right acquisition. Ryan Stolfus, Water Resource Technician Mr. Stolfus is a graduate of Califomia State University, Sacramento and has worked extensively on the Mojave River having been responsible for data management of 1600 individual wells and 500 producers. Mr. Stolfus is experienced with field investigations for data collection for water production analysis and party identification for water right adjudications. Mr. Stolfus's background includes compilation of well drillers records, water production reports, energy consumption records and land use assessment. In addition to his work on the Mojave River, Mr. Stolfus was responsible for data collection for this firm's work on the Dry Creek project in Sonoma County. _XVOgn. erScB onsi , ore Consultin[~ Civil Engrineers~ A Corporation Pobert C. ~, P.E. Paula J. ~healen W_agn. erSd3onsignore Consultin[~ Civil En[lineors, A Corporation PAULA J. WHEALEN PROFESSIONAL RESUME EDUCATION: B.S. Accountancy -Califomia State University, Sacramento EXPERIENCE: Wagner & Bonsignore, Consulting Civil Engineers, A Corporation - Sacramento, California Principal- April 1998 to Present Water resources management, including water right analysis, acquisition and defense, and litigation support. Consulting services regarding compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and Federal Endangered Species Act. Represent private and public sector clients in all aspects of water resources management with regard to appropriative water rights pursuant to the Califomia Code of Regulations, Title 23, Waters, and analysis of riparian rights. Expert witness in connection with water right matters on behalf of various clients in Court and before the State Water Resources Control Board. Represent clients before various public agencies including the Department of Fish and Game, Regional Water Quality Control Board, National Marine Fisheries Services, and County departments in connection with environmental review. James C. Hanson, Consulting Civil Engineer, A Corporation - Sacramento, California Senior Water Right Consultant - April 1980 to April 1998 Water right acquisition and defense, and analysis of riparian and appropriative rights for various clients. Preparation of applications, petitions and supporting documentation to the State Water Resources Control Board for appropriation of water and/or changes to existing rights, coordination of sub-consultants for preparation of environmental documents. Jorgensen - Tolladay Engineers and Surveyors - Modesto, California Engineering Technician- May 1978 to April 1980 Design and preparation of tentative and final maps for various types of land divisions and improvements in compliance with County and State requirements. RECENT EXPERIENCE INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING: Senior water right consultant on behalf of Sonoma County Water Agency in connection with development of agricultural reuse project for use of treated wastewater in the Alexander and Russian River Valleys. Senior water right consultant for coordination of the compilation of water production and use data for over 100 producers in the Dry Creek Valley in Sonoma County to facilitate a water use agreement with the Sonoma County Water Agency. Senior water right consultant for Wells Fargo Bank in connection with the analysis of water rights on the Kern River. Senior water right consultant in connection with work for Hidden Valley Lake Community Services District, Lake County, regarding continuing monitoring and annual reporting on the Coyote Valley groundwater basin in connection with administration of water rights. Water right consultant for over twenty landowners in connection with the Upper Putah Creek Watershed Adjudication, Solano Irrigation District, et al, vs. Upstream Water Right Holders in Upper Putah Creek. Participant in meetings of the Upstream Settlement Committee formed to negotiate and draft the Condition 12 Settlement Agreement. Preparation of technical data for use by the Committee to develop settlement agreement. CONTINUING EDUCATION "California Water Law", University of California, Davis - November 1989 to January 1990 "California Environmental Quality Act Update", University of California, Davis - February 1992 "Understanding Wetlands and 404 Permitting - A Process in Transition", American Society of Civil Engineers- January 1997 _w4gn.. erSd3onsi .ore Consultinlt Civil En~neors~ A Corporation Wa erSdBonsignore Co'fi~ultin8 Civil Ent~ineers, A Corporation NICHOLAS F. BONSIGNORE PROFESSIONAL RESUME REGISTRATION: Civil Engineer, California (Lic. No. 39422) EDUCATION: B.S. Civil Engineering - University of the Pacific - 1982 EXPERIENCE: Wagner & Bonsignore, Consulting Civil Engineers, A Corporation - Sacramento, California Principal- April 1998 to Present Design of water storage and conveyance facilities including pipelines, pump stations and reservoirs. Design of drip irrigation and overhead sprinkler systems for vineyard development. Preparation of erosion control plans and surface water drainage facilities for vineyard development. Acquisition and administration of appropriative water rights pursuant to Title 23 of the Califomia Code of Regulations. Prepared water right applications and interfaced with the State Water Resources Control Board to obtain permits. Coordinated preparation of supporting environmental documentation to address Califomia Environmental Quality Act requirements. Hydrologic analyses in connection with water availability studies and water diversion projects. James C. Hanson, Consulting Civil Engineer, A Corporation - Sacramento, California Senior Engineer - June 1982 to April 1985, April 1986 to April 1998 Analyzed and designed embankment dams under jurisdiction of the California Division of Safety of Dams. Projects included new dams as well as alteration and rehabilitation of existing dams. Performed embankment stability analyses on homogeneous and zoned embankments, and hydrologic and hydraulic analyses in connection with design of spillways and other hydraulic structures. Analyzed and designed non-jurisdictional dams and ponds under county regulation. Analyzed and designed water supply and transmission facilities including pipelines and pumps (both electric motor and diesel engine driven). Resident engineer on dam construction projects. Responsibilities included contract management, inspection and quality control, supervision of surveyors and soils technicians, and interfacing with State inspectors. Individual project construction costs range to $1.5 million. Brown and Caldwell, Consulting Engineers - Sacramento, California Associate Engineer- May 1985 to March 1986 Designed improvements to waste water treatment plants; wrote proposals and planning reports. RECENT EXPERIENCE INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING: The Hess Collection Winery - Water Transmission Pump Station and Pipeline: Designed 6,500' long 18" diameter PVC pipeline and 300 HP diesel engine-driven pump station for transfer of water between reservoirs. Coordinated contractor selection and construction inspection for same. La Herradura Vineyards- Vineyard Development: Prepared erosion control plan and designed drip irrigation system, overhead sprinkler system, and pump station for 35 acre vineyard project. North Gualala Water Company - North Fork Gualala River Flow Study: Coordinated installation of temporary Parshall flumes in river channel for measurement of fluctuations in river flow due to nearby well pumping, analyzed data and prepared final report of findings. Juliana Mutual Water Company: Prepared Engineer's Report in accordance with State Department of Corporations Regulations for formation of agricultural mutual water company providing an annual water supply of up to 4,000 acre-feet. Assisted Water Company legal counsel with preparation of bylaws and offering circular. Kendall-Jackson - Water Storage Reservoir: Designed 150 acre-foot off-stream storage reservoir requiring about 160,000 cubic yards of compacted fill. Responsible for inspection and testing during construction. _w4gn.. erSd3onsi , ore Consultinl~ Civil En~ineorsr A Corporation CONTINUING EDUCATION "Vineyard Erosion and Sediment Control Workshop", San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board and other Agencies, June 2000 "Drip Irrigation and Water Management of Vines", University of Califomia, Davis Extension, February 2000 "Understanding Wetlands and 404 Permitting- A Process in Transition", American Society of Civil Engineers, January 1997 "Working to Save Lives - A Training Course on State of California Excavation Regulations",American Society of Civil Engineers, Sacramento Section, October 1996 "Pumping Station Design Workshop", Montana State University, March 1990 "Water Surface Profile Computation Using Computer Program HEC-2" on the IBM-PC, University of California, Davis Extension, September 1988 "Flood Plain Hydrology Using Computer Program HEC-1 on the IBM-PC", University of California, Davis Extension, April 1986 "Analysis and Applications of Open Channel and Pressure Flow Systems", Andrew J. Ranzieri, C.E., Instructor, Spring 1984 COMPUTER SKILLS: Experienced with MS-DOS, HEC1, HEC2, WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, Lotus 1-2-3, Excel, Windows, STABL PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS: American Society of Civil Engineers, Member presently serving as Chairman of the Sacramento Section Water Resources Technical Group, past Chairman of the Technical Activities Committee and the Engineering Education Committee Association of Califomia Water Agencies - Associate Member American Water Works Association OTHER SKILLS: Differential leveling, simple surveying, stream gaging; certified for use of nuclear soil density gages. 'ge4gn. erSd3onsi , ore Consultinlt Civil En$in~ers~ A Corporation ITEM NO. 3b DATE: January 16, 2002 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: PRESENTATION BY MENDO-LAKE PARENTS JOURNAL REGARDING THE FAMILY EXPO AND HOME SHOW Sharon Gowan, Publisher/Editor of the Mendo-Lake Parents Journal, requested an opportunity to make a presentation to the City Council regarding the upcoming Family Expo and Home Show. The annual event highlights children activities, programs, and organizations in Mendocino County. This year's event is scheduled for April 27 & 28 at the Redwood Empire Fairgrounds. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive presentation. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Sharon Gowan, Publisher/Editor of the Mendo-Lake Parents Journal Sage Sangiacomo, Community Services Supervisor Candace Horsley, City Manager and Larry W. DeKnoblough, Community Services Director None Candace Horsley, Cit~,~anager MINUTES OF THE UKIAH CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting Wednesday, December 5, 2001 The Ukiah City Council met at a Regular Meeting on December 5, 2001, which had been legally noticed and posted, at 6:30 p.m. in the Civic Chambers, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. Roll was taken a~ Councilmembers were present: Larson, Smith, Libby, Baldwin, (arrived at 7:40 p.m.). Staff present: Public Utilities Director B~ 4a following 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Councilmember Libby led the Pledge of Allegi! 3. INTRODUCTIONS 3a, Fire Department Career Employees Battalion Chief/Fire Marshal Yates introduced Fire De "B" shift of Mark Hilliker (Fire Ca n/Shift Commander for (Fire Apparatus Eng "Charlie" Miller Jonathan Lemke (Firefi Apperson 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4a. Regular Meeting of Octobl Councilmember Smith noted a typo! read "Discus: hatchery ;areer forthe Hamilton IParamedic), hter/Paramedic). on,~:~~, 11; the first paragraph should of the City owned property where the fish City the for cause him found would an~ "The a( Rapport changes to the minutes beginning with .~nce should read "Jim Ronco, title officer research and found some documents that that he is not sure if the documents that were This amendment incorporates sentences two and ad "The deeds and the documents that Mr. Behnke provided g the property. The seventh sentence should read he viewed showed that in 1897 the Crockets that owned the owns, granted the road right-of-way to the City and at the same time they g the ownership of the fish hatchery." The tenth sentence should read "There was e expression in that earlier deed that the use of the parcel is to be for a fish Jed a correction on page 5, third paragraph, the fourth sentence should what the City's liability would be, we would need to know what the character Regular Meeting December 5, 2001 Page ] of ]7 of the use was from 1930 to the early 1990's when the City again allowed that road to be gated." M/S Smith/Larson approving the minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 3, amended, carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Lars~ Libby, Vice-Mayor Baldwin. NOES: None. ABSENT: Mayor Ashiku. AB as 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4b. Re~lular Meeting of October 17, 2001 i: Vice-Mayor Baldwin recommended a correction on page 24, fifth ~agraph be~i~ing with "Councilmember Baldwin", the second sentence should .[~ad, "~ ~ted ther~:'i~ potential that the noise from off-road vehicles in the hills cou!di~,i~t the n'~borh--h-0~od ~ stated new noises are not addressed in the mitigation m~~ii i!::.:i:~:~: City Attorney Rapport recommended corrections sentence should read "There are restrictions development other than the five lots in the use the access road to other property and tfiis fa~ measures." The fifth sentence should read "Prob~ already in the permit process or those foreseeable projects process at some point in the future. CEQA requires such last sentences should be combi~ any probable future projects of a Cumulative Impact An~ le 23,::::third paragraph, the third: ~e Tent, Map prohibiting any having the right to resSed in the mitigation projects means projects stood tobe in the permit The "There has been nopresented that project. Gro~i~:~l~ducement is not part He also recommended corrections Rapport stated the intent of the modifying the to read, "City Attorney to p~nt the property owners from City Council approval." Vice-M; "Coun~ th de Inducement is not too on page 25, first sentence to read ~otographs demonstrate that the slopes of the City were generally the same slopes pts of Cumulative Impacts and Growth build elsewhere." Y RaPp~:,i~?co~mended"~,i:~i~i;~:~,_ corrections to page 27, fourth paragraph, the first sen' hould read~;~!~!i!~brney Rapport commented he is not prepared to, elaborate on the ~n propos~i',i~i~t stated based upon the distance from Mr. Ashiku s property to the sub,ropertyiii~re is little likelihood that his ~~ould have a financial impact on Mr. A property. The third sentence should read, "He stated the project is allowed under the c~i~ent zoning and the applicants are subdividing the property in accordance with the pre, ions outlined in the Subdivision Ordinance". The fourth sentence should ~ad owner, an exception would have to be granted for the road because it does not road width requirement". Regular Meeting December 5, 2001 Page 2 of ]7 He also recommended a correction to page 27, fifth paragraph beginning with "Mr. Stump", the second sentence should read "He noted there are several exceptions to the Subdivision Ordinance that make this project unique and he identified some of these exceptions." Councilmember Libby requested that she receive a copy of the minu~!?~ith'~ii corrections before they are posted on the City's Web site M/S Smith/Larson approving the minutes of the Regular Meeting of, ~er 1 ~!~ ~Q~, as amended, carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilme~S Larsoni'~'~b, Libby, Vice-Mayor Baldwin. NOES: None. ABSENT: Mayor Ashiku. ~AIN: NoPSi 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES .... ~,~i~,i::'~i i ?':"~'"ii?~i i:~,:~ 4c. ~ ~ ~-~ N--O-~-vember 7, 2001 ..................................... It was noted that the draft minutes of November 7, their next meeting. 5. RIGHT TO APPEAL DECISION Vice-Mayor Baldwin read the appeal process. presented to Council 6. CONSENT CALENDAR City Manager Horsley advised 6b be removed from the Con,, ;quest by the a ~nds item M/S Libby/Smith approving items a. Rejected Claim for Damages O. d, Ul Vice-Mayor as follows: and Referred to Joint Powers Authority, Redwood Em I Fund; Considered and~,,~,~ roved Revi~ to th~:':'Mendocino Count G Report andii~ii~i~:~,~the Mayor to :~cuteLetter of Response; y rand Jury Receiv~ i~:::~tificati°:~ii Council Reg~igg~quisition of Airport Entrance Directory Sigr Paramoai~i??Signs in the A~'~' of $9,654.45. AYES: Councilmembers Larson, Smith, Libby, SENT: Mayor Ashiku. ABSTAIN: None. ~cerning the removal of item 6b from the Consent Calendar. is being removed from the agenda. 7. Al S ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS No one to address Council. UNFI~i~HED BUSINESS of Ukiah Utilities Demand-side Energy Management Program ilities Director Barnes advised that the City Council recently approved using a Regular Meeting December 5, 2001 Page 3 of !7 portion of the Public Benefits Charge to fund demand-side energy management and new investments in renewable energy sources and technologies, in addition to increased funding for Ukiah C.A.R.E.S. At that time, Council requested that staff develop a program for the energy conservation portion of those funds in a manner that would consideration the customers ability to pay relative to the amount of rebatt conservation program. City Manager Horsley advised that the financial analysis on the C.A. R added as an informational item for Council and was based on the annual gross pay for single and married individuals. Staff plans to bi-annual discussion of the C.A.R.E.S. program. [m was an in March':'~Rh a ~ncome criteria with a maximum rebate per appl per customer service address of $600 for th~ second level of rebates would be available to all Uki~ lower rebate level of $100 maximum rebate per al customer service address of $300. Staff estimates th~ program would be approximately the rebate program. She explained that an a ~!er program. Every appliance dealer i~!!~iah the program, including local de~ notified. of Discussion considere~ for a si~ expl; sh~ encouraged. agreement wi1 $200~t~ili~.,~total maximum rebate the rebate. The utility customers but at a a total possible rebate per to~,~dminister this guidelines for :hat is~?iii~i~~g to participate in the asked to participate in systems will also be the prog~ an~:::~.it was noted that a landlord would be and there~e:.::~id only be allowed the maximum rebate :~ld, ~er than for ea~:!i:~:~i~ in an apartment complex. Staff further be st.ru~':red so that customers would be required to removed and not in use and recycling is at consideration should be given to making an dealers that they not attempt to resell the old appliance. ~mber Lil if the program would include rebates to commercial units for su( s as wat~ or weather stripping. In respons~?' ~:ian inquiry by Councilmember Libby with regard to rebates for commercial users, Ms. B~k explained that it was her understanding that the City Council requested a residential program, however, a commercial rebate program could be developed. prop Council is for residential units only. followed concerning the program and it was the consensus of Council that the Regular Meeting December 5, 2001 Page 4 of ]7 program specifies that it pertain to an "Ukiah residential utility customers with an active residential utility account." There was a brief discussion concerning expanding the program to include both residential and commercial customers, however, it was noted that there is a limited amount of funds available, and Council's priority concern should be the residential units. M/S Smith/Smith adopting Ukiah Utilities Demand-side Energy Manag~ ram, with the amendment to Section D, Energy Efficiency Program Gui~ the requirement for proof that the old appliance has been decommi,, Councilmember Libby commented that she had hoped there would~'~i~:aconsen~~':~f Council to expand the program to all utility customers becau~?,~eY are ali'::~ing the sa~ rates. Discussion of the matter continued. Councilmember Larson felt Council should Io~i~;?'~S'::~:~':~::~"'~"~:::" to assi~"~all businesses with a rebate program or conse~ation incentives. Councilmember Libby requested that in March, s~'~ B[ovide Council with a recommendation for allocating additional funds from Public::':'~efits ~?,a similar type program for businesses. :~:::.~?¢~ ~ ~?~;;~:::;~:~::~ ........ ':~:'::~:~::~:: ~ ?: Vice-Mayor Baldwin stated~~ like'~:~~D ~9.f the mo~:go toward making the Motion carried by the following roll Cou~i~embers~ Larson, Smith, Libby, and Vice-Baldwi None. Mayor Ashiku. ABSTAIN: None. Sa. to Dern°ii i :'hree Structures Over 50 Years Olri Road ~ii!i?~''' ..... 7:11 herself from the meeting concerning this matter be~ is w :~00 feet of the project. ~i~ni:ng Direct°?':~:~mp reported that the owner of the property located at 509 Low Gap ~::~ ~: applied {~ ~~lition Permit to demolish three structures on the site. Demoli~;~ ef the struc~;;~:is necessary as the first step in developing the site with an apa~men:{~:~plex c~i~iona~y approved by the City Council in 1999. On November 7, 2001, the ~ Demolition Permit Review CommiEee considered the application and unanimousl~ ~0und that none of the criteria in the UMC applied, and therefore the structures ~ ~ot historically or architecturally significant. g Opened: 7:18 p.m. Regular Meeting December 5, 2001 Page 5 of ]7 No comments received. Public Hearing Closed' 7:18 p.m. M/S Smith/Larson approving the Demolition Permit for the three structures Vice-Mayor Baldwin explained that he noticed in the report from the B~i~ii~i~n,~,~:.Permit Review Committee that it was stated that the matter would come~,,~e cO"~i~iiiiii~as a Mr. Stump explained that the UMC was amended recently theti?~anged t:~i~Provision a~ M/S Smith/Larson amending the motion that it be structures have historical or architectural sic Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: C Mayor Baldwin. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilm~ ABSTAIN' None. 7:20 p.m.- Councilmember Li on the findings that none of the!!? Larson, Smith, Vice- and Mayor Ashiku. ,ed to the meeting. Fei,, 8b. Acceptance of Final Re of Ukiah's Community Development Block Planning/Technical : Development for Revolving Low Fund and;,.~~ Business PI 899-EDBG-65R - Assistant Ci:t~ ~~ i:,Fierro advise( Ci~::was awarded ~ grant for $35,000 (#99- EDBG-658)ii~'~ the ~: of California: ~ity Development Block Grant (CDBG) progra~:~:;:~:~:~°nduct a st~to research UE~?~usiness climate given the recent decline of th e::~.~i~[ ~ i n d u stw. Wes I~in, with Development Economics (ADE), explained that in 1999 ADE City in obtaining a Planning and Technical Assistance Grant. The the~::~¥~ of: =~:~ updating economic and demographic information for the nend ~ ~~1 aEraction strategy for the Ci~ to implement, 3) a ~volving loan study ne~ ~sessment, and 4) an analysis of the City acquired Langley prope~y" I ed at th~:Uthern end of Airpo~ Park Boulevard that consists of 19 acres. He noted th~t?~the City applied for, and received, the augmentation to its revolving loan program. Th;,~e was analysis of the Langley prope~y and it was found to have 8.8 acres of buildable laD~ for industrial and commercial u~es. The prope~y currently does not have '::infrastruct~e ~o se~e the parcels and it is ADE s estimation that improvements to the site $1.1 million, in addition to soil work that may be needed. The prope~y in unimproved state is probably wo~h $700,00 to $800,000. If it were improved, it Regular Meeting December 5, 2001 Page d of !7 would probably be worth $2 to $3 million. It is ADE's recommendation that the City market the property in conjunction with the development now going on at Airport Park Boulevard and not limit development to industrial but allow commercial and other types of uses consistent with how that area is currently being developed. P rk" ' Vice-Mayor Baldwin noted that ADE uses the term "Airport Business a and A~rpo~ Industrial Park" interchangeably and inquired why. The same applies to uses for the property of commercial and industrial and he was unsure if th~ Mr. Irvin advised that it could be assumed that the titles are interchangeable. Public Hearing Opened: 7:25 p.m. .~,~:,~i~?~i ::?'~ii~' ii Judy Pruden, Ukiah, stated that the C~ty s document ~S.:~'good ~ is money well spent, She recommended Council accept the document Public Hearing Closed: 7:27 p.m. =~i:=iiiii:~ ~?~iiiiii~;~=== ..... M/S Larson/Libby accepting the Feasibility Study for ~!~'~ing Loan Fund and Airport Business Plan that was authored by Applied Development ~9~rnics, a~:=formally close out CDBG Grant 399-EDBG-658; by an all AYE voiC~i~i by;~Uncilmembers present, with Mayor Ashiku abc, 8. PUBLIC HEARING 8c. Acceptance of Final Re of Ukiah's Community Development Block Grant Technical Assistance Pro Assistant Develo Ass( Planning/ -- Hotel se Study, Grant #00-EDBG- Fierro ad~'~i~d that employees of the firm of Applied ,DE), who c~! the study, and Mogavero Nodestine architect~.~al firm that work~ ~i~h ADE on this project, would provide an Wes Irvin, with Project Manager on this project, explained that ADE came bef°:~i~uncil.::~,~:: ~,,;,~;,~,~:~. in April 2001 and presented their Demand Analysis and provided of?~'!!t~i[: co~!usion through a slide presentation of their scope of work. ~:ii?~i e ~ed back~:~diii~ormation on the Palace Hotel, record measurements and drawin'~ ~re taken, ~~ral Building Code and compliance review was made that included ~eys insid~d outside the structure, they studied the options for reuse that included in{~ews with community members, and develop design alternatives and the costs associ~d with the renovation, developed an implementation plan and final repo~. This project~.:~ ~:~ not include any detailed or destructive testing for structural and seismic ~nalysis d~;~to lack of money in their budget. However, a structural assessment was :~: ?~?~mple~ ~ 1999 that was useful in the preparation of this repo~. Regular Meeting December 5, 2001 Page 7 of 17 He advised that the City has applied for and received a grant for $20,000 under the Downtown Rebound Program in order to complete a more detailed seismic analysis of the structure and it should be completed early next year. Key factors in deciding the options for reuse would be the demand for the use, the size and condition, parking requirements, the compatibility of that use with th, ........................... its existing configuration, and the consistency of that use with City ectivesl'~ The potential reuse options that they concentrated on were hour' floor commercial use. The building consists of approximately 60,000 sq. and as such, there was not enough demand for a single use to recommended a multi-use design, which would include marke~.~.rate service restaurant, selected areas of specialty retail on boutique hotel geared towards sophisticated business an business interests. He noted that since the building possible to incorporate into this mix ii%!?'::'~ .... Jeff Lehigh, employed with the firm of Mc firm worked on the plan, obtain as-built conceptual reuse plan for the building. Through the use nd entir~ site, parking was not ~,~,;;;~!;?iiii!!?i!?; and offices for he presented visuals of the floor plans. The project would be constructed in four:::~ses, with, the restaurant, seismic, and code requirements bei accomplished in the fir~!:'~e..: :.~:'second phase would include the boutique :hird phase would b~':~::~i~ ~:~sing. The final phase would be the tenant im Idout for retail sP~" ~n the ground floor. Councilmember Libby inqU'~i::~ed a~ii~::~,the Ioc~ the structure. Mr. Lehigh explained that the buildi~:~i~::'::"~~"':'~::~"Up the e~ii~ lot and therefore the parking would need to be::a ~sed separatel~i ~?':~'~ost likely ~uld consist of on-street parking, rented parkin:gi,~i~i"ii"~~y parking Iots?!~he q,wner would need to acquire a site nearby or create a~:~:'i~ng lot. 'i'~ ~sponse to a q~ti.~ ~Om the audience regarding whether the housing~id be Iow-in~e or up-scale ~::ing, he responded that they looked at the dema~i~i~,:.availabili~ ~,~!~:w-i~comeh~i~ing, and it was concluded that there is no sho~~e ~ii~incQ::~ ~i~ ~ii~k~?: A member of the consultant team advised that they felt it im~:~ ~:~t all of tt~'":'~'::~:~:'~i~ithin the hotel be compatible with each other and felt that Iow-inc~'~ housing with an upscale hotel and restaurant would not be compatible. ::?~ ?:::'i:~: ~:~:'i~' ~i~i~,:,- Mayor ~iku:,i'?i~ived at the meeting. Mr. Lehi~:~i ~plained ~i~"ihey assessed the feasibility of renovation and determined that the cost w°'~:be apprOximately $4.5 million, of which $1.5 million includes seismic and retrofitting t~ would need to occur at the beginning of the process. He felt it is a risky commercial,'~i~estment from a private standpoint and public subsidies would be important. cost.::/~?:demolish the Palace Hotel and construct a new building would be $1.1 million and it would cost approximately $3.5 million to construct a ft., three-story building with 50% lot coverage. He explained that the owner's Regular Meeting December 5, 2001 Page 8 of ]? A~i~tes, explained that his a :~st estimate for the options are to rebuild the structure and operate it immediately, to rebuild in phases and operate it over time, to rebuild and sell it after it is fully operational, to sell it as is (the current assessed value is $165,000 for the land and the building has no assessed value), the owner could take partners to spread the risk, obtain subsidies to limit the risk, away from the project (which is not recommended). The City's two main options are 1 ) to promote and commit to assist with to allow the building to be demolished and install a new use on site. Tt and resources dramatically impact what the City's options are continued to discussed details of these options with Council that using Redevelopment Funds. The City should continue to wo~:~ define the building's future and recommend some sort of sul Meanwhile, it would not hurt to issue a call for develo there would be for a raw site in the downtown area. A ADE strongly recommends that the building be seal~ the structure ceases to continue. The uses employees once the building is fully occu V( ~n, and 2)': hoices He be foU~:d~:~ibr develo how much demand r consider is parking wea~erized so degradation t~ ~d by ~i~E::.will provide about 65 City Manager Horsley recommend that since the of the property is not in attendance at this meeting, that Council approve a letter b~ 'equesti~g she attend a Council meeting so that Council ca~D discuss the matter with ~ii ~,Theii~ has stepped forward and obtained two grant~ii~i!~e,,~::~tudy performed, and:~::~ ~owner needs to address Council at a meeting,::~,:~ :~,~':~?~?~~D~ for the site so,::~?'i:he City has a clear picture before it makes a de~i~l"~n~iiii~, to wh~:~"~ ~ Dg~ the City ~uld become involved Councilmember Smith recommend~i'~:~ ~er state ~i~t the meeting takes place as soon as ~le '"~i~, i ~':~:~:: ......... Discussio~:?~ii::~wed 'ning the nee~':'ii:~,~i~,~blish a time frame, goals, and certain criteria action regardi~i~"e property. P~ Mary Lindley, Aileen Bri and has h; area becau,, Iso con~ n~ inquired about the disposition of the garage beneath the hotel and and a number of parking areas at that location. She abandoned if it is to be refurbished again. Ukiah,~!~i~iiSed that she represents the Savings Bank of Mendocino County opportunity to read the report. She noted their concern for parking in the he Savings Bank's parking lot is used by patrons of the Post Office and businesses due to the lack of adequate parking. The Savings Bank is with asbestos in the building and noted estimated costs for its removal. Bank is also concerned about the use of public funds for this project. She the owner has not kept the building clean. While this plan looks good, she Regular Meeting December 5, 2001 Page P of ]? questioned how feasible it really is. Judy Pruden, Ukiah, complimented Advanced Development Economics on their study. She advised that the parking garage was located at the former site of the Mendoci~eiiii~ook Company on North School Street and was enclosed some years ago. The bas~~ ~ small area and before 1929 it had some oil cisterns in it then the Palace i~:~el ~'~ converted to natural gas in the 1970's. She advised that he extensive ~~.ch on the:~i~ matter revealed there are no buried tanks on site. She felt that asb~?:~::'?ii?~!ess it is friable, is not an issue. She noted that structures in the Downtown Pa(~i~i'~ Dist'~i;'~ ~re.:not required to provide additional parking for a project. She has been a ::~:.on~ advocate.that the City acquire property on Smith Street to construct a second, story P~!8.g garage ~~ the top of Henry Street and she strongly urged the City C:.a8~il/Ukiah:::~developme~i Agency to consider a two-story parking garage to increas,e'~i~'~'i~ ]~ the dOwntown area. She recommended that Council accept the Block Sr~Dti~::'::"being ~ry thorough. Chet Collins, Ukiah, advised that there is a parki,~ i i:'north library on North Main Street that could also be used for parking?,ili~ii:,ii~ 8owntow~ ~ea. Charles Mannon, President of the Savings Bank of resident, stated that Council is attempting to save a decre nothing but blight in the downtown 'ea for the past 15 years. the City using public funds to Council's meetings. :ino County and an Ukiah hotel that has provided opposition to even attend Mayor Ashiku called to Mr. M level of due process for the owner to the building or condemnation of the options. City Man; a the City ;I forward to provide a to pursue demolition of information concerning its that the':~i~!i~ldn t condemn a building unless there is !he study has p~ ~d options to Council and has also given it Linda McCI income housin~ advised is not convinced that there isn't a need for Iow- ~ring Mayor a tour of the structure that he took with Councilmember Smith last year that time the owner promised them that there would be some decisive action taken?,~= secure the building ;~;City Horsley explained that many improvements were made to the structure as::,ii~alling plywood over broken windows and dismantled the sagging awning. They ai~ ~,i~i~8:: a maintenance firm in Ukiah for the City to contact regarding maintenance Regular Meeting December 5, 2001 Page 10 of ]7 issues. The owner has met with this group several times as the study progressed. Mr. Irvin explained that the owner attended three meetings and was interested and took the information they provided to her. However, they have not seen any outcome Ihe meetings with her. He reminded Council that the owner provided the fun matching cash for the grant Assistant City Manager Fierro confirmed that Questex, the ,ns the Palace Hotel, did provide approximately $4,300 towards the study. Discussion continued with regard to broken windows in the .buildin~?~'?:~: maintena~ neglect. It was noted that the building would continue in its ........... stat~'~:~ecay unle~ there is a firm commitment and immediate decisive a~ part of the owner. Council was in agreement concerning the importan~,?of establishing a short-term: timeframe for the property owner to respond. There was discussion relative to the preparatio,~ ~i~i~: ~ismic ~ ~d it was felt that the study is very important because it may provide ~'~°re i:~~ti~:~th~i~ Could be relevant to taking further action regarding the building. It was also ~ ==.that cooperation is needed from the property owner for the seismic study. The seiS'~ Study is scheduled to be completed in the spring of 2002 '~::::~:'.~i?~?~ ii',ii::~::~,:: Councilmember Libby inquir! i~ would that::~;~,~i~:n support of any of the options or would it just ~ ge has ~ee~',;'?~i~°mpleted. City Attorney Rapport advised th, anything but just that the final study not commit Council to do present~?,i~b Council. Councilm~ safety iss immedi sup pressure o for those Hotel the structural report, she felt a public ere is a need for Council to take action them in their decision. She was not and felt the City needs to put extreme She discussed the need for permanent parking in ;~i~.se to:an inquiry by Councilmember Baldwin regarding tax benefits to who ~?:,~eiii~i~toric building, responded that there is a 20% tax credit that the s eligible ::~i~':~cause it is on the National Register. She also noted the avail~ ~ment dedications and relief for seismic retrofit in terms of not increasing t~es. She referred to the State Historical Building Code as a performance code that th~ ~Wner is required to use and eases some of the burdens of renovation and rehabilitatio~i~:~! Finally, she noted that should the owner dedicate the building to a local ~:?:p:ublic ag~y, it would bring the owner a tax break. Baldwin noted that the greatest deficiency he identified in the report was Regular Meeting December 5, 2001 Page 11 of 17 the lack of parking. He was of the opinion that the City should continue to work on the possible renovation of the Palace Hotel. He requested staff advise him of the last date in which to place this item as a referendum to the voters in the March election. Mr. Irvin, in response to an inquiry by Councilmember Larson with regard to the investment if the building were to be demolished and a smaller building ~ruct~'~i explained that it is possible that there would be higher revenues. ADE us~ ~rket rates~ to fill the building as renovated; therefore, market rates for similar uses ~i~'~ apply to a new 30,000 sq. ft. building. He also explained that if a private con~ purC~~, the property or was given the property, and paid for the demolition and ~Struction b u i ld i n g, it may be j u st as r is ky of an invest m e nt. Councilmember Libby noted that the $4.5 million ' anticipated the cost to increase after a more in-depth M/S Smith/Larson accepting the Final Report a~ Community Development Block Grant Program Assistance Project for the Palace Hotel Re-Use instructions to staff to prepare a letter to the owners of as possible inviting them to a meeting to discuss their intE carried by the following roll call V:Qte: AYES: Councilmemt Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. Recessed' 8:30 p.m. Reconvened: 8:40 p.m. repd='ff is completed. y Clo~=;";©ut of the City of Ukiah's Planning/Technical ~b0-EDBG-727, with Hotel property as soon relative~;~p the property; Libby, None. . 8d. Ado and 21 Financ~ PUBLIC HEARING E~ ection Servil Fisc; ~r Elton Ih what sing who dispose cost for custom~ in vark ize chan( cost if th garbage di~sal. .................... Schedule of Fees and Rates for Garbaq~ of 9% CPI Increase For the that this to formally implement the garbage rates ~reviously::., :1 as part of the Transfer Station and an plans. Reducing the cost to customers concept of promoting conservation by reducing the o dispose of less garbage. The proposed rates are based on cost ~d there will be no increase to the residential rate unless the experiencing a cost increase have the potential for ,cie more and reduce the size of the container they use for City Manag~i Horsley emphasized that there is a 0% increase for the annual CPI I~ii?;~ialso includes the cost for the co-mingled recycling program that is being January 2002 whereby customers will receive new containers for both their garbage. She thanked the members of the Waste Committee and Systems, Inc. for working with the City regarding these rates and being able to Regular Meeting December 5, 2001 Page ]2 of ]7 implement this program at this time. Public Hearing Opened: 8:44 p.m. No one came forward. Public Hearing Closed: 8:45 p.m. M/S Larson/Srnith adopting Resolution 2002-22, Establishing S~i:'~le 0~ii~:~i'~es for Garbage and Recycling Collection Services for the 2001/2002 Fisc~ii~ear. Councilmember Libby inquired if there would be any hidde,~:,i'~ts in th~?:~payers' and if their bills will remain the same for a 32-gallon Mr. Elton explained that there would be no chan~ cost,,~:or a 32-gallon container!: However, if their container size increases, they in cost. He continued to discuss container sizes and noted that if m out of the waste stream, their container size could possibly be City Manager Horsley explained that Solid Waste SY~e~, Inc. will provide the containers to customers and the, will have automated bi~i~iii :?,:~he~,~Phasized that educational materials are being Solid Waste System~?~a ~i::ii::'be distributed to customers upon distribution Motion carried by the following roll Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOEl , Smith, Libby, I: None. 10. NEW BU', 10a. Consi Pr~ with Comm Services impr~em, conceptual irrigation. In im a ~bservatl uests DeKnobl Design and Authorization to advised that one of the primary budget for fiscal year 2001/02 is to complete the the park to the public. Staff has completed a partial im 9nts to the park including installation of turf and proceed with improvements in time for the spring season, staff is 3f the conceptual design as well as the inclusion of recently s, not been previously discussed. In adopting the currently ~cil desi( 000 of Park Development Funds for construction of park .... irvices Supervisor Sangiacomo discussed the conceptual design included The site consists of approximately 3 acres with frontage on both Observatory Avenue. The property is both historic and special in that only Latitude Observatory sites exist around the world. The City recently a Park Bond Grant for the purpose of restoring the buildings and surrounding Regular Meeting December 5, 2001 Page ]3 of l? park area. Should the City receive the Park Bond Grant, staff would return the item to the Council with recommendations at that time. The main idea is to create a passive park with limited parking along the street. Thei~terior of the park is currently turf and the second phase of the conceptual plan CQ~i~ ::;,Of implementing a path around the park and a perimeter landscape. In addit, ie~:~i ',~aff worked with a number of representatives from the neighborhood that ~ggested' interactive elements within the park. Staff is working with Mendocino ultural Department and Mendocino College to have plant identification hout ~ark. Another focus of the landscape around the perimeter will focus on e plants $ es and to provide additional visual barriers or privacy to the neighbors a~::';~tl. ~: Mr. DeKnoblough explained that during one of neighbors expressed concern with the loss of park pleasing. He recommended that rather than in the existing three foot high chain link fence landscaping which would create a pedestrian in the park and he expressed some concern wit~ the ~'~,:an~ ~ain~nance of a labyrinth as opposed to a traditional perimeter path. meetings, several other§~::found the view of the ::: solid.:~all fence, that staff utilize~ =urity a~i~:::b:ave it bordered with was for a labyrinth He advised that there was also a bench and tree program. This provide a sense of commun He noted that no such fix1 have the word "peace" inscribed on ~ poi:~:~,~.~: e in of the other observatory sites so that it ties the pole back to uest from the neighborhO~ ~eeti:.,~ ~or a memorial for the City to fund'::'~'~ ~i~:~iture and would that was reque :::'~'Was a peace pole, the Ci stem, A:~i;~'~gestion was made to to see the City recognizing the International Avenue pr~erty 88d at preserving it. He expressed his of the park':'"~i~d:,~,,,iii~ablishin(~ an international peace pole He recom~~d'"""TCouncil s approval on the conceptual Martin Bradle~ Latitude of interest in::~:,=~:~''' in~ de~ Mr. Sang by Councilmember Baldwin concerning the passiveness ~rk, and advised that the park would contain a large turf area that ghb~,rhood for sports activities. He discussed the possibility of around as not harm those using the area. ConsenS~:~i~f Coun~iiiil;:i~as very supportive of the conceptual plan, the peace pole, and many expr~d supPort for the memorial benches. There was some discussion concerning ~nsorship of benches in the park by local organizations. '"'ii i':i~.ouncilm~er Libby suggested that a continuous bench be constructed around the o~ ~e in the park. Regular Meeting December 5, 2001 Page 14 of ]7 Kristy Kelly, Ukiah, discussed the construction of a labyrinth and explained that there is a person in Philo who has built many labyrinths. When she last spoke to him a couple years ago, he quoted her a price of $1,500 for designing and organizing such a project. He also suggested soliciting volunteers to help with the construction that entails moving::;?earth around (berms). Discussion continued with regard to constructing a labyrinth in the park :.::::::~ M/S Baldwin/Ashiku approving the conceptual design of Observato~ ~::~k imPlements and authorizing staff to proceed with Request for Bids to include a ~ pole, m~rial benches, and to obtain further analysis for construction of a labyrinth? !'?::~:~: ..... Councilmember Libby suggested that staff obtain a cost,:~i~::~i~ ~Or the construction of a continuous bench around the oak tree. ~ Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYE Larson, Smith, Libby, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. .::~BSTAIN: None. 10. 10b. Actions to Effectivel, Hil Vice-Mayor Baldwin ex extreme littering along U NEW BUSINESS Consideration of Resolution Calling on the State~ ~alifornia to Take Certain Litter on Hi_clhway 10i"~:'~'~h ~hout the Stat~- i~ letter ~ tCh~Ul~l ge~itSr~nStraabn°cU; to the City. He recommended that sent to other jurisdictions and the St~ Of C~!~nia. Hell and the Adopt-A-Highway program is::'~:~,,,~ing. Council recomm~ it. It wa~ estal Councilm~ Resolution that could be situation is extremely bad presented C~hcil with a video of litter in the local area. He ~ take over the!i~o~:-Highway program and use a tax to fund ~t~ that approxi ~'i~y 80% of the litter is derived from fast food is supportive of a resolution, however, he could not support the Adopt-A-Highway program. He felt a resolution would put the ~ii~_alert that concerns about the matter. DiscuS~:'~ollowed col the two resolutions contained in Councilmember Baldwin's report. T~iwas furt~::'discussion concerning the effectiveness of the Adopt-A-Highway program, of litter enforcement was noted. ier Libby noted that there are laws against littering and she could not a tax on selected businesses because Councilmember Baldwin thinks to the litter problem. She felt it makes more sense to have the sponsor of ghway section clean the area up more than four times each year. She also Regular Meeting December 5, 2001 Page ]5 of ]7 noted that County prisoners also clean up along the highways. Mayor Ashiku was of the opinion that we need to deal with cleaning up the waste problem and educating the public on the issue. He voiced his support of adopting a resoluti~;~,~,,;the tax on fast food were to be eliminated, and to call for some amendment to the~:,~:~i~A~ Highway program to make it more effective. If the sponsor of an Adopt-A-High~Sec~i~ does not keep their section clean, they should pay for the privilege 'ing their' advertisement on the highway. Discussion continued with regard to revising a resolution and Council information on the Adopt-A-Highway program. There ~s education to children with regard to littering. It was the Councilmember Baldwin would rewrite the resolution ' Council. 11. COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Larson reported that he atb attended a JPA meeting and it was decided to pUrsue District of the JPA agreement with no set timeframe reviewing the JPA contract for the last time on December 1 the City Council for adoption, imp the JPA and m~ would be consolidation of the with no set consolidation of services unti worked out. He attended a MSWMA meeting arbitration. ie the suggestions of dinner. He also t~:'bir members and the lementation. They will be and th:e8 it would go to that there for the actual the Fire Employees union He explained th; tax survey MCOG. sales wh; wouli The City is on the Now ction. received information concerning a sales Dow and Associates who manage regarding voter support for a $0.25 ~nce of roads. Ukiah may be asked se the survey would be Countywide but get a ballot measure on the November ballot. pport for ACA4 that is going to be Proposition 42 It will be a constitutional amendment requiring the state to from gas sales on roads for transit purposes. Coum that she attended the Police Department Christmas Party. She pening of the Orchard Inn. She felt it should be noted that she had a form~ii~mplaint by the owner pertaining to certain Planning Commissioners. When he had to ap~r before the Commission for his project, he felt they were very rude to him. i ~i~ Baldwin reported that his wife became a citizen of the United States attended the JPA Fire District meeting and felt it was very positive. Regular Meeting December 5, 2001 Page ]6 of ]7 Mayor Ashiku reported he attended the Orchard Inn/Best Western Motel grand opening. Mayor Ashiku announced that NCPA will hold their annual meeting in Sacramento around January 22, 2002 and encouraged Councilmembers to attend. to 12. CITY MANAGER/CITY CLERK/DIRECTOR REPORTS City Manager Horsley reported that December 7 is the City Employee's and 185 people have signed up to attend. Council will present employees and the two Employees of the Year will be announced. She reminded Council of the clean heating in the Ukiah Valley and Co~! commissi~ a piece on clean burning of wood stoves when she distribut;ounci:~i:!!i?:~ ~e Economi~ Development Brochure has finally been completed a~ ked Assistant City Manager Fierro for his work on the brochure. Sh~ displa~bd the City's tourism,:,; brochure to Council. She reported that she regarding the Martin Luthe~ King Day celebration and their request for fundir ?~?i~'"':' Discussion followed concerning the need to have an a organizations that request funding from the City. 13. CLOSED SESSION None. 14. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, ation from those adjourned at 10:23 p.m. Marie Ulvila, Cathy Elawa, Secretary Regular Meeting December 5, 2001 Page ]7 of !7 MEMO TO: FROM: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers City Clerk Marie Ulvila SUBJECT: City Council Meeting Minutes: December 17, 2001 DATE: January 10, 2002 The draft minutes of the December 17, 2001 City Council meeting will be distributed to Council on Monday, January 14, 2002. Memos: CC011602 - Minutes MINUTES OF THE UKIAH CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting Wednesday, December 19, 2001 The Ukiah City Council met at a Regular Meeting on December 19, 2001, the~::i~:,~~: ~r: which had been legally noticed and posted, at 6:32 p.m. in the Civic Ce~i'?~oU:~"~ii Chambers, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. Roll was taken a~i~following'::?'~ ~ Councilmembers were present: Libby, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. G~'~ii~e.mbers absent: Larson and Smith. Staff present: Water/Sewer SuperviS~i?~:i§orec~i ~i[port Manager Bua, Community Services Director DeKnoblough, Finance ~!i~tor Fire Chief Grebil, Risk Manager/Budget Officer Harris, City Manager H~ieY, City Att~~, Rapport, Plan n in g D irecto r Stu m p, and City Cie rk U Ivila. 2, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Ashiku led the Pledge of Allegiance. 3a. Fire Department Career Employees ............. iiii~:??~' ..... /'i~'? ?~i?~ ~:i:~:'~ Interim F,re Ch,ef Greb,I ,ntroduced F,re Department C~i ~.mployees for the A sh,ft of Bill Woodworth (Fire Captain/Shift Commander), T~ ~:i?,?~?:~[srael(~ire Apparatus Engineer/Paramedic), Pete Bushby¥~{F ihter/Paramedic), (Firefighter/ Paramedic), William Fairfield (Fi i ic), Paul Eato~"::~?:~ ?'~ter/Paramedic), and Tanner Moulding (part-ti~i~"~ hter/EMT-1) toi:,:~',~ncil. 3. INTRODUCTION 3b. Accounting Manager Mike Finance Director Elton introduced He discussed Mr~,,::M n's emplo sectors, and::~~"~:~::~.ith budgets, developme~'..~i~ili~'~nd implementation. Mr. com m u ni~'~i!ii~rgan ization~.?.::~ i g ~i~::ger Mike McCann to Council. round in both the private and not-for-profit forecasting, supervision, and policy is also very active in a variety of Mik~?~ii~;~i~,iiiiistate~'~'~ii~;i~ i~ i~~i~!iii~i~i~°'rking for the City. Councilmemb~'~ ~by noted that Mr. McCann is on the Board of Directors of the Cultural ~'~i~:~:.~ecreation::'"~~issi~::B Board of Directors and is a pleasure to work with. 4a. Re:~iar Meeti~f November 7, 2001 councilme r Libby recommended a change to the first paragraph, on page 5, that the second and :~i~d sentences be deleted from the minutes and replaced with the following s ate ents,::~:.~he d~scussed the progress of the project and delays due to the weather and ~e respoD~?iimes by the state for a grant to reconstruct the intersection of East Gobbi et, :~:;?Manor Park, and Babcock Lane. She c~ntinued to discuss the grant received f~:~;:~.~ ~°nstruction of the intersection by MCOG. M/S Baldwin/Libby approving the minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 7, 2001, as amended, carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Libby, Baldwin Regular Meeting - December 19, 2001 Page 1 of 10 and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilmembers Larson and Smith. ABSTAIN: None. 5. RIGHT TO APPEAL DECISION Mayor Ashiku read the appeal process. ~:~::i,~:~,~' iii 6. CONSENT CALENDAR M/S Libby/Baldwin approving items a through d of the Consent Calend~i!i~!~ ~!lows: a. Approved Disbursements for Month of November 2001; b. Adopted Resolution No. 2002-23 Authorizing City Uanager~:~ ~ecute Agreement with Federal Aviation Administration for Aut~:mated'::"§~ce Obse~i~ System at the Ukiah Regional Airport; .... :::~,:,?~:,ii'~,i c. Received Report to City Council Regarding the E~ii'~=~ili:"~?~ii~,~ ConsUltant Contract of Less than $10,000 for the Preparation of a H~ Enh~?:~ement and Public Access Study for Doolin Creek; .............. ~:.::~:.::.~: .... :~:: d. Received Notification to Council Regardin~:~rd of Bi~iD:~::.lnnovative Utility Products for Purchase of a "Fault Wizard~¥~=~:'~{~?~?Amoun~?~f~;$8,078.50. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Co : ii embers Libby, Baldwin and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilmembers:~~n and Smith. ABSTAIN: None. 7. AUDIENCE ITEMS No one came fo~ard to ad~ 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9a. Approval of HOME Down Proc~ Risk a $375 gram Policies and in Maximum Loan Limits in 2000 the City of Ukiah was awarded Buyer Program. In July of 2001 the City wasi;,ii~rded a grant for a Downpayment Assistance Prog:,~?~! i~pth of thl ~tered by the Community Development com~Ssi~i~:~,~ ~ .... and are combined for a First Time Home Buyer Downpayme~f~!~8Sii~t~nce Program' was previously before Council relative to this program and th~"iiii~:ncil approved the loan limit increase from $30,000 to $50,000. This ~:~,?crease t~i~ii~port~,~ities for more participation because of the tight housing '~:~:~ii~ kiah. wit~'i~i~?~i~tional $206,500, CDC is now requesting that the loan limit be rais'~ $50,000~i~'~,000. He continued to discuss the loans and the repayment program, noted ~':'~::~'~:the Staff Report discussed two families being qualified, and clarified th; has completed three applications, with another application pending. Staff belie is a great use of grant funds, allows the City to meet the goals that were established:;;~iginally with the federal program and does not require an additional local ::=?,'~:i~,~,~iimatch in fU~:§. He recommended Council approve the Program Policies and Procedures, ~::~i"~h i~i~'es an increase in the limit from $50,000 to $70,000. He noted that the ~~,i~:'::~ were established based upon the manuals that both the federal and state ag~i~'~s have for these particular programs. Upon questioning by Councilmember Baldwin, he continued with discussion of a housing Regular Meeting - December 19, 2001 Page 2 of 10 rehabilitation loan program established by the City in which Council considered a refinancing issue and forgiveness provision, earlier this year. He continued to discuss the 30-year repayment program. Todd Crabtree, housing loan specialist for the loan program administered th,~ii~ Community Development Commission for Mendocino County, discussed:;,:~?ball~ payment on a 30-year mortgage. Since an individual would own the home~,i~ ~e time the~:: firs mortgage is paid off there would be enough equity to refinance the,~,~:.~!~i~':'~?~'i~e~money would be reimbursed to the City of Ukiah. He explained there are:~ii ~'~: pay~?'~and everything is deferred for 30 years. He continued to discuss the i~est rates ~ the repayment program. Upon an inquiry by Councilmember Baldwin :~'~:.:::~ whethe~::~i~ .~ program is only available for down payment assistance, Mr. ::G~bt[ee exPii~i~ed that are two funding sources, the HOME and Cai HOME, in w~;~:?:"~':~ ~xplained. Mr. Harris further explained the Dance project is a HOME program in which new units will be c Mr. Crabtree, in response to an inquiry by could have asked that these funds be used for rental housing, explained that the City could have requested program. However, CalHome is program and ~e CalHome program assistance. He continued to dis( of t~,e social Security buildin~ a's to whether the City :ance or rental subsidized th the HOME for rental used. He further noted that these types of p~ consideration. He discuss~~y each year and noted that th'~:'inco~i!~ii!~imits This is why CDC has raised the price limits to provide more of a )le each year a9d~ili~?,i',~Vailable for Council number ~ii'~pplications submitted and is very Iow. loan limits and purchase H, the deferred payment loan program an~d~~:~.that when th~ ........................ is repaid, i{~::Can be used for other affordable M/S B~~:~/Ashiku a~oving the Do ment Assistance Program Policies and Proc~~;jncluding ~ i~[~se of the~! :~limit from $50,000 to $70,000; carried by the following ~bers Libby, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSE~G~hcilmember~':':'::E~{on and Smith. ABSTAIN: None. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~?~ ~U N FI N IS H EB~ SIN ES S ~sideratio~R~J~ed Resolution Calling on the State of California to Take ~ in Actions.;~ffectively Reduce Litter on Highway 101 and Throughout th~:~te Hig System (Councilmember Baldwin) - - Vice-Mayo~:~::~ldwin discussed the amended resolution he provided in his Staff Repo~ to Council centring the issue of liEer removal on Highway 101. ~?~:ouncil ~er Libby discussed her disagreement with several statements made in the ~:~:':'~:~:~?: luti~?Affer visiting the sites, she felt that Councilmember Baldwin centered on the ~ ~s of the highway and that some wording is too dramatic considering the amount of~.t~:~::::°n the highway. She was of the opinion that there are no facts to substantiate the statement that "80% of this increased highway liEer is waste from the fast food, gas maA, and convenience store indust~". She discussed wording in the resolution peAaining to the Regular Meeting - December 19, 2001 Page 3 of 10 Adopt-A-Highway program and questioned whether it concerned litter or his anti-business and build board ideas, She was of the opinion that Councilmember Baldwin was pointing a guilty finger, with no evidence, to a lot of people. She noted in his original resolution he proposed taxing businesses, and she is not comfortable with that action. ~:~,::,,?,:~i~,,,?~.:i Councilmember Baldwin advised he would be supportive of alternative W~i~ii~:'::';t~::'~ii:i~ resolution; however, he could not defend the status quo. He recomm~~the state conduct some trial locations on freeways in which to monitor and provi~ ~'~D~ent. Discussion followed with regard to California's current anti litter la~{~i~i::i?~:'?,i;!,t was no{~ ~hat irresponsible persons cause litter. :,,~::,~:~i~?.i:~iiii!ii~,~ii!::::i~, .... ~::::i:.:::~::~,::: Mayor Ashiku voiced his support for the proposed resol,t~::~ii?'i;i~~ ~hat the~:;~ate does need to enaot additional laws, but to provide an enforq~~ plan ~:the present laws. his experienoe of pioking up li~er, he has found tb~:::~st of:~::::~be li~er is from fast fooO containers. He felt the proposed resolution o~!!~ention :~::~ ~:~$be li~er problem. He questioned Councilmember Baldwin if he pr~~aiting .:~??~:~::~ull Counoil to be in aEendance before voting on the maEer. ::~:':~:~?~?~ ~ ~ ~?~ ~ ~:?:~ Discussion followed concerning the resolution and whether~ ~pose is ~: reduce liEer or draw aEention to ceAain types of ;inesses. There was discU~:Co,B~ing the Adopt- A-Highway program in which b.I ~..,,have their names di~i ?~n signs on the highway and how this may b~ ~ billboard. Th~as also discussion as to the number of times th~~ }xpe~te~' clean their poAion of the highway and if it should be ram more effective. It was the consensus of Council that disturbing, however, there are many areas that are li~er free ~d~?~? Councilmem~~~i~ was of the~:~Pinio~ that Ukiah is struggling to be more competitiv~{~i~?::'~he Red Empire touri~~ and that our poAion of the highway should ~Pt clean. H~ted an option ,~~ing the City take responsibility for ceAain poAi~~jghway 10::~~:U:,se staff tQ::~ it clean if the state refuses to act. He felt it imp6:~'nt':~he ~tat~ ~~~~~J~i~tors, although it is oEen difficult to catch people ~ ~ion contin~~:,jth reg~ard to raising public awareness on the issue. CounCi~i~mber Libb~ ~::~:'~ined that she is opposed to those that liEer, however, she could not~:~oA the ~osed resolution as it is worded. She noted it would be good if Councilme r Baldwin and some of his suppoAers adopted a poAion of the highway to keep clean. ~e felt the highway is cleaner now than it has been in previous years, ~/S Bald~Ashiku adopting Resolution 2002-24, as amended, Calling on the State of :~ifor~ take ce~ain actions to effectively reduce li~er on Highway 101 and throughout t~ ?~:::~Highway System and that a leEer signed by the Mayor be sent to neighboring ju~i~:tions and Ukiah s state representatives along with the adopted Resolution; carried by ~he following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmember Baldwin and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: Councilmember Libby. ABSENT: Councilmembers Larson and Smith. ABSTAIN: None. Regular Meeting - December 19, 2001 Page 4 of 10 8. PUBLIC HEARING 8a. Approval of Application to Demolish a Building Over 50 Years Old Located at 828 Cypress Avenue Mayor Ashiku announced this is a quasi judicial matter and a poll if Council affir?~!ii~hey have visited the site. Planning Director Stump advised that the owner of the property Iocated~i~8 Cypres~ Avenue has applied for a Demolition Permit to demolish a single-family,?~i~"i::~~: on the site. The home was built in 1924, is in disrepair, and the owners ha~el i~!8:icate~iiii~t:they cannot secure insurance on it. After demolition, the owners plan to c'~[uct a ne~:~'~::~i~g!¢- family residence on the prope~y. On December 4, 2001, Review CommiEee considered the application and H/stori~~Ofi/e p'~ared by JuS~ Pruden, and unanimously found that none of the criteria i.D~:"~":~tion 30'16(E) applied, and therefore the structure is not historically or archite.~i:i:y signi~;~ant. The CommiEee::. ~:~: urged the prope~y owner to consider the archite.~l~i~'~::'"::style::~f the neighborhood an~ construct something that would be compatible. ::~ :' is recommending approval of the Councilmember Baldwin inquired if there could be a stip~i~p that the owners protect as much foliage and trees on the prope~y. Mr. Stump explained that he did::~~i~be City would have th~?~~hori~ to require such a condition however, the ~ ~: ~ indicated they ~i~n to retain as many trees as possible. Public Hearing Opened' 7:18 p.m~ No one came fo~ard Public Hearing.~ ;. 7:18 p.m. M/S Libb~~Win a ing the De~~ermit for the structure located at 828 Cypres~~ue based ~e finding the S ~re does not have historical or architectural Upon an inq~J~~Yor A~:~:~~::::~:: regard to the fee for the demolition, Mr. Stump advised that a f~f~?~$47 is required for the Demolition Permit is collected by the Building ~~ent. He ~Jj~ ~[pvid~::~jnformation to the Mayor concerning the fee for historical Tom KUKI r :Aer, explained that the fee would be cheaper than building a driveway o~ ~unty land. Motion car~::: by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Libby, Baldwin, and ~:~ayor As~i~:~: NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilmembers Larson and Smith. ABSTAIN: .us,. ss 10~:, Adoption of Resolution Supporting Downtown Rebound Planning Grant Application Regular Meeting - December 19, 2001 Page 5 of 10 Planning Director Stump advised that last February, staff submitted a grant application to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for the preparation of a Downtown Infill Housing and Mixed-Use Study. The City missed receiving the grant by two points in the HCD scoring system, and staff is prepared to reapply during the:,,,:: nd funding cycle prior to the end of the year. While not required as part of the material, a supporting Resolution from the City Council can strengthen the ap~P~ii~ion help the City to receive the $75,000 grant. He discussed the purpose of the Study and how it would assist thei'?,~:in it~:'::?'~As to revise the General Plan Housing Element. The study would in:~i~i~ downtown area and land that is available for redevelopment. A' gy developed to provide f,or mixed housing opportunities in an,~i~Bpd the:'~ntown are:~':i The update to the City s Housing Element is due in the.:y~,i;:!~:ii~i~,~;~nd this type of study would assist staff to develop a strategy to provide mo[e?~ff8rdabl~=:~::~=~°using opportunities: ~':'~: :~: and to assist Ukiah in having a Housing Element ,:~J::ed by::~:he state. He discuss~:': '.? continuing interacting with housing advocacy:::::~::!g~:ps in th~'~:::~it:y with the focus on affordable housing within the City. With regard to certification of the City's Housing Element~'::~~ state and its expectation of the City, he noted there may be a suggestion by the state tl~:~i~,::City ente~ain the idea of annexation. He advised that the:[e are constraints on sta~iii~i,~i~,::,en~ and make a presentation to the state conce[ i~e~::~::,,Housing Element and i:~:~mmends hiring consultants who have expe[i~iii~'~¥i~ii~,~,~e state and ~~:~:with regard to the There was a brief discussed regard:i~i::~the .:~i':ion w'~~Some cities do not have a certified Housing Element and are n?~iii~li~i~i'~ for st~ili?~i~nding due to the difficulty of getting certified..~:::,,,~:: ~erable discusS~ii~llowed with:':::~:mgard to changing the zoning on property in o.[~ii~i~!i modate a de~'~per.,,~:,,, Mr. Stu~i~plained if t~i!{rend continue~ ~',?a growing homeless population, spiraling hou~i~i?~il , and a g .:~E~:i it would be his hope that the pressure to provid~ aff~ble h~ than to continue with commercial development on land Libby ~:~i~ayor, Larson a~.::.i~ith. ... 10. NEW ~ii~SIN ESS 10b. Rep~i'~o Council Re_qardin~l City Security Measures ii!i~ity Mang~ii~orsley explain~gd that ~n response to the events of September 11,2001, all :='~::':?~ii?~!ii~,!s ~iii~ernment, from federal to the smallest municipalities, have developed new P:'~ii~?~stablished and coordinated increased training, and reviewed existing protocols an~::::~,~.~?~cedures for emergency response to any type of disaster. The City receives information from all levels of government. The City has developed and implemented plans and training to counter potential terrorist activities and initiated a series of training sessions 2002-25, Supporting the Downtown Rebound by the following roll call vote: AYES' Councilmember Councilmember Baldwin. ABSENT: Councilmembers None. Regular Meeting - December 19, 2001 Page 6 of 10 that have been initiated for City employees. Three areas of analysis and preparation which are a focus of the City's Emergency Response Program include 1) employee training and response, 2) potential facility and operation threat analysis, and 3) public education and coordination with other agencies. A Request for Proposal has been issued for vend~$ to enhance building security through the use of cardlock entry system and video. ~"~ Planning ahead of an emergency is key to a successful response but all em.p,,!~es m:~t follow up with preparedness. To ensure accomplishment of this goal,:~,::~i~iDg will be~ conducted on these procedures on an annual basis. She noted that posit~ii~:~~ck was received from the employees. She noted that the City received two ~~lets ~::~i~.~.i!l be copied and distributed to citizens on what to do if there is a potentiar?~:~ster and ~t to do in those situations. ......... In summa~, she noted that the City of Ukiah, through th::e~~ent a~d expe~ise of appropriate staff, has implementing the Emergency Re~:~se P~ram. Councilmember Baldwin expressed concern.:=~::~;::~:~:: securit~~?~ ~easures at the water treatment plant. Water/Sewer Operations Superintendent Borecky a~~hat he is confident that the City has appropriate security at the water treatment plant. ':=~?~:~?~?~?~:~:~?~::, ::::~::~ .... Oouncilmember Baldwin als~,,~;~?~',~~~,~d concern with se~'~'~:~?:;??~'he Airpo~ and unauthorized access to aircra~?~::~¥~~!eS~,~:,~ithout proper ..i¢~:'i¥ication. City Manager Horsley resP~;~'ded ~the rep~~~; ~Airpo~ Manager Bud is Mew thorough and she will share it with h:'~;~;?~?,~ ...... ~:.~:.~?~?~ ~? ........ Mayor Ashiku B~;;;¢;~bat the Airpo~ d~"ission has '~:'~ken up the process of looking at providing air ~¢~,~:es in on a tr~ient .:basis with chains so they can lock their airplanes d~:~::::"instead:'~'~':~ ~sing ropes. ~i~9~;'the doors to the aircraft will be locked, securin9?~;;~¢"~ fu~her is J~o~ant. ~ ~ ??:: ...... Oou~;~?~~r'~:'~:~::~:':' ";~'~' Li:~:'~~~~?'3¢:'::~Under~';" ::~ Fire Procedures, and inquired if there was an alar~"~~;¢~ithin the '~'i;"~;~"'ilding. She commended the City Manager on the good job she is':'~~:, and urged her to keep this project as a top priority. er Horsi~ ~i~U that there is an alarm system. Mayor noted'~:~t he is proud of the City since they began assessing security measures eneral operations June of last year when it was brought to the a~ention of Council was to accept the repo~. 1~ ?~iscussion of Water Issues for Mendocino County Inland Water and Power Commission Video Mayor Ashiku advised that at the last Mendocino County Inland Water and Power Regular Meeting - December 19, 2001 Page 7 of 10 Commission (IWPC) meeting, there was discussion about general resources of the valley that were available to all agencies and individuals. There was also some discussion concerning the funding that the Army Corp of Engineers has received for a feasibility study for raising the dam. The discussion then focused on raising public awareness problems that exist. The Commission is requesting each of the member agenci~',?~ ~e IWPC to prepare a brief list of prioritized issues for the video. ~,,~??:~?, ':::~ .... Councilmember Baldwin discussed the meetings of the IWPC tha~:~,,i~,,~,i~::i:i!i~~ed and preferred that the City be able to view the video prior to investi~ ~ney 'i:"~~?: ~i::': !t is important that the video be factual, and not a pro-growth or propag~':~ed video.'::':::~:~::felt the City would need to know what is needed, with buildout of the curr~i~::,',Gity Limitsl:~::':' Water/Sewer Operations Sup,erintendent Borecky ad~?::':'~ ~is summer the state performed an audit on the City s water supply and hasi~i~tified'::~::'at it is deficient in ::::::::::::::::::::: storage capacity by 3.5 million gallons. Currently, tbeii~ has ~bout 2.635 million gallon~ of storage capacity and the state wants the ~i ~ have ~;:i~:~?.~i::million gallons. Staff anticipates including this project with the wate~,i~~nt plant:::~Ansion project. In response to an inquiry by Councilmernber Baldwi~?'ii?,; regard to the City's wells producing less recently, he explained that the City's Ranne~'::i~!i~ctor onl~::::::~roduces about 4 million gallons of water per minut~, whereas when it was firsf~i~,:, it :~bced about 13 million gallons of water per minu~eiiii!i~iii~!i~,~.ussed the various sitU~~i~at contributed to the decline of the Ranney COI~~ ........ ~i~proved S98,00Q:~rds cleanout of the pipes and repairs are expec~i¥~ ~i~g the"~'i ~:~,,~ million ~"~ii'~ns. He discussed the expansion project for the wa~r trea~nt plant~.~ii"~~i~e discuss the situations with the production of the City's four well~!?~;,... ~,:~',~,i i?? ........ :::~ .................. i:,? City Attorney FI:~ :~::~xplained that i~ ~'ity has a y~:~::r round permit to pump water out of the Russia~i ~"?ii~i~ding the sum~imo~s. If there is no other source naturally flowing intai~ii~":~"river a~;~!~Oundwater, an~ii~:i~ ~ly Lake Mendocino water that's being releasg~i;ii~ii~n it is proj~i~ater and wat~ii~~' is subject to the Flood Control District's Councilme~i~','~ili!ii~i~Win in:'~:~::'::i'~i~i!iii!i~ii?:~o the percentage of usage by the Golf Course during the sum~ii~onths. estima~i~ i~?~lf Course using about 325,000 to 350,000 gallons per day for irrig~,i~during the.:~'~er. Summer usage in the City averages about six to seven million g~i" per d~iiii?Upon further questioning by Councilmember Baldwin, Mr. Borecky e~i~ined that there are no plans for a reclamation line to a reservoir above the Golf Course'~i'~i~!',this time. In a study conducted by Kennedy-Jenks, it was identified but deferred until~!!~ore critical items were addressed Libby inquired as to the City's views concerning the potential for raising noted it was her understanding that the Flood Control District opposed such a City Attorney Rapport explained that the City has never taken a position on this matter Regular Meeting - December 19, 2001 Page 8 of 10 nor was it discussed by the City Council. It is his understanding that the Corp of Engineers has $100,000 to study the feasibility of raising the dam. Discussion continued with regard to the content of the video. Background conce[91~ii~.he Potter Valley project and the Eel River diversion were discussed. It was als~,, d~:::,!'~, was the original idea for the video was to provide facts to the Ukiah communi~i~,ii:~i~se needed to vote on a water issue. The video could provide a great educat~i~ ~ool to th~~'~:~ ~ citizens of Ukiah and the surrounding areas. Concern was expressed t.~~:~ii not be laden with politics but would be objective. Issues related to the Eel.~:~' and i:~e~sing the capacity of Lake Mendocino were discussed. ~::'??~:'~ :~:~ ::~ Mr. Borecky advised that the highest priority should be .~g~:~:~:~o the~:?~'s needs storage and expansion of the treatment plant. Recy~!i~?'~~ at the wastewater':??~::?~ treatment plant would follow. It was his opinion that m~'~rioult:~l customers that live :: :~ close to town and have been receiving District wate.~::~ii??~e looking for water because th~ District will be discontinuing their water se~ice ...... .... Councilmember Libby was of the opinion th'~::~:the':~:'~:~:~ ~'~t~:~iversion should be included in the video because it is unclear to most peoP:i:~ City Manager Horsley explained t.b~t she would contact Ms~::~::~i?~[or:~er clarification as to what IWPC wants Council,~ ~9~; f~~?~?~:'~an~:~:~[~~::~ens kno~ere water comes Councilmember Baldwin ,.,:~:~:~....~:: ~::~. ~::~:~::~:~::~ ........ their fo~s of the from and it should be a pri~:a~ of the ~~o might also address the scenario of given years of drought, ~ ~:w ~U~I~mea~¢~e people of Ukiah under the current situation. This might feed int~~' or inter~ raising the dam. Mayor Ashi~~~~ant to educat~::~e public that there are Section 7 consultations occurring, ~~tial pro s that occur 0~h:~ River that affect our water source, and we nee~:~:~:~crease our~acity based o~~asibility study and the needs to justi~ it. City:~:~n:~:~?~Hors~~~~:?~??~drologist~ will a~end the January 16, 2002 City Council mee~ ~?~'~ovide a ":~~tion to Council as to the reasons why we need to do hydrology in::~kiah valley and what hydrology studies will tell us. ~??~::::~::~::::::~~us of Cou~i~~ take no action at this time. 10d. Con~'~ ~:ration of Cancellation of January 2, 2002 City Council Meeting Consensus ~ Council was to cancel the Janua~ 2, 2002 City Council meeting. REPORTS ~?~:n~]~ber Libby reposed that she aEended the Christmas luncheon for volunteers a{~~ce ~udson Museum. She also aEended commendations for the Ukiah High S~i~::women s cross county track team and for Amber TroEer. Both her and Mike Harris pr0~ided the presentations to the team. She displayed the final draft of the design for the Recreation and Cultural Center that will be printed for their fo~hcoming fundraising effo~. Regular Meeting - December 19, 2001 Page 9 of 10 This week the California Endowment assured them they would receive a grant in the amount of $500,000 this year. Councilrnernber Baldwin reported that he had a good time at the City em es Christmas dinner. He asked the City Manager if she could provide a memo reg~i~ process that led to the approval of a 30-foot sign at the car lot on East Perki~i~et n~ the freeway and how that slipped through the system. He further explaine:d'~i~::site of th signage :?~?,:~:~ City Manager Horsley explained that she would direct Planning Dir~i~i:,~Stump a m e m o to C o u n c il reg a rd i n g t h e matte r. 12. CITY MANAGER/CITY CLERK/DIRECTOR REPQ~§::~':'~'?~i?'ii ii ......................................... City Clerk Ulvila advised that new information f "?the ~¥~ Political Practices ~::',::: Commission was received and copied for Counci/~?,::i:;i:.:~::ii,ii:~::~:'~t of t~:.~ information pertains Statements of Economic Interest (Form 700) filer~i~iiii~ili~;[s is parti~a.~[!:y informative in light of campaigns for the November 2002 election. ~??~ ~:::~.:~::,:?~?:~::~ ?:~:.~? .... /'~:~?~ Adjourned to sit as the Ukiah Redevelopment ge cy~,~:~::~26 p.m. Reconvened as City Council: 8:30 p.m. '::~:'~:~;?~:~?~?:~?~:::~ .... Recessed: 8:30 p.m. ~ ~? Reconvened: 8:35 p.m. .?~~?~::~::::~~ ....... 13a. ~9~ nfere n c~:~h ~~::~N eg °{~:~~?~ Employee Negotiations: Fire U~::~?~?~ ....... ::~ ?: Labor Ne~~g Candace Hor~{~~:: There~i~: no fuAher:::~iness, the Ci~y~?~ncil meeting was Regular Meeting - December 19, 2001 Page 10 of 10 ITEM NO.: 6a DATE: January 16, 2002 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: REPORT OF DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE MONTH OF DECEMBER 2001 Payments made during the month of December, 2001, are summarized on the attached Report of Disbursements. Further detail is supplied on the attached Schedule of Bills, representing the four (4) individual payment cycles within the month. Accounts Payable check numbers: 36270-36368, 36458-36570, 36571-36680 Accounts Payable Manual check numbers: none Payroll check numbers: 36369-36457, 36681-36765 Void check numbers: None This report is submitted in accordance with Ukiah City Code Division 1, Chapter 7, Article 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the Report of Disbursements for the month of December, 2001. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Candace Horsley, City Manager Prepared by: Kim Sechrest, Accounts Payable Specialist Coordinated with:Gordon Elton, Director of Finance and Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: Report of Disbursements Candace Horsley, City ~anager KRS:W ORD/AGENDADEC01 CITY OF UKIAH REPORT OF DISBURSEMENTS REGISTER OF PAYROLL AND DEMAND PAYMENTS FOR THE MONTH OF DECEMBER 2001 Demand Payments approved: Check No. 36270.36368, 36458-36570, 36571-36680 FUNDS: 100 General Fund $133,346.81 131 Equipment Reserve Fund 142 National Science Foundation 143 N.E.H.1. Museum Grant $1,489.44 150 Civic Center Fund 200 Asset Seizure Fund 203 H&S Education 11490(B)(2)(A)(I) 204 Federal Asset Seizure Grants 205 Sup Law Enforce Srv. Fd (SLESF) $3,386.56 206 Community Oriented Policing 207 Local Law Enforce. BIk Grant 220 Parking Dist. #10per & Maint $296.42 230 Parking Dist. #1 Revenue Fund 250 Special Revenue Fund $42,482.10 260 Downtown Business Improvement 332 Federal Emerg. Shelter Grant $8,533.22 333 Comm. Development Block Grant $1,582.34 334 EDBG 94-333 Revolving Loan $750.00 335 Community Dev. Comm. Fund 410 Conference Center Fund $6,323.53 550 Lake Mendocino Bond $2,000.00 555 Lake Mendocino Bond Reserve 575 Garage $1,838.92 600 Airport $24,229.78 612 City/District Sewer $30,476.45 615 City/District Sewer Replace 652 REDIP Sewer Enterprise Fund 660 Sanitary Disposal Site Fund 664 Disposal Closure Reserve 665 Refuse/Debris Control 670 U.S.W. Bill & Collect 675 Contracted Dispatch Services 678 Public Safety Dispatch 679 MESA (Mendo Emerg Srv Auth) 695 Golf 696 Warehouse/Stores 697 Billing Enterprise Fund 698 Fixed Asset Fund 699 Special Projects Reserve 800 Electric 805 Street Lighting Fund 806 Public Benefits Charges 820 Water 900 Special Deposit Trust 910 Worker's Comp. Fund 920 Liability Fund 940 Payroll Posting Fund 950 General Service (Accts Recv) 960 Community Redev. Agency 962 Redevelopment Housing Fund 965 Redevelopment Cap Imprv. Fund 966 Redevelopment Debt Svc. PAYROLL CHECK NUMBERS 36369-36457 DIRECT DEPOSIT NUMBERS 12030-12153 PAYROLL PERIOD 11/25/01-12/08/01 PAYROLL CHECK NUMBERS 36681-36765 DIRECT DEPOSIT NUMBERS 12154-12275 PAYROLL PERIOD 12/09/01-12/22/01 TOTAL DEMAND PAYMENTS TOTAL PAYROLL VENDOR CHECKS TOTAL PAYROLL CHECKS TOTAL DIRECT DEPOSIT TOTAL PAYMENTS $201,451.64 $10,322.50 $1,031.90 $24,276.35 $897.00 $2,949.61 $8,866.08 $167.82 $3,783.62 $71,355.24 $1,213,085.91 $12,240.28 $11.08 $61,969.42 $4,341.29 $57,713.39 $38,115.00 $110,122.40 $516.25 $33.52 $4,268.53 $2,084,254.40 $68,722.96 $137,195.31 $290,103.76 $2,580,276.43 VOID CHECK NUMBERS: NONE CERTIFICATION OF CITY CLERK This register of Payroll and Demand Payments was duly approved by the City Council on City Clerk APPROVAL OF CITY MANAGER I have examined this Register and approve same. CERTIFICATION OF DIRECTOR OF FINANCE I have audited this Register and approve for accuracy and available funds. City Manager Director of Finance Z 0 -1- U · 0 > 0 oo~;~;;oo O0 ~~~oo o o o o o o o~ o~ o co oD 0 0 :~ o 0 ~ · · oo o oooooooo °~oo 00000000~ mmmmmm~ DDD~DDZZO ZZZZZZZ~Z 00000000~ ~ r~ ~ Z U ~ :> ~:0 ~g° t.~ · , g ~0 · . Z'~ Oo Z 0 ~U 0 m > 0 0~ og mmm ~HHHHHHHH O OO ~0 >> ZOO U Z Z -2- ¢J · o > o H H H o o o o o 0 0 o o oo~ ~o ~oo · 0 ooo H~ 0~0 0 ~0 mm> O0 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 S~ o ~ H O~ H~ ~ ~00 ~,a aaa Z 0 UZ H ~ O~O :>HZ Z 0 0 ~ Z OZ UO ~ , >O ~Z ~h ~-~ ~ H 0~ 0'~ O~ 0 ¥ ~Z r~ O~ E~ ~ ZH ~0 (,3 ¢::::1 Z Z~ E~O0 0 0 , > 0 -8- o o o o o I.D {:2> ~ OCO000000 000 ~~~oooo o o o o · 0 oo o · 0 · 0 ooo · 0 o o o · 0 o r--t ~-i · o o r--t w-I ~-..t 000 O0 0 0 0 0 000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000~ ~ ~0 ~ 0 0 0 ~ o°~°~°~ o ~~ ~° o° ~ ~ D D D D O D D D Offi 0 U U ~ ~ > Z 0 > 0 ~00 ~00~ 0 0~ ~000000000 ZZZZZZZZ~ Z 0 Z O 0'~ Z 0 ~ ~ 0 o ~ > ~Z ~ 0 ~ ~ Z Z > ~.~ Z~ > -4- U · o > LD Z ~o t.D LD 000000 c~ o o o o o o oo 120 120 000 000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 oo i-4 i-.i u u o o o o~o o~ u ~ © ~Do bo~ u ooo ooo~ °° oo~ 0~0 00~0~~ · . · . ..... mZZ~Z~ZZZ M 0 · Z~ Oo U~ o Z o ~ o u~o ~ U ~0 H > .~ .oo . ~ ~ H o -5- Z o o o o o o H Oh 0 0 0 0 0 ZZ O0 U U <2> O0 O0 oo~~o o 0 0 U U °~°~ ~~o ZZZZ~ ~~Z DDDD ZZZZ~ o o o ~ o · . ~o Z~ ~0~ O ~ a~ZO ~0~ ZUZ 0 ~oo Z ~ Z ~0~0 O0 ~ 0 ~~Z ~oo oo~°°~oo ..... . . . . ooooooooo ooooooooo Z 0 Z~ > 0 ~OO00 ~DDDD Hmmmm 0~~ HHHHHHHHHH ZOO0000000 '6- tO · o oo o~oo oo ~oo o 0 o · 0 0 u Z Z ~~o ~z~ ~uoo ~~0 ~o~ U ~ oUUU~ o o~ uZ o Z~ ~Z o~ Z~ o ~oooo Z~~ 0 0~~ ZZZZZ 0~~ o o MO ~:0 ~0~0~0~0~0~0 -7- 0000 00000 O0 O0 000 O0 0 oo~~~~~ooo oo 0 o o o o o LD o o o~ o o o o o o o o 0 0 Z Z 0 0 ~ U E~E~O O0 0 ~Z U .. Z'~ Oo Z 0 ZOO0000000000000 d E~ ~ 0 H O~ U · o > o o o o o~ ~mmm o~o oo~ 00 o o co o~ 0 0 o~o ~D~ 0 ~ U C~ 0 o o o o o o · ~° C~l cq · · ~0 U U 0 U o~ Z 0 ZH ~ u 0 ~ Z © 0 0 r~ ~m Z~ O~ HO DU r~ Z 0 ~ Z~ © .> r~ ~0 Z ~ 0 u ~ r.D ~ ~:00 -§- LD 0000000000 0000000000 o~~~o ooo ~ o ~ ~ O0 00o0 0 0 o 0 0 cc} o 0 r~ u oo~o O0 0 ~zZO ZZ~ oo~ Z~ ~0000000000 ~Z o o 0 H u~ 0 000 O0 O0 00000000000000 o~oo~ooo~oo~ ~~~~~ooooooo ~~~~~oooooo LD LD o ~ ~I ~ o o o o~ o o o o o o o o o 0 0 o o o oo ooo oo oooooooooooooo 0 ~0 0~ oo~oo~~o~o oo oo ~ ~m>~mmmmm>mmm> U o o o o o · . o o o · . . · 0 o o~ E~ Oo Z 0 > 0 0 ~ 0 U ~ O~ ~HHHHHHHHHHHHHH ~00000000000000 oooooooooooooo U > -11- 0 0 o3 0 0 ~ O~ 0 -12- 0 O~ > -13- ~ U O~ U · > o o °~ 0 o © ~ Z Z m o -14- O0 O0 ~ o~ Lfb L~ ~ 0 ~o°° · . 0 ~-~ ~o ~o 000~ ~0 ~ Z 0 mm> m ~ D o U Z 0 O~ > ~o~o~o~ ~00 ~00 (DO U 0 i ~1 r~ 6 0 ¢~0 H ~ · ~ > 0 0 ~ O~ 0 Z -15- Z o o o o o o {,.,,,. ~ o o o o o o ,--I ce} {2> o o o o o o o o Z O0 i.-t 0 o o · o~ · o Z © Z 0 O~ > 0 r~ Z~ u 0 0 O~ U ~ 0 0 © 0 0 > 0 'Z ~ , ~Z -16- > LD 0~ OOOO OOOO OOOO O 00 o ~oo~oo~o~oo~ OO OO O OO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ~oo~oo~~o~ OOOOOOOOOOooo~ O OOOO~O~O~OOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO H ~ O >~O O .o Z~ O~ U~ 0 ZH ~ U O~ > ~ H O2: ~ H OO ~OOOO ~,,~ HOOOO > '~ H o Z n~ o H (J H ~ ~z OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ~OOOOOOOOOOO OOOO -17- co ~0 o o o o o o o o c~ c~ o o o o o o c~ o o;so§goossoo~ 0000000000000 ~o~o~goo~ooo · ............ 0 ~0 ~ m m ~ ~mm mmO ~ Z~Z~ 0 U 0 0 00 · · 0 ~'1 · oo ~ oOoO o o U 0 Z H Or~ Z~ > 00000000000000 ~00000000000000 H ~0 ~ Z ~: , O~ Z Z 0 U ~ Er] ~D-lm O H -18- oo o q-4 ~., 0 (~ · · o o > oo H 0 o > 0 Z Z , Z~ Z~ z~ oz O~ , Z oo o oo > o o © o Z o , oo zo ~Z 0 H 0o~ Z OO ¢~ H -19- r,j · > 0 O0 O0 000 o oo~oo ~ o ~~°o oo~~~oooo ~ o o o c> c~ 000 O0 O0 0000000000000 .... 0 · . · . · . · . 0000000000~00 0 0 0 Z Om~O ~ 0 ~0~ O~H~ oo o a-]~o Z 0 Z H ~O > ~Z ~0 Z~ 0 U ~ 0 ~ 0 m Z> O~ . Z 000 HHHHHHHHHHHHHH ~00000000000000 0 ~ZZZ 0 OZ~ om>. © ~ZO00 H~ ~0~ -20- O~ (J · > o o o o oo oo oo oo oo oo oo °°~°°~§°~°°~°°°~°~~~ooo © ~o 0 ~ ~zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz ~00000000000000000000000000000000 0 (J © 0 O~ 0 0 H [~ H -21 - O~ U · ~D 0 > 0 00000000000000000 000000000000000000000000 ~~~~~~~oooooooooo ~o o o~oo~ooo~oo~oo~o~o~ 00 0000000000000000000000 ........................ ........... . . . . . ...... . . U ~ H~HHHHHHH~HHHHHHHHHH2HHH~ Z ZZ Z~ O~ 004 Z 0 ZH n~ O O~ Z~ U HHHHHHHHH H ~DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD OZZZZ H~~ 0 O E~ 0 E~ O~ ~ · > 12> 0 O0 O0 0 ooo§ oo~oo ~oo~ 000 000 000 O0 0 O0 O0 O0 O0 ~~°° O0 O0 O0 ~oo~o~~~ ~ Z ~Z~ZZZ ZZ o ~Z OZ~ O0< ~00 ~Z~ <HO~ DDDDDDDDDDDDDDD~ DDDDDDDDDDDDDDD~ ~0 O 0 m > 0 0 ~ ~ 0000000000000000 0~ ~0~ 0~ 0~ <Z Z O~ 0 ~ O 00 0 0 H © ¥ DO00 o<<< -2S- o o~ ~ ~Oo ~~0 ~ ~0 mmmm> mm> o o 0 U o o ZO ~ U ~H ~0 ~0~ Z 0 O~ ~ ~0~ ~Z ~ H 0 0 O~ U o > 0 Z i--q r.~ 0 Z Z 0 -24- o o o o o o o O0 O0 o o o o ~ ~-~ <22> oo0 ZZZ U . · . . oo~ ~ ~ uoo ~ ~ ~o o~ o ,--H. ~ · o o o o ,ri 0 oo~oo~ O0 O0 ~~oo ~o~oo ~O OO HH~HHHHO ~ H 0 ~H~ D.D~ UHU~ O~ o u Z~ o> o o ~ ,~o OD Z'~ O~ 0 oo ~D ODUu H~ ~0000000 z o U ~ o u ~:> ~o Z ~ZZZ D mO -25- U · > o oo o ooooo Z oo o 0 0 r.D r~ © 0000~ ~0~0 DDDDDDO UUUUU~ O ZZZZZ~ 000000~ .. O~ Z 0 > ¥ ~Z~O~ ~00~o 0 ~ Z ~ 0 0 ~0 ~Z i.-t r..o -26- o,< I--I r,j . > , o o oo O~ 0 O~ Z~ -27- H ~ {J · 0 > 0 0 -28 - U · ~> o o o o o o c~ o o o o o o ~0 o~ °~°o~oo O0 O0 0 0 O o o o o · 0 o o D-I ffi o {:2) o H ~ ~ o o ~o · o~ o o oooooooo o [.ti H > Z ~ H Z o ~ , H 0 o ora HO~ O0 Z~ o r,j ~ 0 o H H ~0 H ~ ~H H ~ ~ o ~ , ~s~ ~ ~ o u~ r~ rtl u~ Z ~o H ~J ~0 ~0 -29- i ~r~ O~ r,.,) c> LD o o o o o o o o 00 o~ o o o oo o o o o o ZZ O0 ~ H o 0% o o o o o o cq ~1 o o ,~ o · . ~ i.-i mm,< mmO ZZZ~ ~0 o ~o~ o~o · . . o~o · o , ~m~O ~i~O o o o o o o · . o o · . · i H 0 go° ~0 Z 0 Z~ O~ Z~ ~Z O ZH E~O 0 ZZZ ~3 Z U ~Z I.-i Z r~o H 0 O~ Z ¢1~ , , -30- 0 0 0 0 0 uu ce} 0 0 ~q t"q cq · 0 0 mm> ~0 o [/~ o ~o oc~ Z o ~ H H oo I..-I o o o oo [',] D Z~ o~ -31- o~oo~oo~oo oo~ 00000000000 0000 o~~~~~~o oo oo o 00000000 000 o 0 ,-.i o r~ o o~ Z~ ~E~O ~0 C~C~ OoOO o °© ooEooEEoogooEEoE O0 O0 O0 O0 0 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 o~°°~~~~~o°ooo ~ ~ Z ZZ Z Z ~ Z Z ~ ~Z Z ~Z Z 0000000000000000 Oc~ Z 0 Z~ O~ Z~ u Z E~E~ I-.q o Z OZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ~0000000000000000 ~o~~;~~~~oooo oo ~~> 00000 oo oo~ oo 00000 000000 O0 0 O0 O0 0 0 0 ~oo~oo~oo~ooo O0 O0 O0 000 0000000000000000 ~oo~oo~ooo~oo ~ o ~ oo oo ~ ~ ZZZZZZZZZZ~ZZZZZ~ 0000000000000000 DDDDDO UUU~U ZZZZZZ 00000~ OOOOO~ Z 0 O0 0 O0 O0 ~0~~0000000 ~~~o~o~oo ~o~oo~~~ ~ ~~ 0000 0 ~ 0000~0 ~ ~ Z ZZ Z Z ~ ~ ~ ~ Z z~~ 0 ~0000000000000000 ~ ~~;~~~ooooo~~oo 0 ~~ ~ HO 0 O~ ~ m~OOffiO00~000000 ~HN~HHH HHHHHH -33- i 0 0 0 0 o~ u o o O0 ©© © ZZZZZ> U Z o ZH O~ Z~ ~ Z o o Z o~ i ~ Z U H Z~ 0 Z 0 Z Z 0 Z~ o ~ o Z -34- o o o o 00 o~, o E~ E~ E~ 000000 000000 ooo o o o o o oo~ ooo · . · , DDD~ oo o ~ ~ooo~ ~0~0 ~ 0 ~Z Z ~Z (DO Z~ ~Z Z~ H 0 0,~ n~ 0 0 rj ~ 0 0 ~Z (DH H U ZZZZZ 00000 HHHHH -35- o o o o co ~0 o CD c~ o o o~ 00 ce} ce} o 0 ~q oo~: o ~:~> o e0 00 o g ° © ggg o o o~ , , 0 mmmO uuu~ mmm> o o rD o om rj o ~ m [.t.1 uo H u Ho ~O~ o o> mo or~ i.-IO 0 o 2: om o H u ~ooo ~ooo . 121 :z: rD r.t'l o o n m o ~ o ~ n o~ rt'} -86- O~ (J · 0 o~ ~ O0 00 0 O00 00 c.l (xl (-,q 00 0 0 ~4 0 0 HH ZZ~ZZ OOmO0 U U ~00~00~ 000~000 ....... ~o~oo~ ~0 ~0 ~00~00~ 0 0 0 00 · · · 0 0 ~ o ~ ~ OoO 0 ,-4 0 0 000 · . . 000 ~'~ 00 · . . · o o oooo O00 · . . · o DDDO ZZZZ 000~ UUU> 00 Z~ 0o4 0 ZH 0 ~ ~ r~ ~ 0 I.-I ~ rJ 0 Or~ ~H 0r~ ~00 O0 HHH ~000 0 -37- o o o o cq ~ (DO r~ r~ ~ {2> o~ o o o ¢0 0'~ o O0 , o o o c~ o o o o o o o o ,-q ~ {:2> ~ 00 o o o o 00 00 o o o o o o c~ o oo ooooo o o o o~ o~ · o c> ~-q I.-.t ~ ~0 mm> ggo o ooo · . . zzzm ~0 Z~ ~0 o oo · Omm mO 0~ 0 ~ ~U ~ ~0~ 0 Z~ 0o~ E~ o~0 - 0 0 Z O~ Z 0 ~: :>o -38- O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 0 O0 0000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000 ooo~~~ oooo~~~~~~~oooooooo 0 ZZHO ooggg 000000000 googgoooggoogooogoogooggoogoog§ O0 000 O0 000 O0 O0 O0 0000000000000000000000000000000 CO00000000000000000000000000000 o ~~o ZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZ Z ZZ Z ZZ Z Z Z ZZ Z Z Z Z 0000000000000000000000000000000 Z~ OC~ U~ O~'~ Z 0 > o LN o c~ o o o o 0 U~ -40- 0 > -41- ITEM NO. 6b DATE: January_ 16, 2002 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: NOTIFICATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING EMERGENCY REPAIRS TO FIRE LADDER TRUCK IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,647.54. Emergency repairs were made to the Fire Department' s 1983, 75' ladder truck, as a result of scored hydraulic ram lift cylinders. Hi-Tech Emergency Vehicle Service Inc., of Oakdale was originally tasked to perform the repairs for $6,955.00. Once work began, Hi-Tech determined that the repairs were beyond its capability. It charged $635.51 for the evaluation. Stewart & Stevenson of San Francisco completed all necessary repairs and charged $6,012.03. The aerial ladder was service tested and placed back into service. The necessary funds were encumbered for this current budget year and are found in Account Number 100.2101.303.001. This Agenda Summary Report serves as notice to the City Council of this action, pursuant to Ukiah City Code Section 1530 A. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file report regarding the emergency repairs to the Fire Department's Ladder Truck in the amount of $6,647.54. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: N/A Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Fire Department Dan Grebil, Interim Fire Chief Candace Horsley, City Manager None APPROVED: Candace Horsley, ~ity Manager ITEM NO. 6c DATE: January 16, 2002 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING CITY OF UKIAH QUALIFIED CONTRACTORS LIST FOR 2002 As required by the Informal Bidding Procedure of the City of Ukiah, Ukiah City Code {}1541-1542, the City Clerk prepared and mailed a written notice to construction trade organizations and contractors in California on November 18, 2001, inviting all licensed contractors to submit the name of their firm to the City for inclusion on the City's list of qualified bidders for the 2002 calendar year. A contractor may be included throughout the year by either submitting a written notice to the City Clerk or by bidding on a City project. All contractors who submitted their company name, address, and construction classification designation by the deadline of December 28, 2001, together with those who bid on projects in 2001, have been included on the current updated list, attached to the Resolution as "Exhibit A". The resolution ensures that staff has a comprehensive list of qualified contractors when soliciting bids for the City of Ukiah. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution Approving Qualified Contractors List for 2002 Calendar Year. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: Contractors notified. N/A , , Marie Ulvila, City Clerk ~---'~/~Z',~~~. ~~Z~j'-~'4--''~ Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Resolution Approving Qualified Contractors List for 2002 Calendar Year, with Exhibit A 2. Notice to construction trade organizations and contractors APPROVED: ~.--~.~,~ Candace Horsley, City ~anager ASR:Qualified Contractors List2002 ATTACHMENT, RESOLUTION NO. 2002- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH APPROVING QUALIFIED CONTRACTORS LIST FOR 2002 CALENDAR YEAR WHEREAS, under Ukiah City Code (UCC) sections 1541-1542, the City Clerk must request licensed contractors who are qualified to perform public work under contract with the City of Ukiah to submit their names, addresses, phone numbers, type of work in which they are interested, and the contractor's classification and license number; and WHEREAS, the City Council is required to adopt a list of qualified contractors, identified according to categories of work; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk has published the notice as required in UCC Section 1541 and compiled a list of qualified contractors based on information submitted in response to said notice and including all contractors who have submitted valid bids to the City during the preceding calendar year; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that the list as compiled complies with the requirements of the City Code and Public Contracts Code Section 22032(b) and shall constitute the City of Ukiah's Contractors List for use in providing notice under the informal bidding procedure authorized in UCC Section 1543. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the list attached to this resolution as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference is adopted as the Contractors List for the City of Ukiah for the calendar year 2002. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of January, 2002, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: Marie Ulvila, City Clerk Phillip Ashiku, Mayor City of Ukiah 2002 Qualified Contractors List As January.. 16; 2002 (AVERY LABELS #5160) Labels:cont2001 EXHIBIT A BUILDERS EXCHANGE~ Contractors Information Network 1629 Pollasky, Ste. 113 Clovis, CA 93612 Daily Construction Service 80 Swan Way, Suite 130 Oakland, CA 94621-1438 North Coast Builders Exchange 522 N. Franklin Street Fort Bragg, CA 95437 North Coast Builders Exchange 175 Park Street Lakeport, CA 95453 North Coast Builders Exchange P. O2 Box 6025 Santa Rosa, CA 95406 North Coast Builders Exchange 216 West Perkins Street Ukiah, CA 95482 Matin Builders Exchange 110 Belvedere Street San Rafael, CA 94901 RedLadder.com 3001 19th Street San Francisco, CA 94110 Sacramento Builders Exchange P. O. Box 1462 Sacramento, CA 95807 Solano-Napa Builders Exchange P. O. Box 2400 Napa, CA 94558 Valley Contractors Exchange 951 E. 8th Street Chico, CA 95928 Valley Contractors Exchange 1641 Colusa Highway Yuba City, CA 95991 CLASS A GENERAL ENGINEERING ABC Service 204 23rd Street Sacramento, CA 95816 A-Z Construction P. O. Box 375 Calpella, CA 95418 Able Maintenance, Inc. 51 Foley Street Santa Rosa, CA 95402 Arcadian Enterprises P. O. Box 5475 Shasta Lake, CA 96089 Argonaut Constructors P. O. Box 639 Santa Rosa, CA 95402 Arnold Construction Co. 2119 Wood Road Fulton, CA 95439 BCM Construction Company 1560 Humboldt Road, Suite 1 Chico, CA 95928 BRCO Constructors, Inc. P. O. Box 367 Loomis, CA 95650 Beacom Construction P. O. Box 457 Fortuna, CA 95540 Bell Springs Construction P. O. Box 487 Laytonville, CA 95454 Blaisdell Construction, Inc. P. O. Box 493459 Redding, CA 96049-3459 CAL Inc. 2040 Peabody Road Vacaville, CA 95687 California Pavement Maint. 9390 Elder Creek Road Sacramento, CA 95829 B. Cantarutti Electric Co. 1575 Indian Valley Road Novato, CA 94947 Chemoh Construction P. O. Box 1426 Clearlake Oaks, CA 95423 Chrisp Company 43650 Osgood Road Fremont, CA 94539-5631 Crane of Ukiah, Inc. 4 Banker Blvd. Ukiah, CA 95482 Cushman Contracting Corp. P. O. Box 147 Goleta, CA 93116-0147 DYK incorporated P. O. Box 696 E1 Cajon, CA 92022-0696 Environmental Resolutions, Inc. 73 Digital Drive, Suite 100 Novato, CA 94949 Epidendio Construction P. O. Box 452 Lower Lake, CA 95457 Donald Ferranti P. O. Box 259 Redwood Valley, CA 95470 C. R. Fedrick, Inc. P. O. Box 688 Novato, CA 94948 Ford Construction 639 E. Lockeford St. Lodi, CA 95240 J. A. Gonsalves & Son Const. P. O. Box 6553 Napa, CA 94581 Ghilotti Construction Company, Inc. 246 Ghilotti Avenue Santa Rosa, CA 95407 Gilardoni Construction 4502 Bennett Valley Road Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Hamman's Inc. 9550 Occidental Road Sebastopol, CA 95472 Harborth Excavating P. O. Box 736 Lower Lake, CA 95457 Charles A. Heath Construction 3268 Westho Trail Cottonwood, CA 96022 Hermsmeyer Paving Co. 5454 Old Redwood Highway Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Lee Howard Construction Co. 3900 Parducci Road Ukiah, CA 95482 L. J. Construction Co. 9460 Graton Road Sebastopol, CA 94572 JKH General Engineering, Inc. P. O. Box 778 Lower Lake, CA 95457 J & M Land Restoration, Inc. 1640 James Road Bakersfield, CA 933098 Jet-Con Enterprises P. O. Box 508 Ukiah, CA 95482 KBR Construction 2806 Tarmac Road Redding, CA 96003 Kernen Construction P. O. Box 1340 Blue Lake, CA 95525-1340 Kernen Construction 2350 Glendale Drive Arcata, CA 95519 Kirkwood-Bly, Inc. P. O. Box 3339 Santa Rosa, CA 95402 Joseph LaMalfa Construction 251 Stipp Lane Ukiah, CA 95482 Tory J. Lawrence 750 East Valley Street Willits, CA 95490 Lawson Mechanical Contractors P. O. Box 15224 Sacramento, CA 95851 Ross Mayfield Co. P. O. Box 275 Ukiah, CA 95482 Mendocino Construction Services P. O. Box 1517 Willits, CA 95490 North Bay Construction Inc. P. O. Box 6004 Petaluma, CA 94955-6004 Northern Abatement Co., Inc. 4301 Highway 29 American Canyon, CA 94589 Northern Industrial Electric 2435 Radio Lane Redding, CA 96001-3870 Oak Grove Construction 3354 Regional Parkway Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Pacific Coast Drilling Co., Inc. 801 Lindberg Lane Petaluma, CA 94952 Pacific Liners 70 Uniion Way Vacaville, CA 95687 Pacific Mechanical Corporation P. O. Box 4041 Concord, CA 94524 Pacific Pipeline Survey 70 Union Way Vacaville, CA 95687 Parnum Paving, Inc. 1324 South State Street Ukiah, CA 95482 Performance Excavators, Inc. 103 Shoreline Parkway, 2nd Floor San Rafael, CA 94901 Pipeline Excavators P. O. Box 1755 Sebastopol, CA 95473 C. A. Rasmussen, Inc. P. O. Box 498 Windsor, CA 95492 Reliance Enterprises P. O. Box 1743 Santa Rosa, CA 95402 C. W. Roen Construction Co. P. O. Box 4 Danville, CA 94526 Safety Striping Service 8330 W. Doe Avenue Visalia, CA 93291 Schram Construction Inc. 3162 Regional Parkway Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Sequoia Surfacing & Engineering 9741 Old Redwood Highway Windsor, CA 95492 Smith Electric 875 Eureka Street Eureka, CA 95503 Soave Concrete P. O. Box 2769 Ukiah, CA 95482 Soil Enterprises, Inc. P. O. Box 733 Brentwood, CA 94513 Sonomarin Inc. P. O. Box 17 Fulton, CA 95439 Daniel Steel & Machine Works 160 Brush Street Ukiah, CA 95482 Stiles Construction co. 6209 Lockwood Drive Windsor, CA 95492 Pacific Coast Drilling Co., Inc. 801 Lindberg Lane Petaluma, CA 94952 T & S Construction 1525 East Hill Road Willits, CA 95490 William Turley Communication Engineering 223 2nd Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Universal Environmental 4101 Industrial Way Benicia, CA 94510 Valentine Corporation P. O. Box 9337 San Rafael, CA 94912 Valley Engineers, Inc. P. O. Box 12227 Fresno, CA 93777 Valley Paving P. O. Box 559 Redwood Valley, CA 95470 Valley Slurry Seal Company P. O. Box 1620 West Sacramento, CA 95691 K. G. Walters Construction Co. P. O. Box 4359 Santa Rosa, CA 95402 Waters Construction, Inc. P. O. Box 126 Willits, CA 95490 Wildcat Underground & Engineering 21 Washington Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Wipf Construction P. O. Box 234 Ukiah, CA 95482 CLASS ASB ASBESTOS REMOVAL CERTIFICATION AFM Environmental, Inc. 852 Northport Drive, #106 West Sacramento, CA 95691 Asbestos Management Group of California 2855 Mandela Parkway, Ste 11 Oakland, CA 94608 CAL Inc. 2040 Peabody Road Vacaville, CA 95687 Northern Abatement Co., Inc. 4301 Highway 29 American Canyon, CA 94589 C. A. Rasmussen, Inc. P. O. Box 498 Windsor, CA 95492 Schram Construction Inc. 3162 Regional Parkway Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Valley Engineers, Inc. P. O. Box 12227 Fresno, CA 93777 K. G. Walters Construction Co. P. O. Box 4359 Santa Rosa, CA 95402 CLASS B GENERAL BUILDING AFM Environmental, Inc. 852 Northport Drive, #106 West Sacramento, CA 95691 Able Maintenance, Inc. 51 Foley Street Santa Rosa, CA 95402 Alten Construction, Inc. 44 Woodland Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901 Arcadian Enterprises P. O. Box 5475 Shasta Lake, CA 96089 Argonaut Constructors P. O. Box 639 Santa Rosa, CA 95402 Asbestos Management Group of California 2855 Mandela Parkway, Ste 11 Oakland, CA 94608 BCM Construction Company 1560 Humboldt Road, Suite 1 Chico, CA 95928 BRCO Constructors, Inc. P. O. Box 367 Loomis, CA 95650 Beacom Construction Co. P. O. Box 457 Fortuna, CA 95540 Busch Construction & Electric 2020 Industry Road Ukiah, CA 95482 CAL Inc. 2040 Peabody Road Vacaville, CA 95687 B. Cantarutti Electric Co. 1575 Indian Valley Road Novato, CA 94947 Carr's Construction Service 9140 Piccadilly Circle Windsor, CA 95492 Clark Construction P. O. Box 167 Calpella, CA 95418 Cline's Unlimited Construction 7200 Uva Drive Redwood Valley, CA 95470 Crane of Ukiah 4 Banker Blvd. Ukiah, CA 95482 Epidendio Construction P. O. Box 452 Lower Lake, CA 95457 Donald Ferranti P. O. Box 259 Redwood Valley, CA 95470 Ford Construction 639 E. Lockeford Street Lodi, CA 9524O C. R. Fedrick, Inc. P. O. Box 688 Novato, CA 94948 Hawkes Construction 708 Willow Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Jet-Con Enterprises P. O. Box 508 Ukiah, CA 95482 Kernen Construction P. O. Box 1340 Blue Lake, CA 95525-1340 Kernen Construction 2350 Glendale Drive Arcata, CA 95519 McCarthy Construction P. O. Box 15246 Sacramento, CA 95851 Duane C. Kitchens & Sons Construction Company 1506 Hallmark Court Santa Rosa, CA 95403-2378 · E. Menton Builders 760 Apple Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Lawson Mechanical Contractors P. O. Box 15224 Sacramento, CA 95851 Miller Paneling Specialties, Inc. P. O. Box 270 Woodland, CA 95776 A. E. Nelson Construction 4527 Montgomery Dr., Ste. C Santa Rosa, CA 95409 North Bay Construction Inc. P. O. Box 6004 Petaluma, CA 94955-6004 North Coast Energy Services, Inc. P. O. Box 413 Ukiah, CA 95482 Northern Abatement Co., Inc. 4301 Highway 29 American Canyon, CA 94589 Northern Industrial Electric 2435 Radio Lane Redding, CA 96001 Oak Grove Construction 3354 Regional Parkway Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Pacific Mechanical Corp. P. O. Box 4041 Concord, CA 94524 Pipeline Excavators P. O. Box 1755 Sebastopol, CA 95473 Rainbow Construction P. O. Box 2769 Ukiah, CA 95482 C. A. Rasmussen, Inc. P. O. Box 498 Windsor, CA 95492 Reliance Enterprises P. O. Box 1743 Santa Rosa, CA 95402 Schram Construction Inc. 3162 Regional Parkway Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Williams Scotsman C/O: Gabriele Holden 4911 Allison Parkway Vacaville, CA 65687 Sonomarin Inc. P. O. Box 17 Fulton, CA 95439 Strong Hold Masonry & Concrete 555 Rancho Caballo Santa Rosa, CA 95401 T.D.M. Construction Co., Inc. 144 A Cherry Street Ukiah, CA 95482 Robert Frank Construction 2806 Tarmac Road Redding, CA 96003 Ukiah Acoustics 676 South Orchard Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Ukiah Construction 676 South Orchard Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Valentine Corporation P. O. Box 9337 San Rafael, CA 94912 Valley Paving P. O. Box 559 Redwood Valley, CA 95470 Valley Slurry Seal Company P. O. Box 1620 West Sacramento, CA 95691 CLASS C-2 INSULATION & ACOUSTICAL Duane C. Kitchens & Sons Construction Company 1506 Hallmark Court Santa Rosa, CA 95403-2378 K. G. Walters Construction Co. P. O. Box 4359 Santa Rosa, CA 95402 Asbestos Management Group of California 2855 Mandela Parkway, Ste 11 Oakland, CA 94608 Lawson Mechanical Contractors P. O. Box 15224 Sacramento, CA 95851 Wildcat Underground & Engineering 21 Washington Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Crown Interiors, Inc. 139 Washington Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 North Coast Energy Services, Inc. P. O. Box 413 Ukiah, CA 95482 Northern Abatement Co., Inc. 4301 Highway 29 American Canyon, CA 94589 Ukiah Acoustics 676 South Orchard Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 CLASS C-4 BOILER, HOT WATER HEATING & STEAM FITTING Lawson Mechanical Contractors P. O. Box 15224 Sacramento, CA 95851 Northern Industrial Electric 2435 Radio Lane Redding, CA 96001-3870 Pacific Mechanical Corporation P. O. Box 4041 Concord, CA 94524 Reliance Enterprises P. O. Box 1743 Santa Rosa, CA 95402 Schram Construction Inc. 3162 Regional Parkway Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Sonomarin Inc. P. O. Box 17 Fulton, CA 95439 CLASS C-5 CARPENTRY Beacom Construction Co. P. O. Box 457 Fortuna, CA 95540 CLASS C-6 CABINET & MILL WORK Beacom Construction Co. P. O. Box 457 Fortuna, CA 95540 CLASS C-7 LOW VOLTAGE COMMUNICATIONS & WIRING SYSTEMS William Turley Communication Engineering 223 2nd Street Petaluma, CA 94952 CLASS C-8 CONCRETE Deep Valley Security 960 North State Street Ukiah, CA 95482 A-Z Construction P. O. Box 375 Calpella, CA 95418 C. R. Fedrick, Inc. P. O. Box 688 Novato, CA 94948 BCM Construction Company 1560 Humboldt Road, Suite 1 Chico, CA 95928 Clark Construction P. O. Box 167 Calpella, CA 95418 Epidendio Construction P. O. Box 452 Lower Lake, CA 95457 Donald Ferranti P. O. Box 259 Redwood Valley, CA 95470 Ghilotti Construction Company, Inc. 246 Ghilotti Avenue Santa Rosa, CA 95407 Strong Hold Masonry & Concrete 555 Rancho Caballo Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Duane C. Kitchens & Sons Construction Company 1506 Hallmark Court Santa Rosa, CA 95403-2378 T.D.M. Construction Co., Inc. 144 A Cherry Street Ukiah, CA 95482 Soave Concrete P. O. Box 2769 Ukiah, CA 95482 CLASS C-10 GENERAL ELECTRICAL Advanced Control Systems P. O. Box 518 Cloverdale, CA 95425 Mike Brown Electric Co. 561-A Mercantile Drive Cotati, CA 94931 Busch Construction & Electric 2020 Industry Road Ukiah, CA 95482 B. Cantarutti Electric Co. 1575 Indian Valley Road Novato, CA 94947 Clark Construction P. O. Box 167 Calpella, CA 95418 Deep Valley Security 960 North State Street Ukiah, CA 95482 Environmental Resolutions, Inc. 73 Digital Drive, Suite 100 Novato, CA 94949 C. R. Fedrick, Inc. P. O. Box 688 Novato, CA 94948 North Coast Energy Services, Inc. P. O. Box 413 Ukiah, CA 95482 Northern Abatement Co., Inc. 4301 Highway 29 American Canyon, CA 94589 Northern Industrial Electric 2435 Radio Lane Redding, CA 96001-3870 Pacific Mechanical Corporation P. O. Box 4041 Concord, CA 94524 Pacific Lighting and Power 2406 Kerner Blvd. San Rafael, CA 94901 Reliance Enterprises P. O. Box 1743 Santa Rosa, CA 95402 Republic Electric 7120 Redwood Blvd. Novato, CA 94945-4114 Smith Electric 875 Eureka Street Eureka, CA 95503 Sonomarin Inc. P. O. Box 17 Fulton, CA 95439 Tresch Electrical Co. Inc. P. O. Box 71 Novato, CA 94948 Ukiah Acoustics 676 South Orchard Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Ukiah Electric 676 South Orchard Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 CLASS C-12 EARTHWORK & PAVING A-Z Construction P. O. Box 375 Calpella, CA 95418 California Pavement Maint. 9390 Elder Creek Road Sacramento, CA 95829 Central Striping Service, Inc. 3489 Luyung Drive Rancho Cordova, CA 95742 Duran Construction P. O. Box 681 Redwood Valley, CA 95470 Ghilotti Construction Company, Inc. 246 Ghilotti Avenue Santa Rosa, CA 95407 Graham Contractors, Inc. 860 Lonus Street San Jose, CA 95126 Lee Howard Construction Co. 3900 Parducci Road Ukiah, CA 95482 Landmark P. O. Bx 924 Novato, CA 9 4948 Ross Mayfield Co. P. O. Box 275 Ukiah, CA 95482 Pipeline Excavators P. O. Box 1755 Sebastopol, CA 95473 Valley Slurry Seal Company P. O. Box 1620 West Sacramento, CA 95691 A.T. Wanzer Grading & Excavating 484 St. Marys Avenue Hopland, CA 95449 CLASS C-13 FENCING A-Z Construction P. O. Box 375 Calpella, CA 95418 Able Fence Company, Inc. P. O. Box 219 Petaluma, CA 94953-0219 Arcadian Enterprises P. O. Box 5475 Shasta Lake, CA 96089 Arrow Fencing P. O. Box 142 Redwood Valley, CA 95470 Chrisp Company 43650 Osgood Road Fremont, CA 94539-5631 Robert Frank Construction 2806 Tarmac Road Redding, CA 96003 Jacobson Fence Co., Inc. 987 Airway Court, #35 Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Jet-Con Enterprises P. O. Box 508 Ukiah, CA 95482 CLASS C-15 FLOORING & FLOOR COVERING Crown Interiors, Inc. 139 Washington Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 CLASS C-16 FIRE PROTECTION CONTRACTOR Lawson Mechanical Contractors P. O. Box 15224 Sacramento, CA 95851 Pacific Mechanical Corporation P. O. Box 4041 Concord, CA 94524 Schram Construction Inc. 3162 Regional Parkway Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Waters Construction, Inc. P. O. Box 126 Willits, CA 95490 CLASS C-17 GLAZING Builders Glass & Supply Co., Inc. 1258 North State Street Ukiah, CA 95482 North Coast Energy Services, Inc. P. O. Box 413 Ukiah, CA 95482 CLASS C-20 WARM-AIR HEATING, VENTILATING & AIR- CONDITIONING ABC Service 204 23rd Street Sacramento, CA 95816 A C & R Service 539 South Main Street Ukiah, CA 95482 ADNC Inc.dba Air Doctor 5625 State Farm Drive #35 Rohnert Park, CA 94928 Lawson Mechanical Contractors P. O. Box 15224 Sacramento, CA 95851 Pacific Mechanical Corporation P. O. Box 4041 Concord, CA 94524 Reliance Enterprises P. O. Box 1743 Santa Rosa, CA 95402 Sonomarin Inc. P. O. Box 17 Fulton, CA 95439 CLASS C-21 BUILDING MOVING & WRECKING Epidendio Construction P. O. Box 452 Lower Lake, CA 95457 Robert Frank Construction 2806 Tarmac Road Redding, CA 96003 Ghilotti Construction Company, Inc. 246 Ghilotti Avenue Santa Rosa, CA 95407 Hamman's Inc. 9550 Occidental Road Sebastopol, CA 95472 JKH General Engineering, Inc. P. O. Box 778 Lower Lake, CA 95457 Kernen Construction P. O. Box 1340 Blue Lake, CA 95525-1340 Kemen Construction 2350 Glendale Drive Arcata, CA 95519 Mendocino Construction Services P. O. Box 15127 Willits, CA 95490 Northern Abatement Co., Inc. 4301 Highway 29 American Canyon, CA 94589 Pacific Structural Corp. 138A Hamilton Drive Novato, CA 94949 Soil Enterprises, Inc. P. O. Box 733 Brentwood, CA 94513 CLASS C-23 ORNAMENTAL METALS LNS Welding & Fabrication P. O. Box 636 Willits, CA 95490 Mendocino Metals 201 Clara Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 CLASS C-27 LANDSCAPING Creative Landscaping 1155 Boonville Road Ukiah, CA 95482 Davey Tree Surgery Company P. O. Box 5015 Livermore, CA 94551-5015 North Bay Construction Inc. P. O. Box 6004 Petaluma, CA 94955-6004 West Coast Arborists, Inc. 2200 E. Via Burton St. Anaheim, CA 92806 Sangiacomo Landscape 3150 Guidiville Road Ukiah, CA 95482 TruGreen Land Care LCARE USA 8023 Gravenstein Highway Cotati, CA 94931 CLASS C-28 LOCK & SECURITY EQUIPMENT J & M Locksmith 1258 North State Street Ukiah, CA 95482 CLASS C-29 MASONRY Mendocino Masonry P. O. Box 271 Comptche, CA 95427 Strong Hold Masonry & Concrete 555 Rancho Caballo Santa Rosa, CA 95401 CLASS C-31 CONSTRUCTION ZONE TRAFFIC CONTROL B. Cantarutti Electric Co. 1575 Indian Valley Road Novato, CA 94947 Lee Howard Construction 3900 Parducci Road Ukiah, CA 95482 CLASS C-32 PARKING & HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT Apply-A-Line Inc. 106 Frontage Road N Pacific, WA 98047 Apply-A-Line 5625 Eastside Road Redding, CA 96001-4531 Central Striping Service, Inc. 3489 Luyung Drive Rancho Cordova, CA 95742 Chrisp Company 43650 Osgood Road Fremont, CA 94539-5631 D. Jones Painting P. O. Box 1787 Willits, CA 95490 Price Striping Service 1680 Elk Valley Road Crescent City, CA 95531 Riley's Striping P. O. Box 1188 Benicia, CA 94510 Safety Striping Service 8330 W. Doe Avenue Visalia, CA 93291 Traffic Ltd. P. O. Box 1721 Lodi, CA 95241 CLASS C-33 PAINTING AND DECORATING Alexander Enterprises 112 Commercial Ct., Suite #4 Santa Rosa, CA 95407 Beacom Construction Co. P. O. Box 457 Fortuna, CA 95540 Excamilla Painting 1190 North State St., #233 Ukiah, CA 95482 D. Jones Painting P. O. Box 1787 Willits, CA 95490 Markos Painting Co., Inc. P. O. Box 2108 Novato, CA 94948 Northern Abatement Co., Inc. 4301 Highway 29 American Canyon, CA 94589 Spurgeon Painting, Inc. P. O. Box 2776 Petaluma, CA 94953 CLASS C-34 PIPELINE Lee Howard Construction Co. 3900 Parducci Road Ukiah, CA 95482 CLASS C-36 PLUMBING ABC Service 204 23rd Street Sacramento, CA 95816 Clark Construction P. O. Box 167 Calpella, CA 95418 Lawson Mechanical Contractors P. O. Box 15224 Sacramento, CA 95851 A. E. Nelson Construction 4527 Montgomery Dr., Ste. C Santa Rosa, CA 95409 Pacific Mechanical Corporation P. O. Box 4041 Concord, CA 94524 Reliance Enterprises P. O. Box 1743 Santa Rosa, CA 95402 Schram Construction Inc. 3162 Regional Parkway Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Sonomarin Inc. P. O. Box 17 Fulton, CA 95439 Waters Construction, Inc. P. O. Box 126 Willits, CA 95490 CLASS C-38 REFRIGERATION Lawson Mechanical Contractors P. O. Box 15224 Sacramento, CA 95851 CLASS C-39 ROOFING American Roofing P O. Box 1635 Lakeport, CA 94553 BCM Construction Company 1560 Humboldt Road, Suite 1 Chico, CA 95928 Cline's Unlimited Construction 7200 Uva Drive Redwood Valley, CA 95470 Mendocino Roofing Inc. P. O. Box 944 Redwood Valley, CA 95470 Valley Roofing 212 Thompson Street Ukiah, CA 95482 CLASS C-42 SANITATION SYSTEMS ABC Service 204 23rd Street Sacramento, CA 95816 Ghilotti Construction Company, Inc. 246 Ghilotti Avenue Santa Rosa, CA 95407 Lee Howard Construction Co. 3900 Parducci Road Ukiah, CA 95482 Pipeline Excavators P. O. Box 1755 Sebastopol, CA 95473 CLASS C-43 SHEET METAL Lawson Mechanical Contractors P. O. Box 15224 Sacramento, CA 95851 Pacific Mechanical Corporation P. O. Box 4041 Concord, CA 94524 Reliance Enterprises P. O. Box 1743 Santa Rosa, CA 95402 Sonomarin Inc. P. O. Box 17 Fulton, CA 95439 CLASS C-51 STRUCTURAL STEEL CONTRACTOR BCM Construction Company 1560 Humboldt Road, Suite 1 Chico, CA 95928 CLASS C-54 CERAMIC AND MOSAIC TILE Arnold Ceramic Tile Company P. O. Box 660 Redwood Valley, CA 95470 Crown Interiors, Inc. 139 Washington Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Miller Paneling Specialties, Inc. P. O. Box 270 Woodland, CA 95776 CLASS C-57 WATER WELL DRILLING Lee Howard Construction Co. 3900 Parducci Road Ukiah, CA 95482 Pacific Coast Drilling Co. 801 Lindberg Lane Petaluma, CA 94952 Performance Excavators, Inc. 103 Shoreline Parkway, 2nd Flood San Rafael, CA 94901 CLASS C-61 LIMITED SPECIALTY Atlas Tree Surgery, Inc. 1544 Ludwig Avenue Santa Rosa, CA 95407 B. Cantarutti Electric Co. 1575 Indian Valley Road Novato, CA 94947 Davey Tree Surgery Company P. O. Box 5015 Livermore, CA 94551-5015 FamilY Tree Service P. O. Box 1325 Laytonville, CA 95454 Godon, Inc. P. O. Box 5280 Auburn, CA 95604 Jet-Con Enterprises P. O. Box 508 Ukiah, CA 95482 Johnson's Quality Tree Care 2700 Boonville Road Ukiah, CA 95482 Marvins Garden Tree Service P. O. Box 1725 Willits, CA 95490 Miller Paneling Specialties P. O. Box 270 Woodland, CA 95776 Northcoast Tree Care 26100 String Creek Road Willits, CA 95490 Timberline Tree Service P. O. Box 577 Forestville, CA 95436 West Coast Arborists, Inc. 2200 E. Via Burton St. Anaheim, CA 92806 CLASS D-12 SYNTHETIC PRODUCTS Miller Paneling Specialties, Inc. P. O. Box 270 Woodland, CA 95776 CLASS D-21 MACHINERY & PUMPS B. Cantamtti Electric Co. 1575 Indian Valley Road Novato, CA 94947 CLASS D-28 DOORS, GATES & ACTIVATING DEVISES Jet-Con Enterprises P. O. Box 508 Ukiah, CA 95482 CLASS D-31 POLE INSTALLATION & MAINTENANCE Davey Tree Surgery Company P. O. Box 5015 Livermore, CA 94551-5015 CLASS D-34 PREFABRICATED EQUIPMENT Kevin O'Keefe Co. P. O. Box 281 Diamond Springs, CA 95619 CLASS D-38 SAND AND WATER BLASTING Universal Environmental 4101 Industrial Way Benicia, CA 94510 CLASS D.42 SIGN INSTALLATION Central Striping Service, Inc. 3489 Luyung Drive Rancho Cordova, CA 95742 CLASS D-49 TREE SERVICE Asplundh Tree Expert Co. 708 Blair Mill Road Willow Grove, PA 19090-1784 Atlas Tree Surgery, Inc. 1544 Ludwig Avenue Santa Rosa, CA 95407 Davey Tree Surgery Company P. O. Box 5015 Livermore, CA 94551-5015 Family Tree Service P. O. Box 1325 Laytonville, CA 95454 Godon, Inc. P. O. Box 5280 Auburn, CA 95604 Johnson's Quality Tree Care 2700 Boonville Road Ukiah, CA 95482 Kingsbrough Atlas Tree Surgery 1544 Ldwig Avenue Santa Rosa, CA 95407 Marvin's Garden Tree Service P. O. Box 1725 Willits, CA 95490 Matt's Custom Tree Care 1575 Elm Street Ukiah, CA 95482 Northcoast Tree Care 26100 String Creek Road Willits, CA 95490 Timberline Tree Service P. O. Box 577 Forestville, CA 95436 Timberline Tree Service P. O. Box 964 Ukiah, CA 95482 TruGreen LandCare 930 Shiloh. Road, Bldg. 44, Ste. B Windsor, CA 95492 West Coast Arborists, Inc. 2200 E. Via Burton St. Anaheim, CA 92806 HAZ HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE REMOVAL CERTIFICATION Able Maintenance, Inc. 51 Foley Street Santa Rosa, CA 95402 Beacom Construction Co. P. O. Box 457 Fortuna, CA 95540 CAL Inc. 2040 Peabody Road Vacaville, CA 95687 Epidendio Construction Inc. P. O. Box 452 Lower Lake, CA 95457 Ford Construction Company 639 East Lockeford Street Lodi, CA 95240 Ghilotti Construction Company, Inc. 246 Ghilotti Avenue Santa Rosa, CA 95407 Hamman's Inc. 9550 Occidental Road Sebastopol, CA 95472 Harborth Excavating P. O. Box 736 Lower Lake, CA 95457 Lee Howard Construction Co. 3900 Parducci Road Ukiah, CA 95482 JKH General Engineering, Inc. P. O. Box 778 Lower Lake, CA 95457 Jet-Con Enterprises P. O. Box 508 Ukiah, CA 95482 Kernen Construction P. O. Box 1340 Blue Lake, CA 95525-1340 Kernen Construction 2350 Glendale Drive Arcata, CA 95519 North Bay Construction 431 Payran Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Northern Abatement Co., Inc. 4301 Highway 29 American Canyon, CA 94589 Oak Grove Construction 3354 Regional Parkway Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Pacific Coast Drilling 801Lindberg Lane Petaluma, CA 94952 Pacific Mechanical Corporation P. O. Box 4041 Concord, CA 94524 Performance Excavators, Inc. 103 Shoreline Parkway, 2nd Floor San Rafael, CA 94901 C. A. Rasmussen, Inc. P. O. Box 498 Windsor, CA 95492 Stiles Construction Co. 6209 Lockwood Drive Windsor, CA 95492 Universal Environmental 4101 Industrial Way Benicia, CA 94510 Valley Engineers, Inc. P. O. Box 12227 Fresno, cA 93777 K. G. Walters Construction Co. P. O. Box 4359 Santa Rosa, CA 95402 Waters Construction, Inc. P. O. Box 126 Willits, CA 95490 Wildcat Underground & Engineering 21 Washington Street Petaluma, CA 94952 HIC HOME IMPROVEMENT CERTIFICATION ABC Service 204 23rd Street Sacramento, CA 95816 Able Maintenance, Inc. 51 Foley Street Santa Rosa, CA 95402 AC & R Service 539 South Main Street Ukiah, CA 95482 AFM Environmental, Inc. 852 Northport Drive, #106 West Sacramento, CA 95691 ADNC Inc.dba Air Doctor 5625 State Farm Drive #35 Rohnert Park, CA 94928 Arrow Fencing P. O. Box 142 Redwood Valley, CA 95470 A-Z Construction P. O. Box 375 Calpella, CA 95418 Beacom Construction Co. P. O. Box 457 Fortuna, CA 95540 Bell Springs Construction P. O. Box 487 Laytonville, CA 95454 BRCO Constructors, Inc. P. O. Box 367 Loomis, CA 95650 Mike Brown Electric 561-A Mercantile Drive Cotati, CA 94931 Busch Construction & Electric 2020 Industry Road Ukiah, CA 95482 CAL, Inc. 2040 Peabody Road, Suite 400 Vacaville, CA 95687 California Pavement Maint. Co. 9390 Elder Creek Road Sacramento, CA 95829 B. Cantarutti Electric Co. 1575 Indian Valley Road Novato, CA 94947 Cline's Unlimited Construction 7200 Uva Drive Redwood Valley, CA 95470 Crane of Ukiah, Inc. 4 Banker Blvd. Ukiah, CA 95482 Creative Landscaping 1155 Boonville Road Ukiah, CA 95482 Daniel Steel & Machine Works 160 Brush Street Ukiah, CA 95482 Davey Tree Surgery Company P. O. Box 5015 Livermore, CA 94551-5015 Deep Valley Security, Inc. 960 North State Street Ukiah, CA 95482 Ferranti Construction, Inc. P. O. Box 259 Redwood Valley, CA 95470 Ford Construction 639 E. Lockeford Street Lodi, CA 95240 Robert Frank Construction 2806 Tarmac Road Redding, CA 96003 C. R. Fredrick, Inc. P. O. Box 688 Novato, CA 94948 J. A. Gonsalves & Son Const. P. O. Box 6553 Napa, CA 94581 Ghilotti Construction Co. 246 Ghilotti Avenue Santa Rosa, CA 95407 Hamman's Inc. 9550 Occidental Road Sebastopol, CA 95472 Charles Heath Construction 3268 Westho Trail Cottonwood, CA 96022 Hermsmeyer Paving Company 5454 Old Redwood Highway Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Lee Howard Construction 3900 Parducci Road Ukiah, CA 95482 J & M Land Restoration 1640 James Road Bakersfield, CA 93308 Jacobson Fence Co., Inc. P. O. Box 6025 Santa Rosa, CA 95406 Jet-Con Enterprises P. O. Box 508 Ukiah, CA 95482 Kemen Construction P. O. Box 1340 Blue Lake, CA 95525-1340 Kemen Construction 2350 Glendale Drive Arcata, CA 95519 Duane C. Kitchens & Sons Construction Company 1506 Hallmark Court Santa Rosa, CA 95403-2378 Menton Builders 760 Apple Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 North Bay Construction Inc. P. O. Box 6004 Petaluma, CA 94955-6004 North Coast Energy Services, Inc. P. O. Box 413 Ukiah, CA 95482 Northern Industrial Electric 2435 Radio Lane Redding, CA 96001-3870 Oak Grove Construction 3354 Regional Parkway Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Pacific Mechanical Corporation P. O. Box 4041 Concord, CA 94524 Pipeline Excavators P.O.Box 1755 Sebastopol, CA 95473 Rainbow Construction P. O. Box 2769 Ukiah, CA 95482 Reliable Enterprises P. O. Box 1743 Santa Rosa, CA 95402 Safety Striping Service 8330 W. Doe Avenue Visalia, CA 93291 Sequoia Surfacing & Engineering 9741 Old Redwood Highway Windsor, CA 95492 Spurgeon Painting, Inc. 1308Dynamic Street8 Petaluma, CA 94954 Stiles Construction Co. 6209 Lockwood Drive Windsor, CA 95492 Strong Hold Masonry & Concrete 555 Rancho Caballo Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Tresch Electrical Co. Inc. P. O. Box 71 Novato, CA 94948 TruGreen LandCare 930 Shiloh Road, Bldg.44,Ste.B Windsor, CA 95492 Ukiah Acoustics 676 South Orchard Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Ukiah Construction 676 South Orchard Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Ukiah Electric 676 South Orchard Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Universal Environmental, Inc. 4101 Indusrial Way Benicia, CA 94510 Valentine Corporation 111 Pelican Way San Rafael, CA 94901 Valley Slurry Seal Company P. O. Box 1620 West Sacramento, CA 95691 K. G. Walters Construction P. O. Box 4359 Santa Rosa, CA 95402 Wildcat Underground & Engineering 21 Washington Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Williams Scotsman, Inc. 4911 Allison Parkway Vacaville, CA 95688 Wipf Construction P. O. Box 234 Ukiah, CA 95482 NOTICE All Licensed Contractors who wish to be included on the City of Ukiah's list of qualified bidders for the year 2002 should submit an Application for Qualified Contractor's List, and provide required information, as per Public Contractors Code Section 22032. The Application for Qualified Contractor's List, along with City of Ukiah Insurance Requirements for Contractors, is hereby attached. Completed forms should be submitted to' City of Ukiah Attn: Marie Ulvila, City Clerk 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482-5400 Or Fax to: (707) 463-6204 -DUE BY DECEMBER 28, 2001- Please publish the above Notice as soon as possible: If there is a publishing cost, please call for confirmation before publication, from Marie UIvila, City Clerk, at (707) 463-6217. Thank you. Notice Dated: 11/18/01 300 SEMINARY AVENUE UKIAH, CA 95482-5400 Phone# 707/463-6200 Fax# 707/463-6204 Web Address: www. cityofukiah.com ITEM NO. 6d DATE: January 16, 2002 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO PARTICIPATION IN THE ABANDONED VEHICLE ABATEMENT PROGRAM Senate Bill 106 was recently signed into law, amending Vehicle Code Section 9250.7, relating to the Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Program. The amendment authorizes the service fee for each Service Authority to be extended in increments of up to 10 years if the County Board of Supervisors, by a two-thirds vote, and a majority of the cities having a majority of the incorporated population within the county, adopt resolutions providing for the extension of the fee. Our Service Authority has reached the sunset date and a resolution is required to continue the Vehicle Abatement Program for our community. Attached is the proposed resolution and staff recommends adoption of the resolution to continue our participation in the Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Program. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution pertaining to the participation in the Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Program. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: Provide staff with alternate direction. Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Ukiah Police Department Prepared by: Chris Dewey, Police Captain Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager and John Williams, Police Chief Attachments: 1. Resolution for adoption. APPROVED: Candace Horsley, ~it~Manager RESOLUTION NO. 2002- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH RENEWING THE MENDOCINO COUNTY ABANDONED VEHICLE ABATEMENT SERVICE AUTHORITY WHEREAS, Senate Bill 106 was recently signed into law, amending Section 9250.7 of the California Vehicle Code (VC), relating to the Abandoned Vehicle Abatement (AVA) Program; and WHEREAS, the amendment authorizes the service fee for each Service Authority to be extended in increments of up to 10 years if the County Board of Supervisors, by a two-thirds vote, and a majority of the cities having a majority of the incorporated population within the county, adopt resolutions providing for the extension of the fee; and WHEREAS, by resolution No. 92-16, the City Council joined with a majority of the citizens in Mendocino County and the Board of Supervisors of Mendocino County in establishing the Mendocino County Vehicle Abatement Service Authority, and on November 6, 1991, by resolution No. 92-22 the City Council approved the Mendocino County Vehicle Abatement Plan; and WHEREAS, the current Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Service Authority for Mendocino County will expire on April 30th, 2002; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that an organized program for abatement, removal, and disposal of abandoned, wrecked, dismantled, and inoperative vehicles is needed to protect the health and safety of citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Ukiah does hereby approve: o . . The extension of the Mendocino County Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Service Authority in Mendocino County pursuant to Section 22710 of the California Vehicle Code for the maximum incremental period authorized by law, to and including April 30, 2012; and The imposition of a $1.00 vehicle registration fee in Mendocino County pursuant to California Vehicle Code 22710 and Section 9250.7; and The Director of the Planning and Building Services Department for the County of Mendocino as the Mendocino County Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Service Authority. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of January 2002 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Phillip Ashiku, Mayor ATTEST: Marie Ulvila, City Clerk Resolution No. 2002- Page 1 of I AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. 6e DATE: January 16, 2002 REPORT SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO TRANSFER TITLE OF SURPLUS FIRE AMBULANCE TO THE UKIAH ROTARY CLUB FOR HUMANITARIAN USE The Fire Department has a 1987 Ford Econoline/VVheeled Coach Type II Ambulance which is no longer suitable for City use and has been declared surplus. The resale value is deemed minimal. Over the past many years the Ukiah Rotary Club has provided assistance to small communities in Baja California including food, computers, school buses, and medical, educational, and miscellaneous supplies. An ambulance type vehicle has been identified as useful in these areas and the Rotary Club has requested donation of the unit. The Club will deliver the ambulance to Mexico as part of its humanitarian efforts. Staff believes this is an appropriate disposition of the vehicle and requests Council consideration and approval to transfer the title. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize the City Manager to transfer title of the surplus 1987 Econoline/Wheeled Coach Type II Ambulance to the Ukiah Rotary Club for humanitarian use in Mexico. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: N/A Citizen Advised: Dick Seizer, Ukiah Rotary Club Requested by: Fire Department Prepared by: Dan Grebil, Interim Fire Chief Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: None APPROVED: -C~-dace Rorsley~ Ci~/Manager AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. 6f DATE: January 16, 2002 REPORT SUBJECT: AWARD OF 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 Through the Peak Load Reduction Program for Municipal Electric Utilities, the City of Ukiah received funding in the amount of $20,000 to replace four Iow efficiency heating and air conditioning (HVAC) units at the Ukiah Civic Center with four high efficiency units. The Community Services Department in conjunction with the Public Utilities Department obtained bids for four high efficiency Bryant HVAC units. Fifteen companies received requests for quotations and a public notice requesting bids was published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on November 18th and 23r". Three companies responded to the request for quotations by the November 28 deadline. Bids were returned by Ashford Heating & Cooling, Roberts Mechanical & Electrical, and Air Care & Repair Service with Ashford being the Iow bidder. Roberts Mechanical & Electrical subsequently withdrew from the bid process prior to verification of the quotation. Attached for Council's review is the bid summary sheet. This item is budgeted in the 698.1915.800.001 account. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Award bid for the replacement of four heating and air conditioning units for the Civic Center in the amount of $19,404.55 to Ashford Heating and Cooling. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Reject bids and remand to staff with direction. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A N/A Sage Sangiacomo, Community Services Supervisor Candace Horsley, City Manager Larry W. DeKnoblough, Director of Community Services Darryl Barnes, Director of Public Utilities Ann Burck, Administrative Analyst Bid Summary Sheet Candace Horsley, ~i~Manager Attachment 1: City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah, CA 95482 HVAC Bid Summary 1. Ashford Heating and Cooling $19,404.55 2. Air Care and Repair Service $20,612.00 3. Roberts Mechanical & Electrical, Inc Withdrew Bid ITEM NO. 6g DATE: January 16, 2002 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: AWARD OF BID FOR SODIUM HYDROXIDE TO LA CHEMICAL IN THE SUM OF $352 PER DRY TON Each year it is necessary to purchase approximately 84 dry tons of sodium hydroxide for use at the Water and Wastewater Treatment Plants. Sodium hydroxide is used to adjust the pH of the water and for corrosion control. Total quantities are an estimate of annual usage. Orders are placed on an as needed basis by Treatment Plant personnel. Requests for Quotations through the formal bid process were sent to 11 chemical suppliers. Five bids were returned and opened by the City Clerk on January 8, 2002. The Iow bidder is LA Chemical for the sum of $352.00 per dry ton totaling $29,568 for the estimated 84 dry tons. $60,000 is budgeted in Water Fund 820.3908.520.000 and $122,000 in Wastewater Fund 612.3580.520.000 for the purchase of chemicals. There are currently no local suppliers for this chemical. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Award the bid for sodium hydroxide to LA Chemical for the sum of $352 per dry ton. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Reject bids and remand to staff. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Darryl L. Barnes, Director of Public Utilities George Borecky, Water/Sewer Operations Superintendent Candace Horsley, City Manager Tabulation of Bids APPROVED- ~\~~ '"'Ca ndace Horsley, City~anager Jan 2002 TABULATION OF BIDS FOR SODIUM HYDROXIDE LA Chemical $352.00 Basic Chemical Solutions $355.82 Pacific States Chemical $356.36 Pioneer Chemical $390.00 Kimron No Bid AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. 8a DATE: January 16, 2002 REPORT SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION AND ACTION REGARDING THE HULL / PIFFERO SUBDIVISION AND USE PERMIT (APPEAL) PROJECT SUMMARY: The property owners of a 39.28-acre parcel in the western hillside area have submitted an application to subdivide their parcel into five separate parcels of record, ranging in size from approximately 5 to 15 acres. As a part of the subdivision application, the applicants are requesting a number of exceptions from the road standards contained in the Ukiah Subdivision Ordinance (see project description on page 2). Additionally, the applicants are seeking a Use Permit to construct a single-family residence on proposed parcel 3, and to rectify a number of unauthorized grading and construction activities performed without the required permits. The City Council must consider and take action on the requested exceptions to the road standards prior to taking an action on the subdivision application. The Council must also consider and take action on the Use Permit because the Planning Commission deadlocked 2-2 (Pruden absent), and the applicants filed timely appeal to this deadlocked action. (continued on page 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Conduct a public hearing; and 2) Consider the findings for conditional approval of the requested road exceptions, subdivision, and Use Permit as presented to the Planning Commission and listed on pages 12 through 14 of Attachment 2. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: After the conduct of a public hearing, make the necessary findings and deny the requested exceptions, subdivision, and Use Permit. Citizen Advised: Publicly noticed according to the requirements of the Ukiah Municipal Code Requested by: Dave Hull and Ric Piffero Prepared by: Charley Stump, Director of Planning and Community Development Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager and David Rapport, City Attorney Attachments: 1. . 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. APPROVED:' ~:~ Can~a~e ~or'sley, City M~nager Subdivision map, drawings, plans, etc (previously distributed with Mitigated Negative Declaration) Planning Commission Staff Report, dated December 12, 2001 Planning Commission Draft Minutes, dated December 12, 2001 Written statement filed by Planning Commissioner Lowenstein Written discussion of the road exception findings prepared by the City Attorney Memorandum from the City Fire Department Correspondence received from Mr. Balajee, dated January 7, 2002 BACKGROUND: In 1998, staff received a public complaint concerning apparent earth moving activities on property in the western hillside area. After access was secured, staff visited the site and found a grading operation occuring on the Hull/Piffero property. The property owners were present, and they were instructed to immediately stop the earth moving operation. They explained that the purpose of the grading was to use the excavated rock and soil for road maintenance. Nevertheless, the operation ceased, and the applicants subsequently applied for the required Use Permit to authorize the activities. After filing the Use Permit application, the applicants decided to pursue a five-parcel subdivision of the 40-acre parcel, and to construct a single-family residence on one of the parcels. On October 17, 2001, the City Council considered a recommendation from the Planning Commission to require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project. After considerable public testimony and a lengthy discussion, the Council voted 3-2 to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, rather than require the preparation of an EIR. The next step in the review process is to consider the merits of the project, and whether or not the proposal is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, and the provisions of both the Hillside Zoning District and City Subdivision Ordinance. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: As indicated in the Summary section above, the applicants are proposing to subdivide an existing 39.28-acre parcel into five separate legal parcels of record, and construct a single-family residence on one of the resulting parcels. As a part of the subdivision application, they are requesting a number of exceptions from the road standards contained in the Ukiah Municipal Code. Additionally, they are proposing to "legalize" a number of unauthorized activities that have occurred on the property over the past couple of years. Proposed Subdivision: The applicants are proposing to divide an existing 39.28-acre parcel in the R-1 H-2 (Single-Family Residential-Hillside) Zoning District into five parcels. The proposed parcel sizes would be 5.70, 6.40, 5.07, 7.40, and 14.71 acres. The average slope of the proposed parcels ranges from 30% to 45%. Water for domestic use, as well as for fire protection would be provided by a communal well on proposed parcel 3, and an 115,000-gallon water tank at the western extreme of proposed parcel 5. Sewage disposal would be provided by individual on-site septic tank and leachfield systems. Fire hydrants fed by the water tank are proposed to be located at each future residence. Access to the proposed parcels would be provided by an existing dirt road that varies in grade and width. The applicants are proposing to pave the entire length of the roadway. Some portions of the road are as narrow as 12-feet, while other parts reach a width of over 20-feet. Similarly, the grade of the road varies from 0 to 21 percent. The applicants are proposing to widen the roadway at various locations, and also to construct a turnout near the entrance to the site above West Standley Street. The existing roadway has numerous turnouts, and all turns exceed 24-feet in width. The roadway would be privately maintained rather than developed as a public street included in the public road maintenance system. A large cul-de-sac would be constructed at the end of the road between proposed parcels 4 and 5. The project also includes the development of a new 375-foot section of road to bypass the proposed homesite on parcel 3. A portion of the old road would serve as a driveway to this homesite, and the remainder would be abandoned and replanted with native vegetation and trees. The proposed five homesites would be situated at various elevations with varying degrees of separation. Driveways of different lengths would provide access to the residential homesites from the primary access road. Electrical service to the site is proposed to be undergrounded from West Standley Street all the way to the end of the proposed cul-de-sac on proposed parcels 1 and 4. The applicants are proposing to use a "micro-tunneling" tool to lay the line, which avoids the need to dig and subsequently fill a wide trench. The micro-tunneling would occur on the outside edge of the roadway, and would cross a minimum of ten (10) drainage culverts. Proposed Residence: The proposal includes the construction of a 3,464 square foot single-story residence on proposed parcel number 3. The proposal includes an access driveway and septic tank and leachfield system. It would be served by underground electrical and telephone service, and a well for both domestic and fire protection water. The residence would be distinctly Mediterranean in style with a tile roof and stucco finish. The proposed color would be light tan in color, with a terra cotta colored roof. An attached two-car garage would be included on the north side of the residence. Unauthorized Activities: The unauthorized activities performed in 1998-1999 include the excavation of rock and grading of slopes above the existing roadway for road maintenance purposes, unauthorized "trenching" to install underground telephone lines, the installation of a water distribution line, and the construction of a 3,000-gallon water storage tank. As indicated in previous discussions with the City Council, the applicants are required by the Ukiah Municipal Code to secure a Use Permit for these unauthorized activities. The situation is similar to a builder who begins to put a new roof on his house without a Building Permit, is red-tagged by the Building Inspector, and told to stop work until the required permit is obtained. In this case, the applicants stopped performing work without a permit and are in the process of obtaining the required Use Permit. The Planning Commission and City Council have the authority to apply conditions to the Use Permit to ensure the general health, safety, and welfare of the public. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY: The Ukiah General Plan is a broad community statement about how the City will grow and develop in the future. It seeks to conserve and protect the natural features of our area, while at the same time direct and accommodate industrial, commercial, recreational, and residential development. It's a document that attempts to balance conservation and growth in a reasonable and logical way with the underlying purpose of preserving what is special about Ukiah, and fulfilling the Vision Statement articulated at the beginning of the Plan. The General Plan does not disallow subdividing land and developing single-family residences on the western hillsides. In fact it acknowledges and anticipates rural residential subdivision and development of parcels in the Hillside Zoning District. The Plan clearly seeks to make sure that development in this sensitive and important area of the community is done in a way that does not destroy the beauty of the hillside or threaten the existing residential properties at its base. Similarly, the Plan seeks to protect the prime agricultural land to the east of the City. It recognizes this resource as a key component of the beauty of the area, and a true defining factor of the local quality of life. The western hillside and the eastern agricultural lands frame the City and provide the rural setting that makes Ukiah a special rural City north of the crowded and more urban Sonoma County. To successfully balance the objective of conserving our natural resources and accommodating development, the Plan envisions the buildout of vacant land within the City over its 20-year life (2015), and the restoration of creeks, development of new parklands, the establishment of an invigorated urban forest, and the maintenance of good air quality. The majority of new residential development was envisioned in and around the urban core in an attempt to infill the last remaining vacant parcels rather than encourage or force development towards the agricultural lands or sensitive hillside areas. In terms of hillside development, the Plan projected subdivision activities and the development of 47 new single-family residences on the 167 acres of land on undeveloped parcels (Table VI. 1-30 - Housing Element, page 16). In contrast, the recently submitted Western Hillside Constraints Analysis Study (previously provided to the City Council) projects 41 residences on those same parcels. These projections result in one home for every 3.5 and 4.0 acres respectively. At the time the Plan was adopted, the assumption/vision of 47 single-family residences on 167 acres of vacant hillside zoned parcels was considered reasonable. This apparently was due, in part, as a response to the regional "fair share" housing allocation established by the Housing Needs Plan adopted by the Mendocino Council of Governments (MCOG) in 1991. While the 1991 regional fair share allocation called for increased development of "very Iow-income" residential units, it called for an even greater number of "above moderate" units. In deed, the General Plan acknowledges that the greatest housing need in the City is for homes to serve those with above moderate incomes (Table V1.1-36 / Housing Element, page 31). It also states that new residential development should address the needs of all income levels to diversify the overall housing stock. Single-family residential development on large parcels in the hillside-zoning district was viewed as one possible way to help meet the need for above moderate-income level housing. The General Plan contains specific goals and policies that serve to shape development in the hillside district to ensure that it does not cause visual impacts, geologic instability, degrade water quality, or severely strain public services. The goals and policies are intended to ensure that development that does occur in the sensitive hillside area conforms to the underlying vision of the Plan, and successfully balances the needs for housing with the desires to protect and conserve the rural lands that frame our compact City and help create our unique quality of life. (Please see the attached Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment 2) for a more detailed General Plan analysis) STAFF CONCLUSIONS MADE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION: After reviewing the goals and policies of the General Plan, the zoning provisions for the Hillside District, and other resources, staff concluded that an argument could be made that the proposed subdivision and home construction were consistent with these planning and regulatory documents. Staff concluded further that the mandatory findings necessary to grant the exceptions to the required road standards in the Subdivision Ordinance could be made, primarily because emergency service providers have indicated the proposed road improvements and adopted mitigation measures will allow them to provide adequate service. Additionally, if the exception to reduce the road width is not granted, the applicants would be required to make considerable cuts to the inboard bank, and fill the outer edge of the existing road, which staff concludes would be inconsistent with the General Plan vision to protect the visual quality and sensitive hillside resources. The project represents scattered rural residential development that may help in a small way to retain vacant residential land near the urban core for higher density development, and forestall pressure to develop the agricultural land east of Hwy 101. The General Plan anticipates some hillside development, and seeks to ensure that it does not destroy the visual quality and environmental resources of the western hills while it theoretically could help to preserve the eastern agricultural lands. Staff's conclusion is that the applicants have designed a project that together with the adopted and required mitigation measure program will not destroy the visual quality and environmental resources of the hillside. Staff believes that an argument can be made that the project contributes to the balancing of the community objectives to provide a diversity of housing types, while conserving the hillside and its sensitive environmental setting, and protecting the agriculture lands to the east. PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF THE PROJECT MERITS: On December 12, 2001, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the requested exceptions to the road standards, Subdivision Map, and Use Permit. After hearing from the public and discussing the project, the Commission voted 2-2 on a motion to recommend to the City Council that the findings for approving the exceptions could not be made. After further discussion, the Commission chose not to vote on another motion and advanced the 2-2 vote to the Council. VVhile it did not proceed with a vote on the Subdivision Map because of an inability to recommend approval of the exceptions, the Commission nevertheless expressed a variety of opinions regarding the maps merits (see discussion below). The Commission also deadlocked 2-2 on a motion to approve the Use Permit, which the applicants appealed to the City Council. Road Exceptions: The two Commissioners opposing the granting of the exceptions expressed concern that two of the three findings required by the Ukiah Municipal Code could not be made. Specifically, they concluded that findings 8320(B) and (C) could not be made. The following text lists the required findings, describes the Commission's position, and provides staff comments. 8320(A) There are special circumstances or conditions affecting said property. None of the four Commissioners present expressed an inability to make this finding (a discussion of this finding is included on page 12 of the Planning Commission Staff Report). 8320(B) The exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner. At the Planning Commission hearing, a member of the public and a Planning Commissioner made the following argument concerning the application of subsection B of Section 8320. The subsection requires a finding that the granting of the exceptions is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of "a substantial property right of the petitioner." (Italics added.) The proponent of the argument maintained that subdividing property is a "privilege"; not a "right." Denying the exception would prevent the subdivision of the property only; it would not prevent the applicants from building a single-family home on the property. Therefore, denying the request for exceptions could not deprive the applicants of a substantial property right; it only deprives them of the privilege of subdividing their property. Based on this logic, the argument's proponents concluded that the Planning Commission could not make the required finding, and, therefore, the application for the exceptions could not be approved. The Planning Commission failed to make the required findings by a 2 to 2 tie vote. Staff questions whether subsection B can be read as narrowly as this argument requires. The subsection is one of three mandatory findings that the City Council must make in order to grant to an applicant for a tentative subdivision map, one or more exceptions to the requirements in the City's subdivision ordinance. If the only property right referenced in subsection B is the opportunity to subdivide property, then the City Council could never make the finding required by that subsection, if the opportunity to subdivide property is always a privilege and never a right. Staff assumes that the City Council adopted Section 8320 to provide an opportunity to grant exceptions to the requirements of the subdivision ordinance. The proposed interpretation appears to conflict with that intent, because that interpretation would make it impossible to grant any exceptions to the subdivision ordinance. Generally, an interpretation of an enactment which makes it ineffective is disfavored. To avoid this disfavored result, a basis for an alternative interpretation must be found that is still consistent with the wording of the subsection. There is an alternative interpretation that would provide the City Council with even greater discretion to grant exceptions, which would also be consistent with the wording of Subsection B of Section 8320. Under that interpretation, the exception could be granted whenever necessary to permit a property owner to develop his or her property, subject to reasonable permitting requirements to prevent detriment to the public welfare or injury to other property. As applied to the Hull/Piffero application, if the City Council were to adopt the narrower interpretation, it could find that granting the exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicants, if the economics of building one house on the property would deprive the property owners of a reasonable return on their investment. In other words, if the costs of the land, developing the necessary infrastructure, and constructing the house would greatly exceed the fair market value of the house, the Planning Commission or the City Council could find that granting the exception is necessary to preserve the property right of the applicants to make an economically viable use of their property. The applicants have contended that the cost of paving the roadway, extending electrical and telephone service, constructing an adequate on-site water system and building the house would exceed the market value of the resulting house and, effectively, deprive them of any return on their investment in the property if they cannot subdivide. If this contention is supported by evidence in the record, a subdivision of the property could be necessary to spread the development costs among enough houses to make the cost of each house commercially viable. It is staff's understanding that the applicants will be submitting information regarding the costs to develop the property prior to the January 16, 2002 meeting date. This information may assist the Council in determining whether or not finding 8320 (B) can be made. (Please see attachment 5 for a more detailed discussion of this finding prepared by the City Attorney) 8320(C) The granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity in which said property is situated. The two dissenting Commissioners concluded that even though the City Fire Department indicated that it could adequately serve the proposed parcels in the event of a fire, the fire risks to nearby properties were substantial. They felt that the future construction of five homes this distance up the hill would produce an unacceptable increase in the risk of ignitions, and that the estimated Fire Department response time was not fast enough to provide adequate protection. The two other Commissioners disagreed with this conclusion and felt there was justification for this finding. Staff continues to rely on the Fire Department's conclusion that it can provide adequate fire protection to the project. It is noted that subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting, the Fire Department conducting a "dry run" response to the homesite on proposed parcel 3 (see attachment 6, from the Fire Department). The Department were able to reach the site in 10 minutes, which is faster than previously predicted. However, the Fire Department did note there are a number of important factors that could cause the response time to lengthen. These factors include weather conditions, light/visibility, whether the gate is open or closed, traffic exiting the property, location of the fire, etc. Subdivision: Two of the Commissioners held to their previous positions regarding the need for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project, and therefore concluded that they could not recommend approval of the subdivision. One of the other Commissioners felt that 2 or 3 parcels made more sense than 5, and the remaining Commissioner concluded that a 4-parcel subdivision would be more appropriate. It appeared that both of these latter Commissioners were seeking a compromise because of potential impacts resulting from a 5-parcel subdivision. In conclusion, all four Planning Commissioners opposed the proposed 5-parcel subdivision. Use Permit: The two dissenting Commissioners again felt that because they had concluded that the project should be subject to an EIR, they could not support the Use Permit for the construction of a single family residence on proposed parcel 3. They also were not supportive of the component of the Use Permit to conditionally "legalize" the unauthorized grading and construction activities. The other two Commissioners concluded that they could make the findings to approve the Use Permit for the single-family residence and the unauthorized activities. CONCLUSION: The issues associated with this proposed project are complex and controversial. Citizens with various perspectives have expressed their differing opinions and concerns about the project, and there seems to be a lingering concern among some Planning Commissioners and members of the public regarding the potential environmental impacts resulting from the project. After discussing the matter, the Planning Commission could not reach consensus on the requested exceptions or Use Permit proposal. While all four Commissioners opposed the concept of a 5- parcel subdivision, two of the Commissioners concluded that a lesser number of parcels may be appropriate. While the General Plan does not prohibit subdividing and developing land in the hillside area, it does require that it be designed and constructed in a way that minimizes visual impacts and avoids damage to the hillside resources. On October 17, 2001, the Council concluded that the project, as mitigated, would not have significant visual or other environmental impacts. Moreover, the General Plan anticipates rural residential subdivision and development in the hillside area. The question for the Council is whether or not 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 and natural resources of this important backdrop to the City. Staff believes an argument could be made that scattered rural residential development on large parcels in the hillside area could help, albeit in a small way, to take the residential subdivision development pressure off the agricultural lands to the east, as well as away from the last remaining vacant parcels in the City that are more suitable for higher density housing. Whether or not this represents a significant or legitimate "balancing" of community interests, or whether it fulfills the General Plan Vision Statement are decisions for the City Council to make. FINDINGS: As previously discussed, the City Council must make findings to support whatever decisions are made about the project. To grant the requested road exceptions, approve the subdivision, and approve the Use Permit, the Council must make the findings required by the Ukiah Municipal Code. Staff proposed findings in support of the exceptions, subdivision and Use Permit to the Planning Commission, who could not reach consensus on the project. These findings are included on pages 12 through 14 of the Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment No. 2)for the Council's consideration. TAKING ACTION: After conducting a public hearing on the matter, the City Council has a number of action options. Option Adopt the findings listed on pages 12 through 14 of the Planning Commission Staff Report and grant the requested road exceptions, conditionally approve the subdivision, and conditionally approve the Use Permit. Option 2 Make the necessary findings and deny the requested exceptions, subdivision, and Use Permit. Option 3 Make the necessary findings and deny the requested exceptions and subdivision, but make the required findings to grant the Use Permit. City of Ukiah Staff Report to the Planning Commission HULL / PIFFERO SUBDIVISION AND USE PERMIT Item No. 8C Meeting Date: December 12, 2001 PROJECT SUMMARY The applicants have submitted a Tentative Subdivision Map that would create five separate parcels out of an existing 39.28-acre parcel of land located on the western hillside area. As a part of the subdivision application, the applicants are requesting a number of exceptions from the road standards contained in the Ukiah Subdivision Ordinance (see discussion on page 4). The Ukiah Municipal Code requires the City Council to take final action on a Major Subdivision application, so the Planning Commission's role is advisory. The Commission must conduct a public headng and formulate recommendations to the City Council concerning the requested Subdivision Ordinance exceptions and the merits of the subdivision. The Ukiah Hillside Zoning Regulations require a Use Permit for all construction and grading in the Hillside Zoning District. Approval of the Use Permit would allow the construction of a single-family residence on proposed parcel number 3. Additionally, the Use Permit would essentially "legalize" a number of unauthorized activities that have occurred on the property over the past couple of years (see description on page 3). The Ukiah Municipal Code establishes the Planning Commission as the final decision making body on Use Permits, unless they are appealed to the City Council. Accordingly, the Commission must consider the required findings and take an action on the Use Permit. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS After reviewing the goals and policies of the General Plan, the zoning provisions for the Hillside District, and other resources, staff has concluded that the proposed subdivision and home construction are consistent with these planning and regulatory documents. Staff has also concluded that the mandatory findings necessary to grant the exceptions to the required road standards in the Subdivision Ordinance can be made, primarily because emergency service providers have indicated that the proposed road improvements and adopted mitigation measures will allow them to provide adequate service. The project represents scattered rural residential development that may help to retain vacant residential land near the urban core for higher density development, and forestall pressure to develop the agricultural land east of Hwy 101. The General Plan anticipates hillside development, and seeks to ensure that it does not destroy the visual quality and environmental resources of the western hills while it theoretically could help to preserve the eastern agricultural lands. Staff's conclusion is that the applicants have designed a project that together with the adopted and required mitigation measure program will not destroy the visual quality and environmental resources of the hillside. Staff believes that the project successfully balances the need for housing with the goals for conserving the hillside and its sensitive environmental setting. DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission 1) conduct a public hearing to consider the project as a whole; 2) accept Staff's findings and formulate a recommendation of approval to the City Council concerning the requested exceptions to the Subdivision Ordinance; 3) accept Staff's findings and formulate a recommendation of approval to the City Council concerning the merits of the proposed subdivision; and 4) conditionally approve the Use Permit application based on the findings listed in the Staff Report. ENVIRONMENTAL (CEQA) DETERMINATION On October 17, 2001, the City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. All the adopted Mitigation Measures have been incorporated into the project and listed as conditions of project approval. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicants are proposing to subdivide an existing 39.28-acre parcel into five separate legal parcels of record, and construct a large single-family residence on one of the resulting parcels. As a part of the subdivision application, they are requesting a number of exceptions from the road standards contained in the Ukiah Municipal Code. Additionally, they are proposing to "legalize" a number of unauthorized activities that have occurred on the property over the past couple of years. Proposed Subdivision: The applicants are proposing to divide an existing 39.28-acre parcel in the R-1 H-2 (Single-Family Residential-Hillside) Zoning District into five parcels. The proposed parcel sizes would be 5.70, 6.40, 5.07, 7.40, and 14.71 acres. The average slope of the proposed parcels ranges from 30% to 45%. Water for domestic use, as well as for fire protection would be provided by a communal well on proposed parcel 3, and an 115,000-gallon water tank at the western extreme of proposed parcel 5. Sewage disposal would be provided by individual on-site septic tank and leachfield systems. Fire hydrants fed by the oversized water tank are proposed to be located at each future residence. Access to the proposed parcels would be provided by an existing dirt road that varies in grade and width. Some portions of the road are as narrow as 12-feet, while other parts reach a width of over 20-feet. Similarly, the grade of the road varies from 0 to 21 percent. The applicants are proposing to widen the roadway at various locations, and also to construct a turnout near the entrance to the site above West Standley Street. The existing roadway has numerous turnouts, and all turns exceed 24-feet in width. The roadway would be privately maintained rather than developed as a public street included in the public road maintenance system. A large cul-de-sac would be constructed at the end of the road in between proposed parcels 4 and 5. The project also includes the development of a new 375-foot section of road to bypass the proposed homesite on parcel 3, as well as reduce the grade of the roadway from 21 percent to 10 percent. A portion of the old road would serve as a ddveway to this homesite, and the remainder would be abandoned and replanted with native vegetation and trees. The new road section would connect to the existing road at a turn, and it is proposed that this turn be enlarged by filling the downslope and extending the existing culvert. The proposed five homesites would be situated at various elevations with varying degrees of separation. Driveways of different lengths would provide access to the residential homesites from the primary access road. Electrical service to the site is proposed to be undergrounded from West Standley Street all the way to the end of the proposed cul-de-sac on proposed parcels 1 and 4. Based upon the requirements of the Ukiah Municipal Code, the electrical line would have to be a minimum of 2-feet deep. The applicants are proposed to use a "micro- tunneling" tool to lay the line, which avoids the need to dig and subsequently fill a wide trench. It is proposed to be situated on the outside of the roadway, and would cross a minimum of ten (10) drainage culverts. Proposed Residence: The proposal includes the construction of a 3,464 square foot single-story residence on proposed parcel number 3. The proposal includes an access driveway and septic tank and leachfield system. It would be served by underground electrical and telephone service, and a well for both domestic and fire protection water. The residence would be distinctly Mediterranean in style with a tile roof and stucco finish. The proposed color would be light tan in color, with a terra cotta colored roof. An attached two-car garage would be included on the north side of the residence. The building site would require the removal of approximately 1800 cubic yards of soil and would be cut to create 2:1 slopes at the roar of the residence. A 130-foot long, 2 to 4-foot tall retaining wall would support this cut along the western side of the driveway. Approximately 1550 cubic yards of soil would be excavated from the homesite, transported 400-feet to the north and deposited as fill in a sharp turn on and below the main access road. The purpose of this fill is to support the road, reduce the grade, and raise its elevation approximately 8-feet in the corner. Approximately 250 cubic yards of fill is also proposed in a drainage swale/ditch below the proposed attached garage, and in a similar area below the main access road. Another 35 cubic yards of fill would be placed below the southern portion of the proposed circular driveway. Unauthorized Activities: The unauthorized activities performed in 1998-1999 include the excavation of rock and grading of slopes above the existing roadway for road maintenance purposes, unauthorized "trenching" to install underground telephone lines, the installation of a water distribution line, and the construction of a 3,000-gallon water storage tank. As indicated in previous discussions with the Planning Commission, the applicants aro required by the Ukiah Municipal Code to secure a Use Permit for these unauthorized activities. The situation is similar to a builder who begins to put a new roof on his house without a Building Permit, is rod-tagged by the Building Inspector, and told to stop work until the required permit is obtained. In this case, the applicants stopped performing work without a permit, and are in the process of obtaining the required Use Permit. The Planning Commission has the authority to apply conditions to the Use Permit to ensure the general health, safety, and welfare of the public. PROJECT ISSUES 1. Environmental Impacts: On October 17, 2001, the City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project. While this document identified a number of potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that would result from the proposal, it also identified feasible and reasonable mitigation measures to eliminate or reduce the impacts to levels of insignificance. All of the adopted mitigation measures have been agreed to by the applicants, incorporated into the project, and reiterated as recommended conditions of project approval. 2. Mitigation Monitoring: Assembly Bill 3180 requires all public agencies to adopt a monitoring and reporting program whenever they adopt an EIR or "Mitigated Negative Declaration." The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the proposed project requires the applicants to prepare a Mitigation Compliance Plan verifying when and how the required mitigation measures will be complied with. It also requires the applicants to fund or contract with qualified professionals to verify compliance and prepare field reports for submittal to the City. Pursuant to Section V-P(2) of the City's adopted CEQA guidelines, the Mitigation Compliance Plan serves a dual purpose. It verifies compliance with the mitigation measures and generates information on their effectiveness in offsetting the identified potential significant environmental impacts. The Plan shall be required prior to the recordation of the Final Subdivision Map and/or any site preparation or construction activities, and shall include, but not be limited to the following: a, A discussion of how daily logs will be prepared during all site preparation and construction activities detailing how all applicable mitigation measures are complied with. b. A discussion of how all contractors will be advised about the required mitigation measures, and supervised for strict compliance. Co The names of qualified professional monitoring personnel such as civil and geotechnical engineers, botanists, landscape architects, etc. The required professional monitoring personnel shall be retained by the applicants, or by the City at the expense of the applicants. do A list of the required mitigation measures and who will be responsible for implementing and supervising the completion of the measures. The list shall be organized in the following categories: 1) mitigation measures required prior to the recordation of the Final Subdivision Map; 2) Mitigation measures required prior to the approval of Site Improvement Plans (roads, drainage, utility infrastructure, etc.); 3) mitigation measures required prior to the issuance of a grading permit; 4) mitigation measures required prior to the issuance of Building Permits; 5) mitigation measures required prior to final inspection and the grant of occupancy of structures; and 6) mitigation measures required on an on-going basis. e. A timeframe for the submittal of regular status/compliance reports detailing how and when each mitigation measure is complied with, and who inspected and verified the work. The reports shall also describe the effectiveness of the mitigation measures in off setting the impacts. The City Planning Director shall review and approve the timeframe for the report submittals, and shall be responsible for reviewing, approving, and filing the submitted reports. The timeframe for report preparation and submittal shall be regular enough to provide the City with a comfort level that all required mitigation measures are being implemented and are effectively mitigating the identified impacts. City staff will be responsible for ensuring that the Mitigation Measure Compliance Plan is submitted at the appropriate time, and that it is adequate and in compliance with the City's adopted CEQA Guidelines. The City staff will also be responsible for the review and approval of the periodic status/compliance reports during implementation of the project. Staff will also field verify, on an on-going basis, the implementation of all required Mitigation Measures. 3. Requested Exceptions from the Subdivision Ordinance: The majority of the private access road exceeds the 15% maximum grade permitted by Section 8084 of the Ukiah Municipal Code. Overall the road varies from 0% to 21% in grade, with an average steepness of approximately 16%. To justify/mitigate this exception, the applicants are proposing to pave the entire 20-foot width of all Sections where the road exceeds 20% Discussion: The western hillside area is a unique natural setting. It has a variety of drainages with varying degrees of steepness. The primary concern with roadway steepness, particularly in areas of high wildland fire hazard, is whether or not fire trucks loaded with water will be able to get up the hill in time to put out a structural or wildland fire. The City Fire Department has concluded that their response time to the subject property in the event of a fire would be approximately 20 minutes, which depending upon weather conditions, wind direction, time of year, the location of the fire, and other factors, may or may not be enough time to save a structure. However, the Fire Department has concluded further that because the roadway will be completely paved, the homes will have fire sprinkler systems, there will be a fire hydrant in front of each home, the construction material for the homes will be fire resistant, and other project design features, adequate fire protection can be provided to the proposed parcels. Accordingly, Staff is able to conclude that allowing this exception is reasonable, and would not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of Ukiah citizens. Some inside turn radii are less than the required 50-feet. To justify/mitigate this exception, the applicants are proposing to pave these areas wider than the proposed 18-feet. Discussion: Similarly, the primary concern regarding the turn radii is whether or not a large fire truck can navigate the turn. The City Fire Department evaluated the proposal to provided more than 18-feet of paving in the areas with less than a 50 foot radius, and determined that they could make the turns with the largest truck that would need to climb the hill. Accordingly, staff is able to conclude that this exception can be supported. The proposed paved road width is 18-feet. A 20-foot paved access road throughout the development is required by the Ukiah Municipal Code. The entrance at West Standley Street is proposed to be 12-feet wide for the first thirty-feet, and then widens to a minimum of 18-feet. 2-feet on either side of the paved 18-foot width will be surfaced with an all-weather 6-inch base material. To justify/mitigate this exception, the applicants are proposing to improve turnouts approximately every 300-feet where over 18-feet and less than 20-feet. Discussion: The 20-foot road standard was designed for "valley roads" rather than hillside roads. In order to widen the road to 20-feet throughout its length, a tremendous amount of bank cutting, grading and filling would be required. The environmental disruption and potential damage would be significant. The State fire safe practices allow a minimum 18-foot wide road in hillside areas. The City Fire Department has indicated that an 18-foot width is acceptable to provide adequate fire protection, and that the narrow stretch at the beginning of the road off West Standley Street is a short enough run to adequately navigate. The development of an approximate 6000-foot long cul-de-sac road, where 400 feet is the maximum permitted by the Ukiah Municipal Code. Discussion: Similar to the road width standard, the cul-de-sac length standard was designed for fiat land development. The adopted Hillside zoning regulations do not have a maximum cul-de-sac length standard. Given the location of the parcel and its topography, the 400-foot maximum length seems unreasonable. The State Fire Safe practices standard is 2640 feet for hillside areas, which is the standard that guided the City Fire Department's evaluation. While they acknowledge that the State Fire Safe standards do not provide specific exceptions or suggest mitigations for allowing a longer cul-de-sac, they felt comfortable that with the project design/fire protection mitigation measures, they could provide adequate fire protection to the parcels along the proposed 6000-foot long cul-de-sac. Based on this determination by the Fire Department, Staff is able to conclude that this exception can be supported. Conclusions Regarding the Requested Exceptions: The regulations contained in the Subdivision Ordinance are typical for generally level urbanized areas. They were primarily developed in 1958 at a time when the City was experiencing considerable residential subdivision activity around the urban core. Accordingly, it is concluded that a number of the regulations are unreasonable for the hillside area and the subject property in particular. For example, the 20-foot road width would result in significant cutting, filling, and grading on steep slopes and sensitive environmental areas. The purpose of the regulations is to ensure orderly development that can be adequately served by public utilities, emergency services, etc. All public utility and emergency service providers have indicated that they can serve the proposed parcels if the exceptions are granted. In terms of orderly development, the property is designated and zoned for "rural" single-family residential development and the requested exceptions reflect a more rural approach to development as opposed to the typical urban style regulations contained in the Subdivision Ordinance. The Ukiah Municipal Code requires that three findings be made to grant exceptions to the City Subdivision Ordinance. First, there must be special circumstances or conditions affecting the property. Second, the exception must be necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicants. Finally, the granting of the exception must not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity of the subject property. These findings are addressed at the end of this report. ., Subdivision Design: The proposed parcels have been designed to be rural single-family residential lots featuring homesites with views of the valley. They have been layed-out to include stands of trees, varying slopes, and other natural features on each parcel. The proposed subdivision design meets all the regulations and standards contained in the City Subdivision Ordinance except for those areas where formal exceptions are being requested. It meets the requirements for minimum parcel size, building site area, lot width, and size of yards. It also meets the "percentage of property retained in natural state" and water supply requirements. 1 Residence Design: Section 9262 (A) of the Ukiah Municipal Code indicates that projects requiring a Use Permit for new construction need not have a separate Site Development Permit, and that the Site Development review and findings are to be incorporated into the Use Permit process. The single-story energy efficient Mediterranean style home has been designed to "wrap" with the topography rather than the more typical approach of cutting deeply into the slope and erecting a rectangular box. The design theme is an attempt to keep the large structure as modest as possible and to use materials that are both fire resistant and energy efficient. The building has a diverse roof design with a variety of pitches and overhangs, strategically placed windows to soften bulk and mass, and the use of columns and other features to provide an interesting appearance. The existing and required landscaping will provide required screening, and will help reduce the mass of the building. Staff has considered the Site Development Permit findings and is supportive of the design of the home. These mandatory findings are included at the end of this report. . Unauthorized Activities: The unauthorized activities include the excavation of rock and grading of slopes above the existing roadway for road maintenance purposes, unauthorized trenching to install underground telephone lines, the installation of a water distribution line, and the construction of a 3,000- gallon water storage tank. When the applicants were notified that the activities they were performing on the site required a Use Permit, they halted the work and applied for the Use Permit. In response to Staff's concerns about the exposed soil on the site, the applicants winterized the area of work, repaired culverts, and installed water bars to preclude erosion. Routine field investigations have revealed an ongoing effort to control erosion by the seeding of exposed slopes, tree planting, culvert and road maintenance, and other activities. Based on these site observations, it is concluded that the site has been adequately managed in terms of soil stability, water runoff, and erosion. However, the visual scarring from the unauthorized cuts is still visible, which was identified in the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration as a significant environmental impact. A corresponding mitigation measure requiring the planting of these scarred areas was adopted and is included as a recommended condition of project approval. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY Introduction: The Ukiah General Plan is a broad community statement about how the City will grow and develop in the future. It seeks to conserve and protect the natural features of our area, while at the same time direct and accommodate industrial, commercial, recreational, and residential development. It's a document that attempts to balance conservation and growth in a reasonable and logical way with the underlying purpose of preserving what is special about Ukiah, and fulfilling the Vision Statement articulated at the beginning of the Plan. The General Plan does not disallow subdividing land and developing single-family residences on the western hillsides. In fact it acknowledges and anticipates rural residential subdivision and development of parcels in the Hillside Zoning District. The Plan clearly seeks to make sure that development in this sensitive and important area of the community is done in a way that does not destroy the beauty of the hillside or threaten the existing residential properties at its base. Similarly, the Plan seeks to protect the prime agricultural land to the east of the City. It recognizes this resource as a key component of the beauty of the area, and a true defining factor of the local quality of life. The western hillside and the eastern agricultural lands frame the City and provide the rural setting that makes Ukiah a special rural City north of the crowded and more urban Sonoma County. To successfully balance the objective of conserving our natural resources and accommodating development, the Plan envisions the buildout of vacant land within the city over its 20-year life (2015), and the restoration of creeks, development of new parklands, the establishment of an invigorated urban forest, and the maintenance of good air quality. The majority of new residential development was envisioned in and around the urban core in an attempt to infill the last remaining vacant parcels rather than encourage or force development towards the agricultural lands or sensitive hillside areas. In terms of hillside development, the Plan projected subdivision activities and the development of 47 new single- family residences on the 167 acres of land on undeveloped parcels (Table V1.1-30 - Housing Element page 16). In contrast, the recently submitted Western Hillside Constraints Analysis Study (provided to the Planning Commission with this Staff Report) projects 41 residences on those same parcels. These projections result in one home for every 3.5 and 4.0 acres respectively. At the time the Plan was adopted, the assumption/vision of 47 single-family residences on 167 acres of vacant hillside zoned parcels was apparently considered reasonable. This apparently was due, in part, as a response to the regional "fair share" housing allocation established by the Housing Needs Plan adopted by the Mendocino Council of Governments (MCOG) in 1991. While the 1991 regional fair share allocation called for increased development of "very Iow-income" residential units, it called for an even greater number of"above moderate" units. In deed, the General Plan acknowledges that the greatest housing need in the City is for homes to serve those with above moderate incomes (Table VI. 1- 36 / Housing Element page 31). It also states that new residential development should address the needs of all income levels to diversify the overall housing stock. Single-family residential development on large parcels in the hillside-zoning district was viewed as one possible way to meet the need for above moderate-income level housing. The General Plan contains specific goals and policies that serve to shape development in the hillside district to ensure that it does not cause visual impacts, geologic instability, degrade water quality, or severely strain public services. The goals and policies are intended to ensure that development that does occur in the sensitive hillside area conform to the underlying vision of the Plan, and successfully balance the needs for housing with the desires to protect and conserve the rural lands that frame our compact City and help create our unique quality of life. 1. The Vision Statement: The General Plan Vision Statement defines Ukiah's desired quality of life. It contains five components that define what the people in the community want to achieve over the life of the Plan. These components include establishing a sound, stable, community-based economy that uses resources wisely; the promoting of community involvement in the decision-making regarding the further development of the City; the responsible use of resources; ensuring aesthetically pleasing developments; and having an ecologically sustainable community with a strong sense of itself. The General Plan goals and policies are designed to support these five components, fulfill the vision statement, and create the envisioned City. Project Consistency with the Vision Statement: The primary thrust of establishing a sound and stable economy is to promote a diversity of local businesses that retain and create new dollars within the community. It also speaks to encouraging housing in a mix of price ranges to match the income of residents. While the Hull / Piffero project does not directly involve commercial development or the creation of local businesses, it would indirectly support the local construction industry with the development of the subdivision and future residences. It would also create five new homes potentially in the above moderate income level group, which according to the housing production goals contained in the General Plan Housing Element is a high priority. In terms of promoting community involvement, the Hull / Piffero project has attracted, and the City staff and decision-makers have encouraged strong citizen participation. The environmental review process through the Planning Commission and City Council were very well attended, and public testimony was passionate from various viewpoints. Staff hopes for a continued strong interest and participation in the review process. The Responsible Use of Resources component focuses on the preservation and conservation of natural resources which are the foundation of the financial well-being of our community. These natural resources include air and water quality and the agricultural lands to the east. It also includes the conservation of open space, hillsides, stream courses, and indigenous flora and fauna. Through the environmental review process, it was determined by the City Council that the Hull / Piffero project, as mitigated, would not have a significant adverse impact on air and water quality, plants, animals, open space, the views of the western hillside, and stream courses. In addition, the careful and managed growth in the western hillside area could theoretically help to reduce any pressure to develop the agricultural lands to the east. The Aesthetics in Planning and Development component focuses on conserving and enhancing the beauty of the area, ensuring aesthetic qualities in the design and construction of the community, and maintaining the scenic viewsheds of the valley. One of the major issues with the environmental document for the Hull Piffero project was the potential impacts the future five homes and associated development would have on the views of the western hillside area, and whether or not the develop would significantly alter or compromise the natural beauty of this important backdrop to the City. Through the environmental review process, the City Council determined that the project, as mitigated, would not result in significant visual quality impacts. The Ecologically Sustainable component of the Vision Statement focuses on resource conservation, minimizing polluting activities, avoiding needless consumption and waste, protecting agricultural lands, and making Ukiah a leader in the development of responsible resource conserving ways of living and doing business. The Hull/ Piffero project indirectly fulfills the spirit of this component by including a number of resource conserving strategies. These include the planting of hundreds of indigenous trees, the clearing of dead brush and limbing- up of trees, the reseeding of exposed soils, the replacement of damaged and aged culverts, the maintenance of the existing road, and the development of a highly energy efficient home. Staff is able to conclude that the project is consistent with the vision statement. 2. The Open Space and Conservation Element: The Open Space and Conservation Element has a number of Goals and Policies designed to conserve open lands, protect natural resources, and balance development with open space needs. Project Consistency with the OSC Element: The Hull / Piffero property is zoned for rural single-family residential development, which is consistent with its Rural Residential General Plan classification. It is not designated or zoned for Open Space. The Tentative Map for the subdivision proposes five parcels, where up to eight could be pursued based on the average slope of the property. The access road exists on the site, and if the roadway development exceptions were granted, minimal cutting, filling, and grading would occur to improve this access road. The majority of the 39+-acre parcel will remain undeveloped and function as private open space. Accordingly, Staff is able to conclude that the proposed project successfully balances rural residential development with the goals and policies for conservation and protection of natural resources and open space, and therefore is consistent with the spirit, intent, goals, and policies of the Open Space and Conservation Element. 3. The Safety Element: The Safety Element addresses fire, flooding, geologic, and seismic hazards. As stated in the introduction to the Element, it is the primary method of connecting safety to City land use decisions. The policies contained in the Element require the submittal of technical information early in the project review process, which helps shape development proposals, streamlines interdepartmental review, and ensures community safety. Project Consistency with the Safety Element: Prior to deeming the Hull/Piffero project materials adequate for submittal and complete for processing, a considerable amount of technical information was required. In response to staff's request for information, particularly hazard related information, the applicants submitted soils, geotechnical, seismic, hydrologic, and water quality technical reports. The information revealed that the proposed project was feasible from a safety standpoint, both in terms of the property owners and surrounding property owners. Staff is able to conclude that the project, as designed and mitigated/conditioned, is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan Safety Element. 4. The Energy Element: The focus of the Energy Element is to encourage the conservation of energy by promoting alternative methods of transportation, energy efficient mass transit, the use of renewable energy sources, and increasing the efficiency of energy used within structures. The Element contains three subsections applicable to the proposed project. These include Land Use, Site Planning and Landscape Design, and Building Design. The applicable policies include incorporating solar energy considerations into the design of projects, having buildings designed with the maximum energy efficiency, and encouraging a 50% landscaping canopy coverage at plant maturity for large parking areas. Project Consistency with the Energy Element: The proposed subdivision has been designed to provide solar exposure to the proposed homesites, and the design of the residence for parcel 3 has unique energy efficiency components. Proposed parcels 2, 3, 4, and 5 have building sites on east/southeast facing slopes that provide ample solar exposure. The building site for parcel 1 is situated on an east-facing spur along a northeast-facing ridge. While not an optimum building site in terms of providing opportunity for solar exposure, it would, because of its elevation and location on an east-facing spur, have moderate to good solar exposure opportunities. The residence for parcel 3 includes a radiant heat component throughout (including the floor), "Blue Max" concrete, styrofoam, and stucco construction, heavily insulated walls and ceiling, and energy efficient 3-pane windows that far exceed State energy efficiency requirements. The home has been designed without a conventional cooling system because of its superior energy efficient design. Accordingly, staff is able to conclude that the proposed project is consistent with the Energy Element. 5. The Parks and Recreation Element: The Parks and Recreation Element contains goals for addressing valley-wide park and recreation issues, park security and maintenance, and the need for park and recreation facilities in various areas of the City. It also contains goals and policies for walking, hiking, and equestrian trails in and around the City. Project Consistency with the Parks and Recreation Element: There are two areas within the Element that specifically relate to the proposed project. First, the Element discusses the "Quimby Act," which is a State law that allows Cities and Counties to require subdividers to develop or pay for the capital development of park lands. The law allows the City to collect the equivalent capital cost in-lieu of building a park onsite. The money would be used to assist in the development of a park nearby. The City has adopted an Ordinance consistent with the Quimby Act, and routinely collects in-lieu park fees. For the proposed project, these fees will be collected from the applicants prior to the recordation of the Final Subdivision Map for this project. Second, the Element discusses requiring trail dedications in new residential subdivisions. While there are no specific polices mandating the exaction of trails in subdivisions, the Element provides an explanation of the legal requirements to do so. It points out that the City must have an adopted plan calling for a trail through the subject property, and that the benefit enjoyed by future residents in the subdivision would be proportional to the required dedication. In this case, the only adopted Plan for a trail is the General Plan itself, which calls for a "Rim Trail" around the valley. However, the conceptual route for this trail illustrated in Figure V.2-AA does not cross the subject property. Accordingly, staff is able to conclude that the proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies of the Parks and Recreation Element. 6. Circulation and Transportation: The Circulation and Transportation Element addresses the street and transportation network with an emphasis on the movement of people and products. It acknowledges that the system of public streets and roads, both existing and planned, strongly influences the patterns of land use in the City and surrounding area. The thrust of the Element is to plan for the smooth and efficient movement of vehicles, bikes and pedestrians throughout the City as the community grows and develops. Project Consistency with the Circulation and Transportation Element: The access road to the proposed subdivision is long and will be private. Because it is private, it is not designed or required to have bike lanes or sidewalks. It will adequately serve the residents as a route between their homes and the employment, shopping, and service centers in the commercial core of the City. Therefore, staff is able to conclude that the proposed project given its unique location is consistent with the spirit and intent of the Circulation and Transportation Element. 7. The Housing Element: The Housing Element focuses on the shelter needs of the community. It seeks to conserve existing stable neighborhoods and encourages housing development to meet local housing needs. It also addresses the quality of the built environment and the promotion of affordable housing. The Element also contains a Housing Needs Plan and housing production goals for the various income levels in the community, a profile of the community, and a number of other required components. Project Consistency with the Housing Element: As noted in the Introduction to the General Plan consistency analysis, the proposed project is consistent with the Housing Element goals for the development of above- moderate income level housing. "Above moderate" income groups are those that can pay a monthly mortgage of approximately $1103.00 (1995). The project provides additional housing stock in a community with very little land left to develop any type of housing. Under the current zoning regulations for the hillside district, the applicants could propose to divide the 39+ acre parcel into eight separate parcels. While the General Plan encourages maximum densities in housing development projects, it would be inappropriate in this case because of the unique and sensitive nature of the hillside area. The majority of housing units developed in the past five years have been for Iow and moderate-income levels. These include the 26-unit Mulberry Street "sweat equity" project, the 11-unit Cleveland Lane "sweat equity" development, 42-units of apartments, a 16-unit affordable senior housing project, the 64-unit Danco Development affordable apartment project (in process), and others. The proposed above-moderate income level housing project provides diversity to the local housing stock. It also does not use the vacant land in the portion of the City where infrastructure, public transportation, etc., are available, which in a sense helps to "reserve" this land for much needed higher density residential development. It should be noted that the subject parcel is not listed in the Inventory of Undeveloped Land contained in the Housing Element. It is Staff's conclusion that this was an oversight, because the subject property appears to the most developable parcel in the area, and because the Inventory also did not list 11 other hillside parcels totaling 115 acres. The Westem Hillside Constraints Analysis Study concludes that up to 25 units could be developed on these 11 parcels. Staff is able to conclude that the proposed project is consistent with the goals, policies, and spirit of the General Plan Housing Element. 10 8. The Community Design Element: The Community Design Element contains a section dedicated to design guidelines, and then a discussion of the components of design throughout the Valley. The design guidelines section stresses the desire for quality buildings that relate harmoniously with their surroundings. The discussion of components of design directs the City to protect its scenic setting as the pressures to develop the last remaining lands increase. It assumes that hillside development proposals will increase, and that the main issue will be aesthetic impacts related to grading and insensitive building and landscape design. The primary goal for the section pertaining to the Ukiah Valley Setting is to "preserve and enhance the scenic setting of the Ukiah Valley." The two primary policies under this goal call for the preservation of native riparian vegetation along the creeks, and to encourage an attractive US 101 viewshed. Project Consistency with the Community Design Element: The aesthetics and visual quality aspects of the proposed project were examined in detail during the environmental review stage of the process. While there was some disagreement between interested people regarding the potential visual quality impacts resulting from the proposal, the City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration with a number of mitigation measures designed to eliminate the significant aesthetic impacts to the community and US 101 corridor, as well as any significant impacts to the riparian vegetation along Gibson Creek. Accordingly, Staff is able to conclude that the proposed project is consistent with the Community Design Element. 9. The Land Use Element: The Land Use Element designates the subject property as "RR" (Rural Density Residential). The lands with this designation are intended to have multiple densities ranging from 1 unit per acre to 1 unit per 80 acres for very large parcels with extreme constraints. The RR classification description states that it applies to single-family residences, residential dwellings on large parcels, and estate residential lands. The Element contains a number of "Siting Issues" for new parcels or new construction. These include location, access, design review, maximum density, second dwellings, and special development issues. Project Consistency with the Land Use Element: The proposed project involves the creation of large single- family residential parcels ranging in size from approximately 5 to 14 acres. Based on the average slope of the property, these sizes are consistent with the minimum sizes/maximum densities for the RR classification. The proposed project is also consistent with the directives contained in the "Siting Issues" section of the Element for new parcels and new construction. Accordingly, staff is able to conclude that the proposed project is consistent with the Land Use Element. 10. The Historic and Archaeological Resources Element: As noted in the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration, the General Plan contains a map showing areas of Historic and Archaeological sensitivity, and the subject property does not contain any of these identified areas. The Historic and Resources Element seeks to protect and preserve cultural resources. For development projects, it encourages an early consultation and review process with the Northwest Information Center of the California Archaeological Inventory (NWIC), which would assist the CEQA review process by identifying potential impacts and mitigation measures. Project Consistency with the Historic and Archaeological Resources Element: As part of the CEQA review process, the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was sent to the State Clearinghouse, which in turn transmitted it to the Native American Heritage Commission. No comments or recommendations were received. Additionally, an adopted mitigation measure requires the applicants, in the event of a discovery of cultural resources during site preparation activities, to halt work, notify the City and fund the services of a qualified archaeologist to evaluate the find. Based on discussions with the NWIC staff regarding procedures, this mitigation measure is an appropriate final step for ensuring the protection and preservation of cultural resources. Accordingly, staff is able to conclude that the project review process is consistent with the process recommended by the Historic and Archaeological Resources Element. CONCLUSION: Subdividing land is a privilege not an inherent property right, and granting exceptions to the local Subdivision Ordinance is a delicate exercise. The western hillsides are a very unique and difficult area to develop because of steep slopes, geologic instability, difficult access, hazardous areas, and other factors. However, the General Plan anticipated that some of the large parcels could potentially be subdivided and 7_--// designated them as rural residential, rather than open space. The Plan set strong parameters for developing this area by requiring projects to be sensitive to the environmental setting, not result in significant visual impacts, not cause soil instability and erosion, and in the end, fulfill the requirements of the Vision Statement, as well as the goals and policies of the applicable Plan Elements. It is Staff's conclusion that the project, as mitigated, does meet the spirit of the Vision Statement, and is consistent with the Goals and Policies of the General Plan. It provides rural residential develop on large parcels rather then on vacant fiat land closer to the City, which may assist in the ongoing efforts to locate higher density housing in the denser areas of the City. It also represents what Staff believes is an underlying theme in the General Plan, which is to provide a mix of housing types while conserving and protecting the hillside and agricultural lands to the east. Staff believes that the proposed project, as mitigated, is worthy of approval in the sensitive hillside area, because it has been shaped and honed through the environmental review process, is not situated on ridge tops, and would result in a Iow-density residential development on large parcels where public services are available. FINDINGS Findings Supporting the requested exceptions to the Subdivision Ordinance: . Approving the requested exception for a 6,000-foot long cul-de-sac is reasonable and appropriate because the parcel is remotely located on the City limit line in the western hillside area, and is situated more than 2000 feet from the nearest public street. To develop even one residence on the parcel, a minimum 2000-foot long cul-de-sac would be necessary, so that the 400-foot maximum "fiat land" standard seems inappropriate for this circumstance. . Approving the requested exception for a 6,000-foot long cul-de-sac is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicants, because without it, the applicants could not feasibly develop their property with single family residences, which the parcel is designated and zoned for in the City General Plan. . The granting of the requested exception for a 6,000-foot long cul-de-sac would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity of the subject parcel, because it only serves two other parcels that are either developed or under construction to be developed. Additionally, the paving and improvement to the existing 6,000-foot long road would provide improved emergency vehicle access and fire protection deep into the hillside area. . Approving the requested exception allowing the road to exceed 15% grade in a number of locations is reasonable and appropriate, because the area is uniquely steep, it will be paved to a 20-foot width in the steepest areas, and the Fire Department has indicated that their trucks can climb on this grade if the road is paved. o Approving the requested exception allowing the road to exceed 15% grade in a number of locations is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicants, because without it, the applicants could not feasibly develop their property with single family residences, which the parcel is designated and zoned for in the City General Plan. . Approving the requested exception allowing the road to exceed 15% grade in a number of locations would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity of the subject property, because the City Fire Department has indicated that their trucks can climb the proposed road, and the average steepness of the road would be 16%, only slightly steeper than the maximum 15%. . Approving the requested exception allowing some of the turning radii to be less than 50-feet is reasonable and appropriate, because the hillside area is uniquely steep and to cut, fill, and grade the radii to meet the 50-foot standard would potentially cause significantly adverse environmental impacts. Additionally, the City Fire Department has indicated that they can navigate the proposed turns with their trucks. ~.--/ 2- 12 . Approving the requested exception allowing some of the turning radii to be less than 50-feet is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicants, because without it, the applicants could not feasibly develop their property, and the parcel is designated and zoned for residential development in the City General Plan. . Approving the requested exception allowing some of the turning radii to be less than 50-feet would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity of the subject property, because the major cutting, filling, and grading to get the 50-feet would not be necessary, therefore eliminating potential impacts such as soil instability, erosion, and visual quality. 10. Approving the requested exception for an 18-foot wide road rather than a 20-foot wide road is reasonable and appropriate because the hillside area is uniquely steep and to cut, fill, grade and widen it could potentially cause significantly adverse environmental impacts. Additionally, the City Fire Department has indicated that the 18-foot width is consistent with the State Fire Safe Standard, and would allow them to provide adequate fire protection. 11. Approving the requested exception for an 18-foot wide road rather than a 20-foot wide road is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicants, because without it, the applicants could not feasibly develop their property with single family residences, which the parcel is designated and zoned for in the City General Plan. 12. Approving the requested exception for an 18-foot wide road rather than a 20-foot wide road would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity of the subject property, because the major cutting, filling, and grading to get the 20-feet would not be necessary, therefore eliminating potential impacts such as soil instability, erosion, and visual quality. Findings Supporting the Major Subdivision: 13. As indicated in the General Plan consistency analysis text of the Agenda Summary Report, the proposed design of the subdivision is consistent with the goals and policies of General Plan because it provides opportunity for above moderate-income level housing, which is a high General Plan priority; it would result in hillside development that conserves and preserves substantial amounts of natural hillside acreage; and it would not have significant adverse impacts on the environment. 14. The proposed subdivision would provide rural single-family residential development opportunities on lots ranging in size from 5 to 14 acres, which would help reserve existing vacant residentially zoned land in the core areas of the City for higher density residential development, and theoretically help to limit any pressure for developing the agricultural lands to the east. 15. The proposed subdivision, with the requested exceptions granted, is consistent with the standards and regulations contained in the City of Ukiah Subdivision Ordinance, because it meets or exceeds the requirements for parcel area, parcel width, frontages, and the other standards contained in the applicable Articles of Chapter 1, Division 9 of the Ukiah Municipal Code. 16. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the purpose and regulations contained in the Hillside Zoning District for the following reasons: a. The scattered development of single-family residences preserves large open areas of the natural environment on the subject parcel. bo The planning, design, and development of the building sites provides the maximum safety possible because each home will be developed with sprinkler systems, individual fire hydrants, defensible space/vegetation management, and fire resistive building materials. ~ _. ~,~ C. The planning, design, and development of the building sites provides human enjoyment while utilizing the natural terrain because the homesites are situated on the most level portions of the property, the proposed home on parcel 3 wraps with the contour rather than cutting deeply into the hillside, and the proposed driveways follow the natural contours of the land. d. All utility lines will be installed underground. e. Special natural physical features of the land, such as rock outcroppings, major stands of trees, and the high crests of hills will be preserved. Grading, cut, and fill operations, as well as water runoff/erosion will be minimized because they have been designed by a professional geotechnical engineer, and by the comprehensive mitigation measures program adopted for the project. g. The resulting density of the project site is consistent with the requirements of the RR (Rural Residential) land use designation for the property contained in the General Plan. h. The design of the project is consistent with all the hillside development standards contained in Section 9139 of the City Zoning Ordinance, including minimum parcel size, percentage of property retained in a natural state, fire resistive building materials, water supply, yard setbacks, etc. Findings Supporting the Use Permit: 17. The proposed single-family residential land use is consistent with the provisions of the City Zoning Ordinance and the goals and policies of the General Plan for the reasons listed in Findings No. 13 and 16 above. 18. The proposed residential land use is compatible with surrounding land uses and would not be detrimental to the public's health, safety and general welfare for the following reasons: a. The area soils, geology, hydrology, vegetation, animal life, and other natural features of the land were comprehensively analyzed by a professional geotechnical engineer, civil engineer, and other qualified professional, and they concluded that the site is suitable for the proposed development, and will not adversely impact the properties or people below or surrounding the site. b. The City Fire Department has indicated that they can provide adequate fire protection services to the proposed project. c. The City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. CONDITIONS OF PROJECT APPROVAL The following Conditions of Approval shall be made a permanent part of Subdivision 98-37 and Use Permit 00- 57, and shall remain in force regardless of property ownership, and shall be implemented in order for this entitlement to remain valid: . A Final Subdivision Map shall be prepared, submitted to the City for review and approval, and recorded consistent with the requirements of the Ukiah Municipal Code prior to the issuance of any permits for construction or development of the road, infrastructure, or resulting parcels . All road, drainage, and infrastructure improvements shall be designed and constructed in substantial conformance with the Tentative Subdivision Map and associated plans submitted and approved herein. HULL I PIFFERO SUBDIVISION AND USE PERMIT PROJECT Supplemental Findings As indicated in the discussion of Residence Design on page 6 of the Staff Report, Section 9262(A) of the Ukiah Municipal Code requires projects subject to Use Permits that involve new construction to be evaluated using the Site Development Permit findings, as well as the Use Permit findings. The final paragraph in that discussion indicates that these findings are included at the end of the report. However, during final editing, the Site Development Permit findings were inadvertently deleted from the text of the document. Accordingly, staff offers the following findings to supplement the Use Permit Findings listed on page 14 of the Staff Report: 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. The development of the single-family residence would not create hazardous or inconvenient impacts to existing vehicular or pedestrian patterns since the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration revealed that the anticipated increase in average daily traffic levels would not cause service levels for public streets or intersections to decline, and would not adversely impact pedestrian circulation patterns. The proposed driveway and parking area would not create a hazardous or inconvenient condition to adjacent or surrounding uses since the subject parcel is large, the surrounding properties are approximately 40-acres in size, and the nearest development is a single-family residence over 1 mile away. No mature trees would be removed from the area to be developed and sufficient landscape areas would be retained for purposes of planting trees needed to screen and shade the proposed single-family residence. The design and building materials proposed for the single-family residence are unique in that they would result in a highly energy efficient home that conforms to the topography and has a variety of roof pitches, wall angles, and window treatments, and therefore, has sufficient variety, creativity, and articulation to avoid being monotonous or box-like. The proposed single-family residence would not restrict or cut out light and air on the property or on surrounding properties, nor would it hinder the development or use of buildings in the neighborhood, because the home is single-story, setback a minimum of 60-feet from all property lines, and the nearest residence is over 1- mile away. The proposed single-family residence will not excessively damage or destroy natural features, including trees, shrubs, creeks, and the natural grade of the land, because the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration includes detailed mitigation measures/conditions of approval to ensure that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the natural setting and environment of the project site. No commercial or industrial buildings are proposed so that none would have a substantial detrimental impact on the character or value of the adjacent residential zoning district. . o o All road and infrastructure construction shall comply with the "Standard Specifications" for such type of construction now existing or which may hereafter be promulgated by the Engineering Department of the City of Ukiah; except where higher standards are imposed by law, rule, or regulation or by action of the City Council. No site preparation or construction/improvements (road, drainage, utilities, etc.) shall be performed without the approval of a Site Improvement Permit from the Department of Public Works. The applicants shall obtain any permit or approval which is required by law, regulation, or Ordinance, required by local, State, or Federal agency. 6. All road paving shall be a minimum of 2" (inches) of asphalt concrete with a 6" (inch) aggregate base. . . . 10. An Encroachment Permit from the Department of Public Works is required for any work within the West Standley Street right-of-way. Any work within the City right-of-way shall be performed by a properly licensed Contractor with a current City of Ukiah Business License. The Contractor must submit copies of proper insurance coverage (Public liability: $1,000,000; Property Damage: $1,000,000) and a current Workman's Compensation Certificate. Prior to recordation of the Final Subdivision Map, the applicants shall comply with Section 8400-8434 (Park and Recreation; Dedication; Reservations; Fees) of Article 21, Chapter 1 of the City Subdivision Ordinance. Prior to recordation of the Final Subdivision Map, the applicants/subdividers shall prepare and submit a Mitigation Compliance Plan verifying when and how the required mitigation measures will be complied with. The applicants shall fund and/or contract with qualified professionals such as civil and geotechnical engineers and landscape architects and/or specialists to verify compliance with all mitigation measures, and to prepare field reports for submittal to the City. The Mitigation Compliance Plan shall also specifically address how the adopted mitigation measures will be successfully implemented over the long term during and after buildout of the subdivision. The Mitigation Compliance Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning and Community Development prior to the recordation of the Final Subdivision Map. The Director shall have the authority to require changes to the Mitigation Compliance Plan prior to approving it to ensure that it contains a thoughtful and comprehensive strategy for successfully implementing the required mitigation measures in both the short and long term. The Mitigation Compliance Plan shall include, but not be limited to the following: a. A discussion of how daily logs will be prepared during all site preparation and construction activities detailing how all applicable mitigation measures are complied with. b. A discussion of how all contractors will be advised about the required mitigation measures, and supervised for strict compliance. Co The names of qualified professional monitoring personnel such as civil and geotechnical engineers, botanists, landscape architects, etc. The required professional monitoring personnel shall be retained by the applicants, or by the City at the expense of the applicants. do A list of the required mitigation measures and who will be responsible for implementing and supervising the completion of the measures. The list shall be organized in the following categories: 1) mitigation measures required prior to the recordation of the Final Subdivision Map; 2) mitigation e, measures required prior to the approval of Site Improvement Plans (roads, drainage, utility infrastructure, etc.); 3) mitigation measures required prior to the issuance of a grading permit; 4) mitigation measures required prior to the issuance of Building Permits; 5) mitigation measures required prior to final inspection and the grant of occupancy of structures; and 6) mitigation measures required on an on-going basis. A timeframe for the submittal of regular status/compliance reports detailing how and when each mitigation measure is complied with, and who inspected and verified the work. The reports shall also describe the effectiveness of the mitigation measures in off setting the impacts. The City Planning Director shall review and approve the timeframe for the report submittals, and shall be responsible for reviewing, approving, and filing the submitted reports. The timeframe for report preparation and submittal shall be regular enough to provide the City with a comfort level that all required mitigation measures are being implemented and are effectively mitigating the identified impacts. 11. Prior to any site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, or construction activities, the applicants shall submit, and have approved by the City Engineer, a comprehensive Erosion Control Plan prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer. The comprehensive Erosion Control Plan shall include, but not be limited to the following: ao A description of the sequence of construction of the development site stripping and clearing; rough grading; construction of utilities; infrastructure, and buildings; and final grading and landscaping). The sequencing shall identify the expected date on which clearing will begin; the estimated duration of exposure of cleared areas, areas of clearing, installation of temporary erosion and sediment control measures, and establishment of permanent vegetation. bo A description of all erosion and sediment control measures necessary to adequately control erosion along the roadway, driveways, homesites, and all other areas disturbed as a result of the project. C, Seeding mixtures and rates, types of sod, method of seedbed preparation, expected seeding dates, type and rate of lime and fertilizer application, and the kind and quantity of mulching for both temporary and permanent vegetation control measures. d. Specific measures to ensure no erosion will occur into Gibson Creek. e. Provisions for maintenance of erosion control facilities. f. The City Engineer shall have the authority to require modifications to the submitted Plan that will ensure adequate erosion control. g. Any other elements required by local, State, or Federal law. 12. The construction of the residence on Parcel #3 shall conform to the application approved by the Planning Commission, and to the supporting documents submitted therewith, including the site plan, elevation drawings, applicable conditions of approval/mitigation measures, and written project description. 13. Any construction activities associated with the project shall comply with the "Standard Specifications" for such type of construction now existing or which may hereafter be promulgated by the Engineering Department of the City of Ukiah; except where higher standards are imposed by law, rule, or regulation or by action of the Planning Commission. 14. In addition to any particular condition, which might be imposed, any construction shall comply with all building, fire, electric, plumbing, occupancy, and structural laws, regulations and ordinances in effect at the time a Building Permit is approved and issued. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. Applicant shall be required to obtain any permit or approval, which is required by law, regulation, or ordinance, be it required by Local, State, or Federal agency. Any Building Permits shall be issued within two years after the effective date of the Use Permit, or the Use Permit shall be subject to the City's permit revocation process and procedures. In the event the Building Permit cannot be issued within the stipulated period from the project approval date, a one year extension may be granted by the Director of Planning if no new circumstances affect the project which otherwise would render the original approval inappropriate or illegal. It is the applicant's responsibility in such cases to propose the one-year extension to the Planning Department prior to the two-year expiration date. The approved Use Permit may be revoked through the City's revocation process if the approved project is not being conducted in compliance with the stipulations and conditions of approval; or if the project is not established within two years of the effective date of approval; or if the established land use for which the permit was granted has ceased or has been suspended for twenty four (24) consecutive months. Except as otherwise specifically noted, the Use Permit shall be granted only for the specific purposes stated in the action approving the Use Permit and shall not be construed as eliminating or modifying any building, use, or zone requirements except as to such specific purposes. All new cut and fill slopes along the existing access road necessary for the minor road widening shall match the existing slope gradient. No fill slopes shall exceed 1.5H:1V in gradient. Surface strippings cannot be used as fill except in landscape areas. Prior to placing any fill material, it shall be inspected and approved by a soils engineer, and the report shall be submitted to the City Public Works department for review and approval. All fill material shall be free of organic matter and other deleterious material. The fill used for the project shall not contain boulders over 12 inches in dimension and not more than 15% of the fill shall consist of cobbles or boulders larger than 6 inches. All boulders must be removed from the site or stored on-site at a location approved by the project engineer. This requirement may mean that some of the rock excavated from cuts cannot be used as engineered fill. Fill placement shall be performed according to the recommendations contained on page 10 of the Revised Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report, prepared by Thomsen Consulting Engineers, dated February 21, 2001. Any fill placed on slopes steeper than 5H:IV shall be keyed into the existing slope in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code, 1997 Edition. The upper 12 inches of subgrade below all roads must be scarified and recompacted to a minimum of 95% relative compaction. All trench backfilling shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Revised Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report, prepared by Thomsen Consulting Engineers, dated February 21, 2001. 3.-1'7 17 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. All grading work on the project site shall be routinely inspected by a professional/certified soil engineer. Field density tests must be taken during grading in order to evaluate the adequacy of the contractor's work. After grading is completed and the soil engineer has finished the observation of the work, no further excavation or filling shall be done except with the approval of and observation of the soil engineer in consultation with the City Public Works Department Staff. The contractor shall be responsible to prevent erosion and water damage of the graded area and adjoining areas during construction. All cut and fill slopes shall be mulched and seeded at the completion of construction to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Director/City Engineer. The roadway shall be graded with a cross slope of 1% to 2% from the upslope to downslope side. Water shall be directed to flow across the road rather than channeling it into inboard ditches to decrease surface erosion. Riprap shall be placed at both the entrances and outlets of all culverts to reduce erosion to insignificant amounts. Surface drainage around building sites shall be directed into natural watercourses, gullies or swales. The outlets for the building site surface drainage features shall be constructed with riprap material. All surface runoff shall be directed around cut and fill slopes with riprap lined ditches or underground pipes to suitable outlets in nearby natural watercourses. No building site shall be constructed within the areas of geologic hazards shown on Figure 1 of the Revised Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report, prepared by Thomsen Consulting Engineers, dated February 21, 2001. Prior to the issuance of any Building Permits, the applicants shall submit an engineered plan, prepared by a soil engineer or other qualified professional engineer, for stabilizing the landslide on proposed parcel 1. The plan shall include, but not be limited to a series of subsurface drains. Prior to beginning work to stabilize the landslide, the engineered plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Public Works Director/City Engineer. Prior to grading activities, individual Grading Plans shall be submitted that address the proposed improvements, including, but not limited to building pads, driveways, the proposed water tank, roadway improvements, etc. Before commencing with grading, the Plan(s) shall be reviewed and approved by the City Public Works Director/City Engineer. Plans submitted for Building Permits for all future development shall include geotechnical reports/soil investigations prepared by qualified engineering professionals. The investigations shall be based on the specific building plans for each site, and shall include recommendations to control erosion, and ensure that improvements are constructed to eliminate or substantially minimize soil constraints. All grading, cutting and filling shall be consistent with the approved plans, and shall kept to the minimum necessary to achieve the goals of the project. All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, road construction, and building construction shall institute a practice of routinely watering exposed soil to control dust, particularly during windy days. All inactive soil piles on the project site shall be completely covered at all times to control fugitive dust. All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, and actual construction shall include a program of washing off trucks leaving the construction site to control the transport of mud and dust onto public streets. ~. _ ~ 18 43. Low emission mobile construction equipment, such as tractors, scrapers, and bulldozers shall be used for earth moving operations. 44. All earth moving and grading activities shall be suspended if wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour. 45. A note shall be placed on the Subdivision Map indicating that all future homes shall not exceed one-story (20-feet) in height from natural grade. 46. All future homes in the subdivision shall be painted medium dark subdued earth-tone colors such as shades of greens, dark tans, browns, etc. 47. All future homes shall be situated in the general building site locations shown on the Tentative Map. Any deviations shall be subject to the review and approval by the City Planning Commission. 48. All existing trees on the proposed lots shall be retained unless a professional arborist submits a report to the City Planning Director indicating that specific trees are dead or diseased. For every one tree removed, two new trees shall be planted in the same general location. 49. Development proposals for each lot shall include a comprehensive Landscaping Plan that includes trees intended to help screen the future residences and other components of development from the valley below. All required landscaping shall be maintained in a viable condition to the satisfaction of the Planning Department. 50. The slopes above the access road, as well as the driveways accessing the lots shall be seeded with native grasses/shrubs/plants to eliminate the visual impact resulting from earth cuts and exposed soils. 51. Future residences and any accessory structures shall be designed and constructed to complement the topographic features of the site, and shall be sited with and in the hillside rather than on top of it. 52. Prior to site preparation, vegetation removal, grading, and other activities associated with the development of the water tank, cul-de-sac, and other infrastructure improvements, the applicants shall submit a comprehensive Landscaping Plan designed to ensure that the improvements are adequately screened from the valley below. The Plan shall include, but not be limited to; 1) the retention of existing trees and other vegetation; 2) the planting of new trees in strategic locations; and 3) the revegatation of any cut slopes. This Landscaping Plan may be included in the Plan required by Mitigation Measure No. 32. 53. The water tank shall be painted a dark green or other similar color to match and blend in with the surrounding trees and native vegetation. 54. If, during site preparation or construction activities, any historic or prehistoric cultural resources are Unearthed and discovered, all work shall immediately be halted, and the City notified of the discovery. The applicant shall be required to fund the hiring of a qualified professional archaeologist to perform a field reconnaissance and to develop a precise mitigation program if necessary. 55. Prior to the recordation of the Final Subdivision Map, the applicants shall submit a Landscaping and Revegatation Plan for the scarred and barren areas resulting from the unauthorized grading and road up- slope tapering activity that occurred in 1997. The Plan shall be prepared by a qualified landscape architect, botanist, or other professional with the expertise necessary to design an approach to mitigating the visual impact resulting from the scarred slopes. The Plan shall include, but not be limited to the following: a. the planting of native fire resistant and drought tolerant shrubs on the exposed slopes visible from the valley below. b. The selective planting of rapidly growing trees designed to screen the exposed slopes below the access road. c. Measures that will be taken to ensure the long-term survival of the plantings. This Landscaping Plan may be included with the Plan required by Mitigation Measure No. 32. 56. A note shall be placed on the final subdivision map stating that the portion of the subdivision access road on the subject 39.28-acre parcel 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. 57. The deeds for the five lots created by the proposed subdivision shall contain a provision restricting the use of the existing access road and future driveways to serving only the residences on those lots. 58. Any action to modify the language on the Final Subdivision Map or on the deeds for the five lots shall first be reviewed and approved by the Ukiah City Council. ATTACHMENTS: 1. All maps, plans, and diagrams were previously distributed to the Planning Commission with the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. Chapter 2, Article 11 - Hillside Zoning Regulations 20 9135: HILLSIDE LOT SIZE OR-H DISTRICTS: A Hillside Lot Size (-H) District may be combined with any district or portion of a district defined in this Chapter. The Hillside Lot Size (-H) Districts may be of different designations as indicated by a numerical suffix. The regulations contained in this Article, and the regulations governing any district which is combined with a Hillside Lot Size (-H) District where not inconsistent with the regulations set forth in this Article, shall apply in Hillside Lot Size (-H) Districts. The purpose of this Section is to implement the Hillside designation of the General Plan and provide site standards to promote fire and geologic safety, and aesthetic qualities. The intent of this District is to: mo B, Encourage concentration of dwellings and other structures by clustering and/or high rise to help save larger areas of open space and preserve the natural terrain; Encourage the planning, design, and development of building sites in such a fashion as to provide the maximum in safety and human enjoyment while adapting development to, and taking advantage of, the best use of the natural terrain; C. Prohibit, insofar as is feasible and reasonable, padding or filling of building sites in the hillside areas; D. Ensure underground installation of utility wires and television lines; E. Preserve outstanding natural physical features, such as the highest crest of a hill, natural rock outcroppings, major tree belts, etc; F. Minimize grading and cut and fill operations consistent with the retention of the natural character of hill areas; G. Minimize the water runoff and soil erosion problems incurred in adjustment of the terrain to meet on-site and off-site development needs; Ho Achieve land use densities that are in keeping with the General Plan; densities will decrease as the slope of the terrain increases in order to retain the significant natural feature of the hill areas. (Ord. 793, {}2, adopted 1982) 9136: YARD AND BUILDING SITE REQUIREMENTS IN DESIGNATED -H DISTRICTS: The following yard and building site requirements shall replace those in any district with which any -H District is combined: Combining Building District Site Area Lot Combination (Sq. Ft.) Width Minimum Yards Required: Front Side Rear -H-1 8,000 65' 25' 6' 25' -H-2 10,000 75' 30' One 6' 30' One 14' -H-3 15,000 100' 35' 15' 35' -H-4 1 Acre 125' 35' 15' 35' (Ord. 793, {}2, adopted 1982) 9137: FRONT SETBACK LINES: In Hillside Lot Size (-H) Districts, no building construction shall be permitted or allowed at any distance closer to the street right-of-way line along any adjacent street than the distances set forth in §9136 for minimum front yards in the particular designated -H District. Comer lots shall be considered as having a front setback on both adjacent street frontages. (Ord. 793, §2, adopted 1982) 9138: EXCEPTIONS TO FRONT SETBACK LINES: The exceptions to the front setback requirement set forth in §§9020, 9035 and 9050 shall not apply in-H Districts. (Ord. 793, §2, adopted 1982) 9139: HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: Any parcel of land or subdivision having an average ground gradient across any portion of the property in excess of fifteen percent (15%) shall require a use permit for development. Specific criteria for density, circulation and lot requirements shall be determined on an individual basis utilizing geologic and soils reports, vegetation surveys and aesthetic evaluation. Minimum lot size in this zone shall be ten thousand (10,000) square feet. A. Minimum Site and Development Standards: Bo Average Parcel Slope in % 1. Lot size, retention of land in natural state based upon average slope. Minimum Percentage of Property Lot Size Retained in Natural State 15-20 10,000 square feet 50 21-25 20,000 square feet 55 26-30 1 acre 80 31-50 5 acres 95 Over 51 10 acres 100 2. Setbacks: Minimum thirty feet (30') from all property lines, and thirty feet (30') from ridge top or toe of slope for gradient in excess of fifteen percent (15%). 3. Disclosure: Property purchase/sale transaction shall include full disclosure of fact that property is within fire hazard area. 4. Building Material: No combustible roof material as determined by the Fire Marshal and the Building Official shall be used on buildings in this zone. 5. Water Supply and Fire Hydrants: The following shall be required: a. Slopes of twenty percent and less: Two (2) hours supply with fire flow capability of seven hundred fifty (750) gallons per minute at twenty (20) p.s.i. Fire hydrants maximum three hundred thirty feet (330') apart with six inch (6") main line. b. Slopes in excess of twenty percent: Two (2) hour supply with fire flow capability of five hundred (500) gallons per minute at twenty (20) p.s.i. Fire hydrants maximum six hundred sixty feet (660') apart with six inch (6") main line. 6. Subdivisions: In subdivision developments with full width City streets, proposed fire breaks or other separations from wildland areas may have other requirements based upon specific design. Use Permit Procedure: Prior to any construction or grading in this district, a use permit shall be approved by the Planning Commission. The application form and process shall be the same as that described in {}{}9225-9239. Additional information or data may be required as determined necessary by the Director of Planning. The following reports shall be required with each application. C. Soil Reports: 1. A soils engineering report shall include data regarding the nature, distribution and strength of existing soils, conclusions and recommendations for grading procedures, design criteria for corrective measures and opinions and recommendations covering the adequacy of sites to be developed. 2. The investigation and subsequent report shall be completed by a professional engineer registered in the State of California, and experienced and knowledgeable in the practice of soils mechanics. 3. Recommendations included in the report and approved by the engineer shall be incorporated into the design plan or specifications. 4. Any area which presents one or more of the following limiting factors shall not be subjected to development unless the engineer can demonstrate conclusively to the Commission that these limitations can be overcome in such a manner as to prevent hazard to life, hazard to property, adverse effects on the safety, use or stability of a public way or drainage channel and adverse impact on the natural environment. a. Water table within six feet (6') of the surface at any time of the year. b. Soils with a high shrink-swell potential. c. Soils with a unified classification of unstable soil types. D. Geology Reports: 1. A geology report shall include a description of the geology of the site, conclusions and recommendations regarding the effect of geologic conditions on the proposed development, and opinions and recommendations covering the adequacy of sites to be developed. 2. The investigation and subsequent report shall be completed by a professional geologist registered in the State of California and experienced and knowledgeable in the practice of engineering geology. 3. Any area which the investigation indicates has geological hazards shall not be subjected to development unless the geologist can demonstrate conclusively to the Commission that these hazards can be overcome in such a manner as to prevent hazard to life or limb, hazard to property, adverse effects on the safety, use or stability of a public way or drainage channel, and adverse impact on the natural environment. E. Subsurface Investigations: For both soil and geologic reports, subsurface investigation shall Fo be performed throughout the area to sufficiently describe the existing conditions. In particular, subsurface investigations shall be conducted where stability will be lessened by proposed grading or filling or where any of the following conditions are discovered or proposed: 1. Fault zones, where past land movement is evidenced by the presence of a fault gorge; 2. Contact zones between two (2) or more geologic formations; 3. Zones of trapped water or high water table; 4. Bodies of intrusive materials; 5. Historic landslides or where the topography is indicative of prehistoric landslides; 6. Adversely sloped bedding plains, short range folding, overturned folds and other geologic formations of similar importance; 7. Locations where a fill slope is to be placed above a cut slope; 8. Proposed cuts exceeding twenty feet (20') in height, unless in extremely competent rock; 9. Locations of proposed fills exceeding twenty feet (20') in height; 10. Where side hill fills are to be placed on existing slopes steeper than sixteen percent (16%); 11. Wherever groundwater from either the grading project or adjoining properties is likely to substantially reduce the subsurface stability. Hydrology Report: 1. A hydrology report shall include a description of the hydrology of the site, conclusions and recommendations regarding the effect of hydrologic conditions on the proposed development, and opinions and recommendations covering the adequacy of sites to be developed. 2. The investigation and subsequent report shall be completed by a qualified registered professional, experienced and knowledgeable in the science of hydrology and in the techniques of hydrologic investigation. 3. Any area which the investigation indicates has hydrological hazards shall not be subject to development unless the professional can demonstrate conclusively to the Commission that these hazards can be overcome in such a manner as to prevent hazard to life or limb, hazard to property, adverse effects on the safety, use or stability of a public way or drainage channel, and adverse impact on the natural environment. 4. Flood frequency curves shall be provided for the area proposed for development. G. Vegetation Report: Ho 1. A vegetation report shall include a description of the vegetation environment of the site (species, height, size, general condition, location), conclusions and recommendations regarding the effect of proposed development on the site's vegetation, and opinions and recommendations covering the adequacy of sites to be developed. 2. The investigation and subsequent report shall be completed by a qualified registered professional, experienced and knowledgeable in the science of botany and in the techniques of vegetation investigation. 3. Any area which the investigation indicates has rare or endangered flora species shall not be subjected to development unless the professional can demonstrate conclusively to the Commission that these can be mitigated. Structure Elevations: Views of all sides of proposed structures and perspectives of the proposed development from two (2) different angles. Grading Plan: The grading plan shall include information concerning the existing physical characteristics of the area as well as data on anticipated changes as a result of the grading operation. It will also include a description of the grading process itself which will note times and exact location of proposed earth-moving activities. The plan shall include: 1. An accurate plot plan showing buildings, roads, utilities or other improvements within the area and adjacent thereto. 2. A map drawn to a scale approved by the Planning Department showing accurate contours at two foot (2') intervals of the topography of the property and the area adjacent within fifteen feet (15'). Elevations to be based on USGS data. 3. Cross-section showing both the original and proposed ground surfaces, with grades, slopes and elevation noted. 4. Detailed plans of all drainage devices, walls, cribbing, dams or other protective devices to be constructed in connection or as part of the proposed work. 5. A map showing the drainage area and estimated nmoff of the area served by any drains and proposed methods of runoff disposal. 6. A soil stabilization report including final ground cover, landscaping and erosion control measures to prevent soil loss when the grading is in process. 7. A description of equipment and methods to be employed in processing and disposing of soil and other material that is removed from the grading site, including the location of disposal sites. 8. A schedule showing when each stage of the project will be completed, including estimated starting and completion dates, hours of operation and days of week of operation. 9. Specifications controlling construction methods and materials in construction of the work, including: a. Provisions for control of grading operations within the construction area and on public roads. b. Safety precautions to be observed and facilities to be provided. c. Compliance with laws and local regulations. d. Control of dust. e. Other related matters. (Ord. 793, §2, adopted 1982) MINUTES CITY OF UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION December 12, 2001 MEMBERS PRESENT Joe Chiles, Chairman Gaither Loewenstein Mike Correll Robert Wallen OTHERS PRESENT Listed Below, Respectively STAFF PRESENT Charley Stump, Planning Director David Lohse, Associate Planner Brian Keefer, Associate Planner Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary MEMBERS ABSENT Judy Pruden The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Chiles at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. Roll was taken with the results listed above. 3. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION Site visits for items 8A, 8B, and 8C were verified. m APPROVAL OF MINUTES- November 28, 2001 ON A MOTION by Commissioner Correll, seconded by Commissioner Loewenstein, it was carried by an all AYE voice vote of the Commissioners present to approve the November 28, 2001 minutes, as submitted. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS No one from the audience came forward. 6. APPEAL PROCESS Chairman Chiles read the appeal process to the audience. meeting, the final date for appeal is December 24, 2001. For matters heard at this 7. VERIFICATION OF NOTICF Staff reported Major Site Development Permit No. 01-33, Major Site Development Permit No. 01-39, and Major Subdivision and Use Permit No. were legally noticed in accordance with the provisions as outlined in the City Municipal Code. 8. 8A. PROJECT REVIEWS Major Use Permit Amendment No. 01-05, as filed by RHL Desiqn Group, to allow remodel of 206-square foot addition to the southeast corner of the buildin.cl, a canopy over the drive through lane, interior remodel, facade improvements and a new roof, revisions to the on-site circulation pattern and parking lot, and ne,,,_, MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page ! December 12, 2001 landscaping. The remodel as proposed results in a requirement to add a tiro protection sprinkler system to the entire building. (APN 002-200-40); zoned C-1 (Community Commercial). Associate Planner Keefer stated the applicants have requested a continuance due the project improvements requiring a fire protection sprinkler system. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:38 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 6:39 p.m. It was the consensus of the Commissioners present to continue Major Site Development Permit No. 01-33 to a date uncertain. 8B. Major Site Development Permit No. 01-39, as filed by Mor,qan Ruddick, to allow the removal of a 1,900 square foot (+/-) cement block structure, and the construction of an addition of like size to the existinq sales buildinq. The Proiec' site is located at 285 Talma,qe Road. (APN 003-230-34); zoned M (Manufacturinq). Associate Planner Keefer reported approval of Major Site Development Permit No. 01- 39 would allow the removal of a 1,900 square foot (+/-) cement block structure and the construction of an addition of like size to the existing sales building. The Planning Department recommends conditional approval of the project on the grounds the proposed relocation of the storage space from the existing cement block structure to the proposed addition would be consistent with the goals and policies for the Industrial land use classification of the Ukiah Valley General Plan, compatible with the criteria of the Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan and Airport Overlay Map, the use and development standards for the M (Manufacturing) Zoning District, and improve the situation with regards to the Airport land use compatibility criteria. The applicant proposes to demolish the storage structure and replace it with an addition of approximately 1,860 square feet to the south side of the sales building to coincide with the existing architectural building characteristics. There would be no curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements required for the project, the existing landscaping is in place, and there is no need to modify the parking accommodations. Project approval would be subject to Findings 1-7 and Conditions of Approval 1-14 and the staff report is herein incorporated as agenda item 8B. Planning Commission Questions to Staff: Commissioner Correll inquired whether the facility possessed a past different function and/or use. Mr, Keefer had no knowledge of the facility's past history. It was noted the building was once a sulfur drying facility. Mr, Keefer stated the property is a wonderful example of commercial/industrial zoned land and noted the premises is well maintained. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:42 p.m. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 2 December 12, 2001 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 6:43 p.m. Planning Commission Discussion: Commissioner Wallen supported the project and agreed with Mr. Keefer's comments stating removal of the brick and the proposed addition would enhance the property. Commissioner Correll supported the project and noted the improvements would allow the business to function better. ON A MOTION by Commissioner Loewenstein, seconded by Commissioner Wallen, it was carried by an all AYE voice vote of the Commissioners present to approve Major Site Development Permit No. 01-39 with Findings 1-7 and Conditions of Approval 1-14, as outlined in the staff report and as discussed above. 8C. Maior Subdivision and Use Permit, as filed by Dave Hull and Rick Piffero t¢ subdivide a 39+ acre parcel in the western hillside area into five parcels, and to construct a sinqle family residence on proposed Parcel 3. The site is located on the City limit line on the western hillside (APN 001-040-45) Planning Director Stump reported the Commission was familiar with the project whereby discussion and action was taken on the environmental document. He indicated the Commission must make recommendations to the City Council on the Exceptions to the City's Subdivision Ordinance as well as the merits of the Subdivision. The Commission is the final decision making body for the Use Permit allowing the construction of one home unless otherwise appealed to the City Council. As part of the Use Permit, the applicants are seeking to legalize certain grading activities that occurred on the site without the benefit of the required permits. He briefly elaborated on the unauthorized activities specifically addressed in the September 26, 2001, Planning Commission meeting minutes and in the City Council meeting minutes of October 17, 2001. He stated regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration that the Commission recommended to the City Council that it not be approved due to its inadequacy, and suggested that an Environmental Impact Report be prepared. However, the City Council disagreed with the Commission's recommendation and adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Mitigated Negative Declaration encompasses 42 mitigation measures that will be imposed on the project as well as a mitigation measure monitoring program, which is a key component of the environmental document. Mr. Stump stated the project description includes the applicant's desire to subdivide an approximate 40-acre parcel into 5 parcels ranging from 5 to 14 acres and construct a home on parcel 3. He noted the other components of the project are specifically provided for in the staff report for this hearing and briefly identified as road widening and paving, development of a cul-de-sac at the end of the road, installation of a water storage tank and fire hydrants and other infrastructure improvements. Mr. Stump referred to staff's Findings after reviewing the project on its merits in conjunction with the Vision Statement, and goals and policies of the Ukiah General Plan. In summary, the project was found to be consistent with the applicable elements of the General Plan and the project represents rural residential development in the western hills, which is anticipated in the General Plan. He drew attention to the Findings supporting the Exceptions and addressed some of the issues involved. He also drew attention to the Ukiah General Plan and stated in support of staff's point of view, "The MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 12, 2001 Page 3 Ukiah General Plan is a broad community statement about how the City will grow and develop in the future. It seeks to conserve and protect the natural features of our area while at the same time direct and accommodate industrial, commercial, residential and recreational development. It is a document that attempts to balance conservation and growth in a reasonable and local way with the underlying purpose of preserving what is special about Ukiah and fulfilling the vision statement articulated in the beginning of the Plan. The General Plan does not disallow subdividing land and developing single-family residences on the western hillsides. In fact, it acknowledges and anticipates rural residential subdivision and development of the parcels in the Hillside Zoning District. The Plan clearly seeks to make sure that the development in this sensitive and important area of the community is done in a way that does not destroy the beauty of the hillside or threaten the existing residential property at its base." He stated the aforementioned dialog is essentially the key component to the disagreement over development of the hillside. There is concern that the proposed project would destroy the western hillside or at least be visually impacting. "The General Plan also seeks to protect the prime agricultural land to the east. It recognizes this resource as a key component of the beauty of the area and a true defining factor of the quality of life. The western hillsides and the eastern agriculture lands frame the City and provide the rural setting that makes Ukiah a special rural city north of the crowed and more urban Sonoma County. In terms of hillside development, the Ukiah General Plan project subdivision activities and the development of 47 new single-family residences on the 167 acres of land on undeveloped parcels." In contrast, a recently submitted Western Hills Constraints Analysis Study projected 41 residences for those same parcels. "These projections result in one home for every 3.5 to 4 acres, respectfully. At the time the Plan was adopted, the vision of 47 single-family residences on 167 acres of vacant hillside zoned parcels was apparently considered reasonable. The General Plan contains specific goals and policies that serve to shape development in the hillside district to ensure that it does not cause visual impacts, geologic instability, degrade water quality or severely strain public services. The goals and policies are intended to ensure the development that does occur in the hillside area conform to the underlying vision of the Plan and successfully balance the needs for housing with the desires to protect and conserve the rural land." Staff supports the concept that limited development on the hillside is way to balance the need for housing and to accompany community development while at the same time, striving to protect what is special to community. Staff concludes that 5 homes on 40 acres sensitively designed and scattered is a way of accommodating hillside development in an appropriate manner that does not have significant effects on the community. He noted there are Findings for the Planning Commission's consideration in support of the Subdivision Exceptions, the Subdivision, as well as for the Use Permit. A Code section in the Zoning Ordinance involving Use Permits with new construction states that although a Site Development Permit is not required Site Development Permit Findings are required. He stated the Site Development Permit Findings were inadvertently deleted from the staff report whereby copies referencing Findings 19-25 were distributed to the Planning Commission for action pertinent to the Use Permit. Staff concluded the project is consistent with the Ukiah General Plan, the Hillside Zoning District Regulations, and that the Exceptions can be justified to the Subdivision Ordinance and that the Subdivision can be approved by the City Council. Staff further concluded that the proposed Findings in support of the construction of the home on Parcel 3 can be made. Staff recommended approval of the project subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval contained in the staff report. The mitigation measures in the Mitigated Negative Declaration that was adopted by the City Council MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 12, 2001 Page 4 have been incorporated as Conditions of Approval as well as the addition of typical Conditions for Subdivision and Use Permits. Planning Commission Questions to Staff: Commissioner Correll inquired whether the entire road would be paved or whether only those portions of the road encompassing a higher grade would be paved. Mr. Stump replied the entire road would be paved and the steeper portions of the road would be paved wider at the request of the City Fire Department. Commissioner Wallen inquired as to the approximate percentage of road that would have to be more extensively widened than its current condition. Mr. Stump did not possess the exact percentage and/or footage figures but speculated that approximately one-third of the road would involve some widening. It was noted the widening may encompass between 1 and 4 feet without cutting into the hillside. There are areas where the road is unimproved to include shoulder areas that would be widened. However, the primary widening area would be on the inboard side of the road where the ditch is located and this area would be widened and paved over the ditch capturing between 2 or 3 feet. The road would be "out sloped" so that the drainage would "sheet flow" over the road generally as recommended by the Department of Fish and Game. The major widening would be accomplished by paving over the inboard culvert and/or ditch to avoid cutting into the hillside. It was noted that any potential cutting into the hillside would be minor and the project engineer could more appropriately address this issue. Commissioner Wallen expressed concern regarding solving one problem in terms of fire safety and creating another problem pertinent to erosion. He recommended having more information on these issues before drawing a conclusion as to whether cutting and grading would create an erosion problem while trying to solve the fire safety problem. Commissioner Correll inquired whether staff has reviewed the project CC&R's. Mr. Stump stated negatively and noted the City does not have the authority to interpret or enforce the CC&R's. It was noted the CC&R's are not viewed from staff's prospective as a mitigation characteristic as the mitigations contained in the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration are through and comprehensive supporting the concept and that whatever private provisions placed on the Subdivision by the individual property owners to further resolve various issues would be beneficial. Chairman Chiles advised that the environmental issues have been discussed even though there may be additional questions and recommended public comments pertain to new issues and/or concerns relative to the Subdivision and Use Permit. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 7:00 p.m. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 5 December 12, 2001 David Hull, Ukiah, Applicant, commented on the Planning Commission and City Council decisions relevant to the project and stated, in his opinion, the correct decision was made with the City Council's approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. He commented on the applicants' efforts to hire a special soils consultant to assist with this issue as well as to address the concerns raised by the public during both the Planning Commission and City Council meetings pertinent to the canyon located below the subject property. He noted although some of the Findings were similar to those found during the initial soils study, there was some information found to be incorrect with regard to drainage. He stated the existing drainage is adequately in place and has been since the mid 1940s. He stated there was little foliage on the property until the late1950s as it burned during the 1940s. The culvert built for the canyon has served the water run-off very adequately whereby the City storm drain system was implemented in the late 1960s. He addressed the read concerns and stated the project engineer could answer the project technical questions. He drew attention to the site map relative to the grading proposed for the site and stated there is very little roadway that needs to be widened. He stated none of the widening would touch the toe of the embankments. He requested the Planning Commission review the study documents and stated the information has been thoroughly evaluated. He stated some community members would never favor the project no matter what measures where taken to protect and conserve the hillside beauty and labeled those persons disagreeing with his project as "extremists." The applicants have planted additional trees since the last project hearing and the applicants anticipate planting between 50 and100 trees this winter, which will eventually contain a drip system. The applicants have made considerable efforts to improve the site in terms of vegetation and foliage that was purchased approximately 5 years ago. He encouraged the public to review the properties currently owned by the applicants and to note the aesthetic pride taken in preserving and maintaining these properties. Jan Moore, 1021 W. Perkins Street, Ukiah, has been concerned about development on the western hills and stated she did refer to the Ukiah General Plan to review possible project inconsistencies with the Plan. She specifically referred to the General Plan, Section 1.04, Hillside Development, noting the identity of Ukiah in terms of the hillside whereby it lists the resource value for the hills namely fire protection, minimizing landslides, preservation of wildlife habitats, and adequate maintenance of the watershed. She commented on the potential opportunity for public access to the hillside open space and trails referred to in the General Plan and inquired whether private ownership would disallow this opportunity. She further referred to the West Hills Constraints Analysis study and commented on some of the familiar themes to include fire prevention/safety and fire safety clearing methods and proposed impacts. Approval of a Subdivision incorporating so many Exceptions along with 42 mitigation measures would set a precedence for future projects expecting Exceptions. She expressed concern relevant to the issues set forth in Section 1.04 of the Ukiah General Plan as well as the roadway and drainage/geology issues, which, in her opinion, have not been successfully addressed and/or mitigated. She favored the architectural design of the home as well as the general layout. In summary, she does not feel the proposed Subdivision is consistent with the General Plan objectives for promoting the community's health and safety. Commissioner Correll inquired whether Ms. Moore would be more supportive of the project if the Subdivision were limited to 2 or 3 parcels. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 6 December 12, 2001 Ms. Moore replied affirmatively and stated limiting the amount of developable parcels could lessen the potential for fire danger. Daniel De La Peza, Ukiah, briefly commented on the previous project hearings and stated there may not have been enough time to allow people opposing the project to intelligently and collectively present their argument. He expressed disappointment that the City Council approved the Mitigated Negative Declaration without requesting that an Environmental Impact Report be prepared. He was not supportive of the proposed Subdivision and Use Permit. He commended the applicants for their extensive project preparation and documentation, but did not feel the potential impacts and project issues have been successfully mitigated noting there were other building development options. He further encouraged the Commission to carefully review the Subdivision and Use Permit Findings before making a decision. David Nelson, Ukiah, reviewed the Western Hills Constraints Analysis study and commented on the potential impacts this project could have on the future of the western hills. He stated the Ukiah Valley is uniquely designed in that the agricultural land is located in the eastern portions of the valley and the hillsides are located on the western portions of the valley. The western hillsides allow for wild lands to frame the town creating a very picturesque landscaping scene. The General Plan does specify that preservation of the existing hillside view shed is important even though it may have envisioned some hillside development whereby no exact developable units were identified and only if the development could meet the Subdivision standards and General Plan guidelines. He stated the Findings for the Subdivision Exceptions relative to the road, for example, are not justifiable. He drew attention to page 12 of the staff report noting the Findings made to support the requested Exceptions to the Subdivision Ordinance and stated since the 1950s the Ordinance has provided that roads must be 20 feet wide and cannot be more than 15 percent in slope. The project is requesting Exceptions be made to the Ordinance and the Subdivision cannot proceed unless the Exceptions are approved. He also drew attention to page 11 of the staff report noting staff's comment that subdividing land is a privilege not an inherent property right and granting Exceptions to the local Subdivision Ordinance is a "delicate exercise." He stated subdivision of land is not a privilege or an inherent property right, but owing property and building a home is the inherent right. However, there is no inherent right to subdivide unless the criterion is appropriately met as outlined in the local Subdivision Ordinance. In other words, the property cannot feasibly be developed for single-family residences unless the Exceptions to the local Subdivision Ordinance is granted and the proposed Exceptions ingest rules. A Hillside Zoning Ordinance should reflect the different road standards for hillsides. He favored the approach of implementing a document that specifies acceptable hillside road standards and slope percentages rather than granting Exceptions to the Subdivision Ordinance. He expressed concern over the potential loss of the beautiful hillside view shed as well as the potential loss of access to open trails from development and noted the importance of careful planning and implementation of a corresponding Hillside Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Stump clarified there is a Hillside Zoning Ordinance currently in place and that there is a program in place to revise it. He stated the Subdivision Ordinance allows for Exceptions provided specific Findings are made. Chamise Cubbinson, Ukiah, commented on Interim Fire Chief Grebil's determination that the parcels would be protected in the event of a fire and drew attention to relevant MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 12, 2001 Page 7 concerns such as weather conditions and availability of equipment and personnel. She expressed concern the applicants are not required to submit a Mitigation Compliance Plan before the Subdivision is approved subject to staff's review after the Use Permit has been granted. She was concerned the mitigations would not be truly attached to the Subdivision Map enabling them to be continually paid for and maintained beyond the scope of this project development. Phyllis Curtis, Ukiah, commented possessing a home on the eastern side of valley as opposed to the western side of the valley is comparatively different. The intent of the Ukiah General Plan was not to subdivide the western hillside but to maintain the present integrity of the western hills. She further commented regarding Goal 21 of the Plan relevant to responsible use of resources that states, "Conserve open space, hillsides, stream courses, and indigenous flora and fauna for the enjoyment of future generations." She further expressed concern pertinent to fire dangers and the potential for Sudden Black Oak Death in the hillsides currently occurring in other California communities. She stated this project would set the precedence for other subdivisions to follow in the western hills. Roger Prax, Ukiah, expressed concern relevant to drainage issues as a property owner at the foot of the project. He drew attention to page 5 of the staff report stating that a 20 foot wide paved access road throughout the development is required in the Ukiah Municipal Code. He noted the subject road encompasses a 16-foot width containing no shoulder at the foot of the project on West Standley Street adjacent to his property. No one has contacted him relevant to obtaining an easement to facilitate drainage from the project road down to Gibson Creek. He does not favor the City requiring a private individual to have a 20-foot wide paved road access when the City's "main artery" serving that Subdivision and the parcels around the back of the project is only 16-feet containing no shoulder. He noted the project road improvements have created little impact to his property except for some run-off sediment. It was noted the proposed mitigated measures relevant to drainage issues on West Standley Street at the base of the proposed project have been adopted. Chairman Chiles stated the proposed Exceptions would allow the road width to be less than 20 feet. Chairman Chiles stated some of Exceptions are directed toward disallowing more cuts into the bank for widening purposes that would impact the integrity of the hillsides. Commissioner Wallen lives at the end of West Standley Street and noted there was a landslide shortly after the subject road was constructed. He stated disturbing the hillside can create problems for the properties located below. Rusty Anderson, Ukiah, questioned staff relevant to the road widening intent. He expressed concern pertinent to eventual road erosion and continual road maintenance. Mr. Stump replied the applicants propose to widen the road on the inboard side on the dirt road as it goes up and they intend to slant the road so that water sheets over the road and down rather than concentrating and flowing into culverts and going under the road. The Department of Fish and Game has encouraged this approach. He noted portions of the road will contain culverts. ~ .,. ~), MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 12, 2001 Page 8 It was noted a road maintenance association would be created between the property owners. Ron Franz, Ukiah, Project Civil Engineer, would address questions regarding the road. He stated the road begins at West Standley Street and ends at the cul-de-sac and noted there would be no additional road construction except for a small portion around the Hull home site. The reason being would be to eliminate a steep portion of the road thus shorting the road by approximately 200 feet. The existing road varies in width from 12 feet to 40 feet whereby a majority of road is 16 feet wide. He noted the road width changes approximately every 10 feet noting that between 60 and 80 percent of the road is 18 feet wide or more. He stated most of the road possesses an inboard ditch incorporating approximately 5 feet of space and the intent is to do minimal grading above the road due to visual impact as well as other problems arising from trying to cut back from an extremely steep slope. He noted the intent is also to widen the road out as much as possible in places that are very narrow. There would be no cutting in the upper road slopes so as to avoid the appearance of scarring. The road will be paved thus eliminating erosion that occurs with roads encompassing road surfaces. Water will tend to run down the road before it falls off the road on outboard slopes as opposed to running directly across the road as the slope down the road is steeper than the cross slope. Paving the road would require less maintenance. Chairman Chiles inquired as to the occurrence to the soil when the water is sheeting down and off the roadway. Mr. Franz replied the concentration of water is eliminated when a road is outboard sloped whereby water is concentrated toward a ditch and into a culvert when a road is inboard sloped, which is unnatural. Outboard sloped roads allows for water to hit the road traveling down the road a short distance and continuing down its original path prior to construction of the road. This process eliminates heavy water concentrations by allowing water to sheet flow off the road and down the slope in its original location. Chairman Chiles stated it would be important for the paved road to not contain any ripples creating a waterfall to the outside of the road causing water to gush. Mr. Franz stated incorporating a uniform grade would allow water to sheet flow off and not accumulate into a large volume of water. He addressed a paved road versus a chip sealed surface in terms of run-off and stabilizing the road surface and stated there is probably no real difference between the two options. Commissioner Wallen inquired regarding placement of a chip road surface rather than a chip sealed surface. He has experienced less erosion by implementing chipped rock in his driveway because the water does not sheet off, but sinks into the road. Mr. Franz stated there may be less run-off from rock-surfaced roadway. However, during saturation conditions and/or high flow conditions when run-off factors increase run-off from a rock surface may closely resemble that of a paved surface. A roadway shoulder provides areas for water to slow. If the water sheets across the road and does not concentrate the amount of water going across the road would be minimal. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 9 December 12, 2001 Commissioner Wallen stated there will be a lot of sheet flow run-off with the surfacing proposed for the roadway. Mr. Franz responded the same amount of run-off would be present whether there is sheet flow or a concentrated flow into a ditch whereby the velocity coming down the ditch would be similar to the velocity of water coming down the road. Commissioner Wallen recommended the roadway surfacing contain a thick bed of gravel to assist with control of sheet flow run-off. Mr. Franz stated a gravel surface would slow water down and a paved surface does allow for a quicker run-off than a potential rock surface. Commissioner Wallen stated it was his experience that paved surfaces require more maintenance than a rock surface. Mr. Franz stated the problem with a rock surface on slopes in excess of 15 percent is that this surface does not hold up causing slipping and rut problems. Water will run across a paved surface but water will run into a rut on a rock surface road. Chairman Chiles thought home site 2 was the extension of the existing road. Mr. Franz replied the shapes of the parcels were selected according to the most logical location for the site. The site would be developed only if someone expresses an interest, but the all sites are feasible for development. Chairman Chiles inquired whether another location could be selected for home site 2. Mr. Franz replied there may be other areas on the property more suitable for building a home, but there may be associated access problems. He noted potential home sites have not been permanently chosen only the general areas have been selected. Commissioner Loewenstein inquired if subsequent analysis of the above-referenced home site determines it to be infeasible whether the owner could develop another portion of that lot thus creating the potential for more grading and soil removal. A property owner could argue that denial of a Use Permit for a home in another location would be an infringement upon private property rights since the owner purchased a legal residential parcel. Mr. Franz replied the aforementioned circumstance could occur. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:58 p.m. Planning Commission Discussion: Commissioner Loewenstein expressed project concerns to include such elements as fire hazards, geological impacts, effect of project on water quality, and aquatic life in Gibson Creek. He presented the Commission with a copy of his comments outlined below. He made some general comments about the project as a whole, followed by some remarks about the requested Exceptions to the Subdivision Ordinance, the merits of the proposed Subdivision and the Use Permit request. He noted concerning the 5-10 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 12, 2001 Page ]0 project as a whole, the fire hazard issue recently completed in the Western Hills Constraints Analysis is extremely instructive referencing the Fire Department's comments that the response time to the subject property would be 20 minutes. He stated the report notes the first response vehicle would be one of the brush trucks followed by an Office of Emergency Services Engine that would take at least an additional 5 minutes while other type 1 engines would take even longer to reach the site assuming the City Fire Department personnel are sent at all. The Constraints Analysis suggests it is possible that the City and/or California Department of Forestry would decline to send engines to the site for fear that personnel would have to pass through a fire line or being trapped by the fire due to the restrictive number of access routes, heavy vegetation, and the steep gradient of the access roads. He further noted relevant to the Constraints Analysis that homes constructed along the east side of the study area would be susceptible to wild fires traveling down or across the slopes from the west and that constructing new homes would substantially increase the chance of fire ignitions. He stated pages 39 and 40 of the Constraints Analysis "paint a very frightening scenario" that he hopes the City Council would carefully consider prior to making a final decision. He noted his views relevant to the geologic impacts were stated during the public hearing pertinent to the Mitigated Negative Declaration hearing. However, he indicated if Commissioner Wallen possessing 30 years of experience and knowledge in local geology has project concerns about the stability of the site that would be sufficient information for him to believe there would be a need for further analysis to be conducted by an independent examiner. He expressed concerns relevant to water quality and aquatic life in Gibson Creek that were confirmed in the Constraints Analysis noting the presence of steelhead trout in Gibson Creek means that any project generating sediment delivered to that creek would have a significant environmental effect. Therefore, such development would be "in contradiction to General Plan policies regarding stream protect and water quality." The mitigated measures adopted by the City Council contain inadequate provisions on monitoring of the trout population and water quality in Gibson Creek whereas no baseline data are available and no plans are in place for subsequent monitoring. It would then be impossible to determine what, if any, adverse impacts this project would have on Gibson Creek and its inhabitants if any action is done to offset it. All of the aforementioned issues would have been addressed with the approval of a focused Environmental Impact Report as the Planning Commission recommended at the September 26, 2001, hearing. Commissioner Loewenstein addressed the Subdivision Exceptions requested by the applicants noting these are mandatory Exceptions the Planning Commission must endorse in order to recommend to the City Council the Subdivision be approved. He has personally observed instances where owners of smaller properties have sought Exceptions from the City far less significant and told by City staff there would be little chance for approval. The City applies very rigorous standards relevant to the establishment of minimum lot sizes for projects and noted given the amount of rigor the City applies to the smaller Exceptions that the scope of the Exceptions to which the City is willing to acquiesce for this particular project seems to be inconsistent with the advise given to those individuals seeking much smaller Exceptions from the Ukiah Municipal Code. He drew attention to first mandatory Finding of three referencing the slope of the access road whereby the Fire Department confirmed no problems and he was unclear as to how the presence of fire hydrants would do much good by the time the emergency vehicles reach the site to use them. The Constraints Analysis suggests that the fire would be likely out of control and the structures the hydrants designed to protect the homes would be gone. Another Exception requested concerns the 20-foot road width MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 12, 2001 Page ! 1 -/ standard whereby staff concluded that widening the road from 18 to 20 feet would result in significant environmental disruption due to the amount cutting, grading and filling required. He stated, in his opinion, in light of the overwhelming amount of such activity that has already occurred and is being proposed for this site, it is arbitrary at this point widening a road by 2 feet would initiate concern about environmental damage. He was unclear pertinent to the technical aspect as to the reason the effects of an 18-foot would be acceptable whereby a 20-foot road would "cross the threshold of environmental significance." He found no evidence in the staff report or the supporting documents to support the distinction. He expressed concern relevant to the Exceptions requesting the allowance of a 6,000-foot long cul-de-sac, when the State Fire Safe practices standard is 2,640 feet for hillside areas and by granting this Exception, the City is knowingly exposing the residents of the project area as well as those downhill from the site to a significant increased risk of fire hazards. In his opinion, the applicants would be enriched at the expense of their neighbors since it is possible to approve a single residence with an access road that falls within the State Fire Safe parameters. He would have difficulty supporting two of three Findings discussed above that must be made under the Municipal Code. He was not supportive of the Finding that an Exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. He drew attention to page 11 of the staff report noting, "subdividing land is not an inherent property right" since the property could be developed with a single unit without granting the cul-de-sac Exception. He did not believe the City would be denying this applicant property rights by denying the Subdivision. He was unable to support the Finding granting these Exceptions would not be detrimental or injurious to other property in the vicinity of the subject property. He believed the fire risks to nearby properties could be substantial. Commissioner Loewenstein stated the Planning Commission is being asked to make a recommendation to the City Council on the merits of the Subdivision. He did not believe there is sufficient data ensuring the Subdivision's effect on the environment can be mitigated to an acceptable level of significance. As noted above, preparation of a focused Environmental Impact Report may have alleviated his concerns in this regard, particularly if the Report contained analysis of a "reduced project" alternative. His initial reservations concerning the project have not been alleviated and review of the Western Hillside Constraints Analysis significantly elevated his initial concerns. He recommended the City Council re-think its position on this project and conduct a more scrupulous assessment of the project's potential risks. Commissioner Loewenstein could not support the Use Permit for the project noting this action would "essentially legalize" a number of unauthorized activities that have occurred on the property and he addressed this issue at the last Planning Commission hearing for this project. He also recommended the City examine its policies on non- compliance with permits and to consider implementing a system of fines and/or penalties to ensure compliance with a system that presently "lacks teeth." He stated relevant to the tonight's public comments whether there is 1 or 100 persons in the audience and whether these people are called "extremists" or otherwise, he would make his recommendations to the City Council based upon the facts of the case, experience as a planner, and his observation of the site. He does not necessarily oppose hillside development and he supports housing for all income groups as well as economic development. However, hillside development must be responsible and environmentally sound and the applicants have not sufficiently proved their case. He stated a honest disagreement with someone over the merits of a project does not warrant being labeled MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 12, 2001 Page as an "extremist" and stated people must look beyond simplistic inflammatory labels and work together in an effort to resolve issues confronting community development. Commissioner Wallen was not convinced by any of the comments that would change his mind regarding the need for an Environmental Impact Report. The Western Hillside Constraints Analysis confirmed his original Planning Commission decision. He expressed disappointment when the City Council voted to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and was not supportive of a focused EIR. He emphasized the need to be consistent with community development projects. Commissioner Correll supported the Exceptions relevant to the slope and accompanying 20-foot wide road width and cul-de-sac noting the road exits and the additional improvements required to prepare the road to move forward with development is acceptable. He did not have a problem with the Use Permit issue. He did have concerns with the Subdivision proposals into 5 parcels after review of the Western Hills Constraints Analysis and recommended the parcels be divided into 2 parcels encompassing approximately 20 acres each, as there are 2 owners. He was not against hillside development but expressed concerned over view shed whereby limiting the Subdivision to 2 parcels would be more appropriate. Chairman Chiles drew attention regarding his former project concerns and proposed the Planning Commission entertain a 4-parcel split. He elaborated on the potential icy road conditions relevant to a paved road recommending that portions of the road contain a rock surface. He supported the Use Permit application. Mr. Stump stated should the Commission not be in favor of the proposed Subdivision Map, the recommendation to the City Council would be to deny it rather than making a recommendation reducing the number of parcels. Commissioner Loewenstein would favor development of 1 lot without extending the road beyond the State Fire Safe standards and did not state the number of lots to be included in the Subdivision as this issue was not the proposal. He favored incorporating a project reduction alternative, but was unsure as to how this matter would be evaluated without the context of a focused EIR. Mr. Stump recommended the Commission make a motion relevant to the Subdivision after the Exceptions have been reviewed followed by action on the Use Permit. The Commission must determine whether the Findings can be made to grant the Exceptions and noting if the Commission is unable to make the appropriate Findings the Commission cannot recommend approval of the Exceptions. Commissioner Loewenstein stated pertinent to recommending approval of the Exceptions, the Commission must make Findings to justify the Exceptions whereby the Commission must demonstrate in those Finding that not granting the Exceptions would deny the applicants substantial property rights, or to grant these Exceptions would not injurious to nearby property owners, or to grant the Exceptions would not create special circumstances or conditions affecting the property. He stated again that subdivision of land is not an inherent right, but building a house on the site is an inherent right. He stated, in his opinion, to deny the Subdivision and subsequent Exceptions would not be considered a denial of substantive property rights and, therefore, the Finding cannot be made. He noted if an independently prepared Constraints Analysis stated that building~_~ MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 12, 2001 Page 13 on the hillside could subject property owners to the east of those houses to increased fire risk due to the road structure, it cannot be concluded that the Subdivision would not be potentially injurious to nearby property owners. ON A MOTION by Commissioner Loewenstein, seconded by Commissioner Wallen, it was carried by the following roll call vote of the Commissioners present to not make the Findings necessary to justify the Exceptions to the Subdivision Ordinance because two of the three Findings cannot be met and these Findings include denial of the Exceptions would not constitute a denial of substantive property rights of the applicant and that approval of the Exceptions could potentially be injurious to nearby property owners due to the increase risk of fire hazards. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Loewenstein, Wallen Commissioners Correll, Chairman Chiles Commissioner Pruden Commissioner Correll commented the Western Hills Constraints Analysis study does not suggest that hillside development be denied, but rather it points out all the issues relative to the potential hazards that could be injurious to nearby property owners. He stated any parcel that is developed could potentially be injurious to neighbors. He further commented a valid point was made in that denial of the Exception would not constitute a denial of basic property rights. The intent is to keep grading/cuts and/or other changes to subject road at a minimum in order to assist with maintaining an aesthetically pleasing view shed. He stated regarding community development, the project does constitute an intrusion into the "wild reserve" and stated the concern is deciding how to keep the project "in check and still be logical about it." Commissioner Loewenstein replied it is true that any new development may be potentially injurious to adjacent property owners, but noted the difference in this case is that the proposed development would be located at the end of a 6,000 square foot long road with the knowledge the Commission must make a decision knowing it would take a long time for fire fighters to arrive at the site if they can reach the site at all. It is this aspect that allows the project to be potentially injurious to neighbors and noted a home could be built as long as it was within the 2,640 square feet long State Fire Safe guidelines. He noted the issue is a matter of what constitutes acceptable risk and the Western Hills Constraints Analysis makes a clear statement that it would be "full hearty" to develop properties at the end of a 6,000 square foot long road when the State Fire Safe standard is 2,640 square feet and the road is so steep and narrow and the response time is long. Chairman Chiles inquired whether the term "nearby and/or adjacent property" refers to property on the road or down the hill. He stated a property owner should knowingly understand that development above the acceptable fire safe standard constitutes a risk. Commissioner Loewenstein replied the Findings above pertain to whether the project is potentially injurious to nearby property owners living below the development, which the Constraints Analysis states regarding fire hazard could occur with the right weather conditions and, therefore, a risk factor exists by allowing a Subdivision at the end of 6,000 square foot long road. 3-1+ MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 14 December 12, 2001 A discussion followed regarding factors affecting the fire risk according to individual interpretation of the Western Hills Constraints Analysis. It was noted regarding the Western Hills Constraints Analysis that the potential build-out for the areas studied is approximately 60 homes or less based upon development constraints such as lot/slope criteria. Mr. Stump encouraged the Commission to continue discussing this matter and further entertain another motion or allow the 2/2 vote above to go to the City Council. Commissioner Wallen was not opposed to hillside development, but expressed concern relevant to the project process that has occurred to this point stating that the process followed has not been good. He stated the Land Use Map encompasses very strict guidelines noting the Vision Statement is clear, as the project has not exemplified the guidelines presented demonstrating many inconsistencies. The studies prepared for the project should be taken seriously and he recommended a more complete analysis be formulated addressing the inconsistencies referenced in this hearing and in earlier hearings. It was the consensus of the Commissioners in attendance to present the 2/2 vote deadlock on whether the Findings could be made to recommend approval of the Exceptions to the City Council. Mr. Stump noted if the Exceptions cannot be supported or an affirmative recommendation made relevant to the Exceptions, the Subdivision becomes mute. Commissioner Loewenstein stated if the environmental analysis was viewed by the Commission unanimously to be inadequate before, he did not see any changes to the subsequent analysis since then to suddenly make it adequate. Therefore, he could not support approval of the Subdivision as well as the Use Permit. Mr. Stump stated if the Commission agrees to let the record reflect the 2/2 vote deadlock since no affirmative recommendation can be made on the Exceptions, the Subdivision issue becomes mute. He stated that the Commission could take a vote on the Subdivision or proceed to vote on the Use Permit for the construction of one home on the 40-acre parcel. Commissioner Loewenstein stated if the project was a proposed Use Permit on a single lot subdivision would be one matter, but the project is a Use Permit on a 5-lot Subdivision and this Subdivision does not have, in his opinion, sufficient environmental analysis to warrant approval. Therefore, he would not support approval of the subsequent project Use Permit. He noted he is already on record as opposing legalization of past non-permitted uses until the issue relevant to imposing fines and/or penalties on violations has been resolved. It was noted approval of the Use Permit was for 1 house on 1 lot. Commissioner Loewenstein noted implicitly, approval of the Use Permit would involve subsequent approval of the Subdivision. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page ]5 December 12, 2001 Mr. Stump responded the Use Permit is for the construction of the home on the subject property as well as the legalization of the unauthorized activities whereby staff allowed the applicants to pursue one Use Permit to accomplish both objectives. It was noted if the Subdivision was not approved but the Use Permit was approved, the applicants could build one home on the 40-acre parcel. Commissioner Loewenstein stated because the Use Permit specifically targets proposed parcel 3 means that the home would be at the end of the 6,000 square foot long road and would not support approval of the Use Permit. Mr. Stump replied the home would be located beyond the State Fire Safety standards. Chairman Chiles and Commissioner Correll supported approval of the Use Permit. ON A MOTION by Commissioner Correll, seconded by Chairman Chiles, it was carried by the following roll call vote of the Commissioners present to approve Major Use Permit 98-37 subject to the Findings 17-25 and the Conditions of Approval contained in the staff report, and as discussed above. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Correll and Chairman Chiles Commissioners Loewenstein, Wallen Commissioner Pruden Mr. Stump encouraged the Commission to continue to dialogue on the merits of the Subdivision. Commissioner Correll stated 5 parcels would be too many. Chairman Chiles drew attention to the Subdivision Findings on page 13 of the staff report and stated the Hillside Zoning Ordinance presently allows for single-family residents to be developed in the hills until revised. He was not entirely supportive of the 6,000 square foot cul-de-sac Exception noting an aspect to consider would be the planned for implementation of 'a helicopter pad to be utilized in the event an emergency evacuation is necessary. He was supportive of staff's Findings relative to the merits of the Subdivision. It was noted the helicopter pad is not listed as a mitigation measure for fire safety. It was noted the Hillside Zoning Ordinance would be revised in the Spring 2002. Commissioner Wallen stated much work has been accomplished on the project, but the work has not been thoroughly completed. Commissioner Correll stated there is not a problem with hillside development as long as it is presented in a "constrained, well-thought out process." Commissioner Loewenstein stated the merits of the Subdivision cannot be fully ascertained without a more thorough environmental analysis. 3-1(o MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 12, 2001 Page 16 9. PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORTS Planning Director Stump commented Commission projects. on upcoming January 2002 Planning 10. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS Commissioner Loewenstein reiterated the importance of formulating fines and/or sanctions to be imposed for not obtaining requisite grading permits and for non- compliance with Use Permits to include adequate enforcement policies. Commissioner Wallen commented on the importance of applying appropriate planning guidelines and policies to all projects and to work with the County on planning issues to maintain a community balance. He expressed an interest in presenting a conference addressing small city development issues. Chairman Chiles commented the League of California Cities conference provides information relevant to small city development. He briefly elaborated on the planning conference at Sonoma State University earlier this month. Commissioner Correll referred to one city that hosts breakfast meetings whereby a Planning Commissioner and City Councilmember would attend with the intent to assist the public with community development inquiries. He recommended the City poll the community whether people would be interested in participating in planning/development discussions. 11. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Joe Chiles, Chairman Kathy Kinch, Recording Secretary Cathy Elawadly, Transcriptionist MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page ].7 December 12, 2001 HulI-Piffero Project Comments 12/12/01 I would like to make some general comments about the project as a whole, followed by some remarks about the requested exceptions to the subdivision ordinance, the merits of the proposed subdivision and the Use Permit request. Concerning the project as a whole, I continue to have serious cOncerns with respect to fire hazards, geologic impacts and the effect of the project on water quality and aquatic life in Gibson Creek. With regard to fire hazards, the recently completed Western Hills Constraints Analysis is extremely instructive. In commenting on the Fire Department's statement that their response time to the subject property would be 20 minutes, the report notes that "The first response vehicle would be one of the brush trucks... The OES engine would take at least an additional five minutes. Other Type I engines would take even longer to reach the site". And that is assuming that fire suppression personnel are sent at all. The Constraints Analysis suggests that "it is possible that the City and/or CDF would decline to send engines up to the site for fear of firefighters either having to pass through a fire line or being trapped by the fire (given the restricted number of access routes, the steep gradient of access roads and the heavy vegetation those roads pass through)". The report goes on to note that "Homes along the east side of the study area are susceptible to wildfires traveling down or across the slopes from the west" and that "Constructing new homes would substantially increase the chance of fire ignitions". Pages 39-40 of the Constraints 'Analysis paint a frightening scenario that I hope members of the City Council will review before making a final decision on this project. My concerns over geologic impacts have been stated elsewhere. In essence, I believe that if Commissioner Wallen, a man with 30 years of experience and knowledge of local geology, has concerns about the stability of the site, there is a need for additional analysis to be conducted by an independent examiner. 'HulI-Piffero Comments, p, 2 Regarding water quality and aquatic life in Gibson Creek, the Planning Commission received a letter from an environmental watchdog group on this matter that raised concerns in my mind. After reading the Western Hills Constraints Analysis, these concerns have been affirmed. The study notes that "The presence of steelhead trout in Gibson Creek means that any project generating sediment delivered to that creek would have a significant environmental effect" and that, therefore, such development would be "in contradiction to General Plan policies regarding stream protection and water quality". The mitigation measures adopted by the City Council contain inadequate provisions for monitoring the trout population and water quality in Gibson Creek. No baseline data are available and no plans are in place for subsequent monitoring. It is, therefore, impossible to determine what, if any adverse impacts this .project will have on Gibson creek and its inhabitants and' what, if anything can be done to offset it. Concerning the exceptions being requested by the applicants, I have observed instances in which property owners seeking exceptions far less significant than these are told by City staff that they have little chance for approval. Given the amount of rigor applied by the City toward enforcing such standards as minimum lot sizes for accessory structures, I find the scope of the exceptions to which the City seems willing to acquiesce in this case to be inconsistent with the advice being given to those seeking much smaller exceptions. The first exception being requested concerns the slope of the access road, which the Fire Department has assured us is no problem. I am unclear, however, how the presence of fire hydrants constitutes much of a protection since, by the time the fire trucks get there to use them the fire is likely to be out of control and the structures the hydrants are designed to protect will be gone. Another exception being requested concerns the 20-foot road width standard. Staff has expressed the view that widening the road from 18 to 20 feet would result in significant environmental disruption due to the amount of cutting, grading and filling required. In light of the overwhelming amount of such activity that has already occurred and is HulI-Piffero Comments. p, :3 being proposed for this site, it strikes me as somewhat arbitrary that it is at this point - widening a road by two feet - that we become concerned about environmental damage. I am unclear on the technical basis by which one might conclude that while the effects of an 18-foOt road are acceptable, a 20-foot road would cross the threshold of environmental significance. I find nothing in the staff report or the supporting documentation to support this distinction. The proposed exception that is most troubling to me is the request to allow a 6,000 foot-long cul-de-sac, when the State Fire Safe practices standard is 2,640 feet for hillside areas. Based on what I have read and observed, it seems to me that by granting this exception, the City is knowingly exposing the residents of the project area, as well as those downhill from the site, to a significant increased risk of fire hazards. Since it would be possible to approve a single residence with an access road that falls within the State Fire Safe parameters, this strikes me as enriching the applicants at the expense of their neighbors. Concerning the three findings that must be made under the Municipal Code to grant these proposed exceptions, I would have difficulty supporting two of them. Specifically, I do not support the finding that the exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. On page 11 of the staff report, staff notes that "subdividing land is not an inherent property right". Since the property could be developed with a single unit without granting the cul-de-sac exception, I do not believe that the City would be denying this applicant property rights by denying the subdivision. I am also unable to support the finding that granting these exceptions would not be detrimental or injurious to other property in the vicinity of the subject property. In this case, I believe that the fire risks to nearby properties are substantial. The Planning Commission is also being asked to make a recommendation to the City Council on the merits of the subdivision. For what it's worth, I do not believe that we have sufficient data to ensure that this subdivision's effects on the environment can be mitigated to an acceptable level of significance. Preparation of a focused environmental impact report, which was unanimously recommended by the Planning HulI-Piffero Comments. D. 4 Commission, might have alleviated my concerns in this regard, particularly if the report contained analysis of a "reduced project" alternative. As it stands, however, my initial reservations about this project have not been alleviated. On the contrary, now that I have reviewed the Western Hillside Constraints Analysis, my concerns have been exacerbated. I sincerely hope that if this project is approved and built, my fears turn out to be unwarranted. My strong preference would be for the City Council to re-think its position on this matter in order that a more rigorous assessment of the project's potential risks can be conducted. The final issue that I must address is the applicant's request for a Use Permit. Since approval of this action would, in the words of the staff report, "essentially "legalize "a number of unauthorized activities that have occurred on the property over the past couple of years", I cannot support the proposed action, for reasons I expressed in detail at the last Planning Commission hearing on this matter. I have asked for the City to examine its policies on non-compliance with permits and to consider implementing a system of fines and/or penalties to ensure compliance with a system that presently lacks teeth. I hope that my colleagues on the Planning Commission will join me in continuing to pursue this issue. I apologize for the length of my comments, but on an issue as complicated and potentially precedent-setting as 'this'one, Ifelt compelled to express my views in detail. INTERPRETATION OF UKIAH CITY CODE SECTION 8320 Ukiah City Code Section 8320 provides in pertinent part as follows: In order for the property referred to in the petition to come within the provisions of this Section, it shall be necessary that the Planning Commission shall find the following facts with respect thereto: A. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting said property. B. That the exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner. C. That the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity in which said property is situated. (Italics added.) At the Planning Commission hearing, a member of the public made the following argument concerning the application of subsection B of Section 8320. The subsection requires a finding that the granting of the exceptions is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of"a substantial property right of the petitioner." (Italics added.) The proponent of the argument maintained that subdividing property is a "privilege"; not a "right." Denying the exception would prevent the subdivision of the property only; it would not prevent the applicants from building a single family home on the property. Therefore, denying the request for exceptions could not deprive the applicants of a substantial property right; it only deprives them of the privilege of subdividing their property. Based on this logic, the argument's proponent concluded that the Planning Commission could not make the required finding, and, therefore, the application for the exceptions could not be approved. The Planning Commission failed to make the required findings by a 2 to 2 tie vote.l Staff questions whether subsection B can be read as narrowly as this argument requires. The subsection is one of three mandatory findings that the Planning Commission must make in order to grant to an applicant for a tentative subdivision map, one or more exceptions to the requirements in the City's subdivision ordinance. If the only property right referenced in subsection B is the opportunity to subdivide property, then the Planning Commission could never make the finding required by that subsection, if the opportunity to subdivide property is always a privilege and never a right. Staff assumes that the City Council adopted Section 8320 to provide an opportunity to grant exceptions to the requirements of the subdivision ordinance. The proposed interpretation appears to conflict with that intent, because that interpretation would make it impossible to grant ~Failure of the Planning Commission to act within the prescribed period of time (30 days from the date of application) shall automatically refer the matter to the City Council for action. (UCC Section 8322.) any exceptions to the subdivision ordinance. Generally, an interpretation of an enactment which makes it ineffective is disfavored. To avoid this disfavored result, a basis for an alternative interpretation must be found that is still consistent with the wording of the subsection. Califomia courts have repeatedly stated that there is no right to develop real property generally. These pronouncements are not limited to subdividing land.2 However, in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) 483 U.S. 825, 834, note 2, the United States Supreme Court stated in part: But the right to build on one's own property - - even though its exercise can be subjected to legitimate permitting requirements - - cannot remotely be described as a "government benefit." Later federal and state appellate court decisions have questioned the reach of this statement in Nollan.3 Regardless of whether development in general or subdividing land in particular is a right or a privilege, the courts have held that land-use regulation, including the regulation of land subdivisions, does not effect a taking of private property, if it substantially advances a legitimate governmental interest and does not deny the property owner of economically viable use of his land.4 The converse is also true. Regardless of whether development of property is a right or a privilege, land-use regulation for which there is not a sufficient nexus with the impacts of development or which does not constitute legitimate regulation can result in a taking of private property, entitling the property owner to compensation.5 2See, for example, Associated Home Builders of the Greater East Bay, Incorporated v. Walnut Creek (1971) 4 Cal. 4th 633,644 [no right to subdivide property]; Nash v. City of Santa Monica (1984) [no right to go out of business]; Norsco Enterprises v. City of Fremont (1976) 54 Cal. App. 3d 488 [no right to convert an apartment to a condominium]; Griffin Development Co. v. City of Oxnard 1985) 39 Cal. 3d 256 [same]; Terminal Plaza Corp. v. City and County of San Francisco (1986) 177 Cal. App. 3d 892 [no right to convert residential hotel units to other uses; it is a "privilege"]; Trent Meredith, Inc. v. City of Oxnard (1981) 114 Cal. App. 3d 317, 328 [developer volunteers whether to develop property, development not compulsory and is not a right]. 3See Lakeview Development Corp. v. City of South Lake Tahoe (9th Cir. 1990) 915 F. 2d 1290, 1294-5, stating that Nollan footnote does not imply that a permitting requirement is illegitimate simply because it disallows a previously permitted use; California Building Industry Association v. Governing Board of the Newhall School District of Los Angeles County (1988), 206 Cal. App. 3d 212, 235 [school district capital improvement fees "triggered by the voluntary decision of the developer" to proceed with his development. 4Agins v. City of Tiburon (1980) 447 U.S. 255; Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, supra, 483 U.S. 825. 5 See, for example, Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 512 U.S. 374 [requiring dedication of land or 2 In light of these developments in case law, one possible interpretation of UCC Section 8320.B could be that the finding required by that subsection can be made, when the literal application of' the subdivision requirements would deprive the property owner of all economically viable use of his property. This would make the exceptions provision in the City's subdivision ordinance an escape valve to prevent over-regulation and, perhaps, a regulatory taking of private property. There is an alternative interpretation that would provide the Planning Commission with even greater discretion to grant exceptions, which would also be consistent with the wording of Subsection B of Section 8320. Under that interpretation, the exception could be granted whenever necessary to permit a property owner to develop his or her property, subject to reasonable permitting requirements to prevent detriment to the public welfare or injury to other property. As applied to the Hull/Piffero application, if the City Council were to adopt the narrower interpretation, it could find that granting the exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicants, if the economics of building one house on the property would deprive the property owners of a reasonable return on their investment. In other words, if the costs of the land, developing the necessary infrastructure, and constructing the house would greatly exceed the fair market value of the house, the Planning Commission or the City Council could find that granting the exception is necessary to preserve the property right of the applicants to make an economically viable use of' their property. The applicants have contended that the cost of paving the roadway, extending electrical and telephone service, constructing an adequate on-site water system and building the house would exceed the market value of the resulting house and, effectively, deprive them of any retum on their investment in the property. If this contention is supported by evidence in the record, a subdivision of the property could be necessary to spread the development costs among enough houses to make the cost of each house commercially viable. Alternatively, using the more liberal of the proposed interpretations, the City Council could find that granting the exception is necessary to preserve a property right of the applicants, if the granting of the exceptions will permit the property owners to develop their property without causing detriment to the public welfare or injury to other property. The staff report has and continues to maintain that there are no adverse impacts (that have not been adequately mitigated) on the environment generally, the purchasers of the newly subdivided lots or nearby properties. Accordingly, the City Council could find, using this more liberal interpretation, that granting the exception is necessary to preserve the owners' property right to develop their property, subject to reasonable and legitimate police power regulations. The City Council has the primary responsibility for interpreting its own ordinances. Unless its interpretation is unreasonable or directly contradicts the unambiguous plain meaning of the payment of fee as condition of approving land use permit must be roughly proportional to the impact of the development]. 3 ordinance, courts reviewing that interpretation generally will defer to the City Council's interpretation. The City Council should review the wording of Section 8320 and the apparent intent of that section. Then, exercising its own judgment, the Council should determine which interpretation appears the most reasonable. Once it has determined which interpretation to apply, it should proceed to consider whether there is sufficient evidence in the record to support a finding using that interpretation. MEMORANDUM Date: To~ From: Ref: 12/18/O 1 Fire, Planning, Citizens Chuck Yates, Battalion Chief/Fire Marshal Travel times to West Hills properties One Dec. 17, 2001, travel time calculations were performed to properties in the Western Hills area which depart from W. Standley St. Here are the times and the locations: LOCATION TIME Start at Fire Station Gravel road from W. Standley At the U-haul box --0 4:00 min. 4:42 min. Lower tank 7:48 min. Upper tank (mm-off to Nix's) Flag pole turnout Dave Hull's building site 8:42 min. 9:34 min. 10:17 min. Conditions that affected these times: 1. This driver was familiar with the road (we had driven it prior to the test) 2. Test was daytime (early afternoon), no traffic, good weather conditions (there had been rain the night before), no dust on road, and some muddy spots. 3. Access gate was open (from previous trip) Other time factors to consider that are not included in this test: 1. Time for the emergency to be detected by the resident, phone notification to be made to dispatch, time for the dispatcher to extract emergency , . information, and time for the dispatcher to notify the appropriate units and transfer this information to the responders. Time to don safety clothing, move the Patrol Unit out of the position in front of the engine, and get onto the engine and depart. Time to don Self Contained Breathing Apparatus located in exterior side compartments, rather than being able to don them inside the engine, as in our normal response vehicles. Factors that will add to extended response times: Unfamiliarity, weather and reduced light/visibility, closed gate, traffic exiting the property, transferring to lesser used response vehicles, and the time increase caused by the emergency itself. JAN 8 2002 CITY OF UKIAH CITY CLERK'S DEPARTMENT 7-1 printed on kenaf paper, a tree-free alternative · JAN 8 2002 CITY OF UKIAH CITY CLERK'S DEPARTMENT B:£andt-ttawley & goia Environmental and Preservation Law Chauvct Ilous¢ P.O. Box t659 Glen Ellen, California 95442 · Su...am Brtmdi.-Hawlcy Rose M. Zoia January 15, 2002 Mayor Philip Ashiku and City Co.uncilmembers City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah, CA, 95482 FAX: (707) 463 6204 Dear Mayor Ashiku and Councilraembers: CITM OF UKIAH CITY CLERK'S DEPARTMENT IxJgal Assistants ~mt Hc~ Rachel Howlctt The Friends of Gibson Creek: have retained this office regarding the pending Hull/Piffero Subdivision and use permit. Our offices focus on environmental cases throughout California, and have acted as solo or lead counsel in many cases involving the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), including Friends qf Sierra Madre v. City of Sierra Madre (2002), Sierra Club v. San Joaquin LAFCO (2000), Stanislaus Natural Heritage Project v. County of Stanislaus (1997), Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992), Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (1997), and League for Protection of Oaklandiis etc Resources v. City of Oakland (1998). In reviewing the administrative record for this project, si!~ificant environmental issues abound, and the Planning Commission's recommendation that an environmental impact report should be prepared was very sound. The Ukiah Western Hillside Constraints Analysis prepared by Leonard Charles Associates, the Planning Commission minutes, the public comment letters, the reasons expressed for the dissenting votes from two city councilmen, and the written comments submitted by Commissioner Loewenstein are sufficient evidence to support a fair argument that the project may have significant environmental impacts; ~mder this admittedly low threshold, an EIR is required. As you know, testimony of members of a planning commission and city council are considered substantial evidence under CEQA's expansive case law. The fact that geologic information prepared for the project was incomplete adds to the need for an EIR, as does past noncompliance with city ordinances. The project also should be disapproved on its merits in light of the serious outstanding fire safety hazards, growth-inducing impacts, risk of 707.938.3908 · 707.576.0198 · '['mx 707.576.0175 · susanbh¢~cconet.org o .rzota@calla'.~.com I'd c;LIO-gLcl-LOI_, e.~oz '~ gelmeH-'~pueJIt dLE:::~I i~O Mayor Philip Ashiku and City Councilmembers January 15, 2002 Page 2 erosion and landslides, adverse aesthetics, potential effects on water quality and wildlife/fishery habitat, and failure to qualify for exceptions to the subctivision ordinance. These issues have been fully explored in the record before the city. Please deny this project. If the city is to consider approval, an EIR should first be prepared to analyze impacts and feasible alternatives and mitigation measures. Thanks very much for your consideration. Sincerely yours, Susan Brandt-Hawley Friends of Gibson Creek (707) 467-0830 ~LIO-SL~-LOL e~oz ~ ~elmeH-~puea8 ~Cg:~l gO ~! ueL~ AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. 9a DATE: January 16, 2002 REPORT SUBJECT: DISCUSSION OF FIRE SERVICE OPTIONS AND JPA DOCUMENT The City of Ukiah and Ukiah Valley Fire District Joint Powers Authority (JPA) Subcommittee met on December 12 to finalize its recommendation regarding the joint exercise of powers agreement for the Ukiah Fire Authority. Representatives from the City Council, City Volunteers, Fire District Board, Fire District Career Firefighters, and Fire District Volunteers were in attendance. The City Career Firefighters did not attend the meeting. This meeting had been rescheduled to accommodate the City Career Firefighters in that they were not able to attend the meeting in November. The Committee agreed to a few minor changes in the existing draft document. The changes are provided in writing on the document itself. The City and Fire District representatives agreed to take the document to their prospective agencies for approval. The Ukiah Valley Fire District met on January 9 to discuss the JPA for the Ukiah Fire Authority. The decisions of the Fire District Board are delineated in the January 10, 2002 letter from its President to the City. Key elements of the letter for Council's consideration include: . The District is terminating the personnel agreement for Dan Grebil's services. Dan will continue to work in this capacity for 30 days before he returns full-time to the District on February 10, 2002. The City's Personnel Department has been in contact (Continued on Page 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discuss Fire JPA options and provide direction to staff. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Attachments: N/A JPA Subcommittee Candace Horsley, City Manager ~' 1. Draft Joint Powers Authority Document 2. Letter from Valley Fire District Board APPROVED: 4/Can. ASRFirejpa. 102 Candace Horsley, Ci~[~anager with a professional public service employment group and is contacting several Fire Chiefs through this employment agency for interim services. , The Board supported the Valley-Wide JPA concept and is asking the Council to consider revisiting the document with one revision, and that is the removal of any reference to the City providing personnel services. The JPA Authority Commissioners would then be allowed to recommend various options for personnel services to both agencies. , The Board also expressed its appreciation to the City Council for its participation and efforts in this endeavor. The Board feels that the consolidation is still the best option and is in favor of continuing toward that end. Due to the actions of the Fire District Board, the Council has several options to discuss and consider. Councilmember Larson, as Council representative on the JPA Subcommittee, will be discussing the meeting of December 12. The Subcommittee is to be commended for the many hours and the intense effort its members have put into this document and to produce language that is acceptable to the agencies involved. City of Ukiah and Ukiah Valley Fire District City Council and Board of Directors Fire Joint Powers Authority Committee Ukiah Valley Conference Center 200 South School Street Ukiah, CA 95482 Wednesday, November 14, 2001 4:00 - 6:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER City Council Members Phil Baldwin Eric Larson Kathy Libby, Alternate Fire Distdct Board Members James Taglio Butch Carpenter Robert Gattenberger, Alternate City Career Firefi.qhters Bill Woodworth Mike Todd Richard Reed, Alternate Fire District Career Firefiqhters Dave Haas Corey Baughn Rich Dennett, Altemate City Volunteer Firefiqhters Kevin Jennings Matt Froneberger Ron Lemmerz, Alternate Fire District Volunteer Fireflghters Larry Hallman Tom Fletcher TBD, Alternate Staff i~ace:~~y, ~Manager ~ Dan Grebil, District Fire Chief and City Interim Fire Chief David Rapport, City Attomey 1 OLD BUSINESS- Discussion Draft Joint Exercise Of Powers Agreement to provide fire services in the areas now served by the City of Ukiah and the Ukiah Valley Fire District. Where do we go from here? 1 AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS The City Council and District Board Members welcomes input from the audience. If there is a matter of business on the agenda that you are interested in, you may address the Council/Board when this matter is considered. If you wish to speak on a matter that is not on this agenda, you may do so at this time. In order for everyone to be heard, please limit your comments to three (3) minutes per person and not more than ten (10) minutes per subject. The Brown Act regulations do not allow action to be taken on audience comments in which the subject is not listed on the agenda. 4. SCHEDULE NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING 5. ADJOURNMENT Agenda Posted Per Government Code Section No. 54954.2 JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT FOR THE UKIAH FIRE AUTHORITY THIS AGREEMENT is entered into on this day of ,2001, by and between the City ofUkiah, a municipal corporation ('-"'City"") and the Ukiah Valley Fire District, a Fire Protection District formed pursuant to Part 3 (commencing with Section 13800) of Division 12 of the Health & Safety Code (""District""). City and District are collectively referred to as ""Member Agencies."" RECITALS WHEREAS, Title 1, Division 7, Chapter 5 of the Government Code of the State of California authorizes the Member Agencies to enter into an agreement for the joint exercise of any power common to them; and WHEREAS, the Member Agencies possess the power to provide for fire protection services within their respective jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, the jurisdictional areas of the Member Agencies are contiguous to each other and are susceptible to being provided with fire protection services under common administration and management; and WHEREAS, the separate management and administration of each jurisdictional area by each of the Member Agencies will result in duplication of effort, inefficiencies in administration and excessive costs, all of which can be reduced, all to substantial advantage and benefit of the citizens and taxpayers of both agencies, if the administration and management of the fire protection services are consolidated in a single public agency; and such is the purpose of this Agreement; and WHEREAS, this Agreement is made pursuant to Title 1, Division 7, Chapter 5 of the Government Code providing for the joint exercise of powers common to the Member Agencies; Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Page I of 20 .... For the Ukiah Fire Authority DRAFT (City Manager's and Fire Chief's working copy) August 14, 9tml n.h, ,~A ,~nt~ AGREEMENT NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual advantages to be derived therefrom and in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS Unless the context otherwise requires, the words and terms defined in this Article shall, for the purpose hereof, have the meaning herein specified. Section 1.1. Act. ""Act"" means Article 1 and Article 2 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5, I Division 7, Title 1 of the Government Code of California. Section 1.2. Agreement. '2"Agreement"" means this joint exercise of powers agreement. Section 1.3. Authority. ""Authority'-"' means the Ukiah Fire Authority created pursuant to this Agreement. Section 1.4. Board of Fire Commissioners. '2"Board of Fire Commissionerse'', ""Fire Commissioners"", or n"Commissionerse" ] means the governing board of the Ukiah Fire Authority. Section 1.5. Fire Chief. '-'"Fire Chief'-'" means the City employee so designated by an employment agreement with I the City, subject to the '"'Fire Commissioners'"' approval. The '"'Fire Chief"" shall serve as a I City Department Director and as the Clerk of the Fire District Board of Directors. Section 1.6. Fiscal Year. ""Fiscal year'-"' means the period from July 1 to and including the following June 30th. I Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Page 2 of 2020 ! 8 I For the Ukiah Fire Authority DRAFT (City Manager's and Fire Chiefs working copy) August 14, 2001Ju!y 24,200! I Section 1.7. Joint Facilities. ""Joint Facilities"" means all existing real and personal property described in Section 5.1. Section 1.8. Jurisdictional Area. ""Jurisdictional Area"" means and includes both the area within the corporate limits of the City of Ukiah and the area within the limits of the Ukiah Valley Fire District as both such limits now exist or may hereafter exist and not within the jurisdictional area of any other fire protection district. ARTICLE II POWER OF AUTHORITY Section 2.1. Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to provide within the jurisdictional area for the joint exercise of powers to provide: ao the following fire services (Fire Protection Services) within the Authority's jurisdictional area: (i) Fire Administration. Administer and direct the Fire Authority and provide the necessary administrative support for its programs and operations. At the discretion of the member agencies and for each jurisdiction, such duties shall include, but not limited to the following: (a) To administer and provide direction to the program areas of the Fire Authority. (b) To provide personnel, fiscal, procurement, maintenance, and clerical support for all authority activities. (c) To plan and provide recommendations and strategies for effective long and short range emergency service delivery. (d) To provide support and resource services to all City departments and to the District Board as needed. (e) To administer and oversee the prudent, efficient, and Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Page 3 of 2020!8 I For the Ukiah Fire Authority DRAIq' (City Manager's and Fire Chief's working copy) August 14, 2001Ju!y 24, 2001 I effective use of authority fiscal resources. (0 To improve the authority's image and exposure through positive public relations and educational opportunities. (ii) Fire Prevention. Provide fire safety plan checks and inspections for all commercial and industrial buildings. Coordinate abatement activities for weeds and nuisances. Promote fire prevention. At the discretion of the member agencies and for each jurisdiction, such duties shall include, but not limited to the following: (a) To manage and deliver fire and life safety inspections for commercial and industrial sites and facilities. (b) To develop proactive strategies to assist businesses to meet the requirements of the California Fire Code and related fire and life safety guidelines and standards. (c) To provide plan and site review services to determine project compliance with adopted fire and life safety codes and regulations. (d) To administer weed abatement programs. (e) To problem solve with members of the community and related code enforcement staff. (0 To coordinate the investigations of all fires to determine cause and origin. (iii) Fire Operations. Respond to fire and emergency calls to provide fire suppression, rescue, emergency medical, and hazardous materials response services. At the discretion of the member agencies and for each jurisdiction, such duties shall include, but not limited to the following: (a) To maintain fire losses at a per capita dollar level not to exceed the last five year annual loss averages adjusted for inflation and market value. (b) To provide a basic or advanced life support program. Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Page 4 of 2029!8 I For the Ukiah Fire Authority DRAFT (City Manager's and Fire Chiefs working copy) August 14, 2001Ju!y 24,299! I (c) To participate in community and customer service activities (iv)Fire Training and SafeW. Provide and manage a training program for career and volunteer personnel. Training involves all facets of authority functions and operations. At the discretion of the member agencies and for each jurisdiction, such duties shall include, but not limited to the following: (a) To schedule and conduct in-service training programs for all authority personnel. (b) To schedule and conduct task and performance measuring on at least a quarterly basis. (c) To schedule and conduct a minimum of ten hours per month of in-service training for volunteer personnel. (d) To schedule and conduct a minimum of two hours per month of emergency medical services (EMS) training for career personnel. Section 2.2. Creation of Authority. Pursuant to the Act, there is hereby created a public entity to be known as the '-'"Ukiah Fire Authority"", herein called the ""Authority"". The Authority is a public entity separate and apart from the City and the District. Section 2.3. General Powers. The Authority shall exercise in the manner herein provided the powers common to each of the Member Agencies, as provided by the laws of the State of California, and all incidental, implied, expressed, or necessary powers for the accomplishment of the purposes of this Agreement, subject to the restrictions set forth in Sections 2.5 and 2.6 and shall have the power to manage, maintain, and operate Joint Facilities. Section 2.4. Specified Powers. The Authority is hereby authorized, in its own name, to do all acts necessary for the exercise of the foregoing powers, including but not limited to, any of the following: Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Page 5 of 20 For the Ukiah Fire Authority DRAI~T (City Manager's and Fire Chiefs working copy) August 14, 9tm~ ~.h. ~..vv so..~zJ ~.~ ao To make and enter into contracts, including a contract with the City of Ukiah for the Personnel Services and a contract with the City of Ukiah, County, CDF, or other provider for Fire Dispatch Services within the Authority's jurisdictional area; b. To retain the services of consultants; C. To manage, maintain, and operate the Joint Facilities; de To sue and be sued in its own name; e. To incur debts, liabilities or obligations, subject to the provisos of this Agreement, provided that no debt, liability or obligation shall constitute a debt, liability or obligation upon any Member Agency; To apply for, accept, receive, and disburse grants, loans, donations and other aid from any agency of the United States of America, or of the State of California, or of any individual; go To invest any money in the treasury pursuant to Government Code '6505.5 that is not required for the immediate necessities for the Authority, as the Authority determines is advisable, in the same manner and upon the same conditions as local agencies, pursuant to '53601 of the California Government Code; h. To issue bonds pursuant to and in accordance with the Act; and To carry out and enforce all the provisions of this Agreement. Section 2.5. Prohibited Powers. The Authority is prohibited from: a. (Employing employees; and' ~. b. Owning real and/or personal property. Section 2.6. Restrictions on Exercise of Powers. The power of the Authority shall be exercised in the manner provided in the Act and, in accordance with '6509 of the Act, shall be subject to the restrictions upon the manner of exercising such powers that are imposed upon general law cities in the State of Califomia in the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Page 6 of 2020!8 For the Ukiah Fire Authority DRAFT (City Manager's and Fire Chiefs working copy) August 14, 2001Ju!y 24,200! exercise of similar powers. Section 2.7. Obligations of Authority. The debts, liabilities, and obligations of the Authority shall not be the debts, liabilities, and obligations of any Member Agency. ARTICLE III BOARD OF FIRE COMMISSIONERS Section 3.1. Governing Board. The Authority shall be administered by a Board of Fire Commissioners consisting of four (4) members. Two (2) members shall be Council members of the City of Ukiah and shall be appointed by the City Council of the City of Ukiah, and two (2) members shall be Board members of the Ukiah Valley Fire District and shall be appointed by the Board of Directors of such district. Each Legislative Body shall appoint an alternate Fire Commissioner who may act in the absence of a member appointed by that Legislative Body. The Board of Fire Commissioners shall be called the ""Board of Fire Commissioners of the Ukiah Fire Authority."" All voting power of the Authority shall reside with the Board of Fire Commissioners. All Fire Commissioners shall serve at the pleasure of the Agency that appointed such member. All vacancies on the Board shall be filled by the appointing entity within thirty (30) days of the vacancy. Where applicable, each Commissioner shall cease to be a member of the Board of Fire Commissioners when such member ceases to hold office that made him or her eligible for the appointment. Section 3.2. Meetings of the Board of Fire Commissioners. The Board of Fire Commissioners shall provide for regular meetings at a date, time, and place fixed by resolution of the Board of Fire Commissioners, which shall be at least annually. All meetings of the Board of Fire Commissioners shall be called, noticed, held, and conducted in accordance with the provisions of"54950, et seq. of the California Government Code (the Ralph M. Brown Act). Section 3.3. Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson. The Board of Fire Commissioners shall elect a Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson from among its members. Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Page 7 of 2020 For the Ukiah Fire Authority DRAFT (City Manager's and Fire Chief's working copy) August 14, 2001Ju!y 24,209! The Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson shall rotate from each Member Agency annually such that the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson shall not be appointed from the same Member Agency. In the event of the disqualification or permanent inability to serve as the Chairperson during the year, another member from the same Agency shall be appointed Chairperson to fulfill the one-year term. The Chairperson shall sign all contracts on behalf of the Authority and shall perform such other duties as may be imposed by the Board of Fire Commissioners. The Vice-Chairperson shall act, sign contracts, and perform all of the Chairperson's duties in the temporary absence of the Chairperson. Section 3.4. Required Votes. The affirmative votes of at least three members of the Board of Fire Commissioners shall be required to take any action provided any vote to incur a debt, liability or obligation (other than adoption of the budget and approval of the contract for personnel services with the City of Ukiah) or to issue bonds pursuant to Section 2.4 (e) or (h), respectively, shall require a vote of all four Board members. Less than a quorum may adjourn from time to time. Section 3.5. Voting. Each member of the Board of Fire Commissioners shall have one vote. Section 3.6. Minutes. The Secretary shall keep minutes of the meetings of the Board of Fire Commissioners and forward a copy of the minutes to each Member Agency following Board approval. Section 3.7. Bylaws. The Board of Fire Commissioners may adopt Bylaws for the conduct of its meetings and affairs as are necessary for the purposes herein. ARTICLE IV OFFICERS Section 4.1. Chief Executive Officer. Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Page 8 of 2029!8 For the Ukiah Fire Authority DRAFT (City Manager's and Fire Chiefs working copy) August 14, 2001Ju!y 24,299! The Fire Chief shall be the Chief Executive Officer of the Authority. The Chief Executive Officer shall be responsible for administration of the Authority's affairs and shall perform such other duties as may be imposed by the Board of Fire Commissioners or the Act. Section 4.2. Secretary. The City Manager of the City of Ukiah, or his or her designee, shall be the Secretary to the Board. The Secretary shall countersign all contracts signed by the Chairperson or Vice- Chairperson on behalf of the Authority, perform such other duties as may be imposed by the Board of Fire Commissioners and cause a copy of this Agreement to be filed with the Secretary of State of the State of California pursuant to '6592§ 6503.5 of the Act within 30 days of the Effective Date. Section 4.3. Controller/Treasurer. The Finance Director of the City of Ukiah shall be the Controller/Treasurer of the Authority. The Controller/Treasurer shall be depository and shall have custody of all of the accounts, funds and money of the Authority from whatever source. The Controller/Treasurer shall have the duties and obligations set forth in "6505 §§ 6505 and 6505.5 of the Act, and shall assure that there shall be strict accountability of all funds and reporting of all receipts and disbursements of the Authority. Section 4.4. Officers in Charge of Property. Pursuant to '6505.6 of the Act, the Controller/Treasurer shall have charge of, handle, and have access to all accounts, funds, and money of the Authority and all records of the authority relating thereto; the Secretary shall have charge of, handle and have access to all other records of the Authority; and the Chief Executive Officer shall have charge of, handle, and have access to all physical properties of the Authority. Section 4.5. Official Bonds. The Chief Executive Officer, Secretary and Controller/Treasurer shall each file an official bond in the penal sum of $100,000 pursuant to '6505.1 of the Act to be paid bythe Authority. Section 4.6. Legal Advisor. The Board of Fire Commissioners shall have the power to appoint a legal advisor of the Authority who shall perform such duties as may be prescribed by the Board of Fire Commissioners. ARTICLE V Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Page 9 of 2029!8 I For the Ukiah Fire Authority DRAFT (City Manager's and Fire Chief's working copy) August 14, 2001Ju!y 2a., 209! I JOINT FACILITIES Section 5.1. Joint Facilities. Each Member Agency hereby leases to the Authority the following real and ........ ~ personal property, together with any replacements or new property of a similar nature subsequently acquired by either Member Agency (collectively referred to as Joint Facilities), to be used in providing Fire Protection Services hereunder beginning on the Operational Date of this agreement: ao The real property listed on Exhibit A, which consists of the City's and District's existing fire stations, together with all furniture, computers and furnishings in such stations; bo The fire apparatus, together with all equipment located on the apparatus, listed on Exhibit B, which consists of the City's and District's existing fire trucks and engines, together with all equipment physically located on a piece of apparatus; Co The City's and District's pick-up macks, staff vehicles and other vehicles listed on Exhibit C; and de All of the City's and District's personal protective equipment listed on Exhibit D, such as turnout gear. Each Member Agency warrants that its Joint Facilities are in good and workable condition. Section 5.2. Replacement of Joint Facilities. Authority shall be responsible for providing notice to City and District each year for recommended replacement of the Joint Facilities. Authority will notify City and District, so that both City and District can include an appropriate amount for such replacement in their budgets for the following year. The City and District acknowledge that it is necessary for the City and District to both own certain apparatus and equipment when fire service is provided by two separate entities. But However, Ci_ty and District acknowledge that ownership of two such pieces of apparatus and equipment is duplicative when fire service is provided jointly by the Authority. These pieces of apparatus and equipment, referred to hereat~er as '"'Area-wide Apparatus and Equipment," are listed on Exhibit E. The parties, therefore, agree that Area-wide apparatus and Equipment shall only be replaced if the Joint Facilities do not include another similar piece of apparatus or Ofll Q I Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Page 10 of 2020 ~., 1 OA Ofthl For the Ukiah Fire Authority DRAFT (City Manager's and Fire Chief's working copy) August 14, 2001Ju.y ..., .... equipment that can be used by the Authority. Due to the nature of Area-wide Apparatus and Equipment and notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, the parties also agree that the City and District shall share the costs of acquiring and replacing Area-wide Apparatus and Equipment equally (50%). At the time of acquisition of Area-wide Apparatus, either the City or the District shall, for the purposes of disposition under Section 8.3, be designated as the owner of apparatus. Section 5.3. Maintenance of Joint Facilities. City and District shall be responsible for capital improvements to the real property listed on Exhibit A owned by each. As used herein, '"'capital improvements'"' refers to structural I repairs and similar improvements, which are the type of improvements which would be added to the tax ""basis"" if the property were owned by a non-governmental entity. I Authority shall be responsible for all other repair and maintenance of the Joint Facilities not mentioned above, including routine maintenance of the Joint Facilities. Such repair and maintenance shall be provided in a manner to assure that the Authority can provide Fire Protection Services to the Jurisdictional Area. Section 5.4. Insurance for Joint Facilities. City and District shall each provide whatever insurance they deem appropriate for the Joint Facilities owned by each. ARTICLE VI FUNDING Section 6.1 Annual Budget. Prior to May 1 of each year, the Board of Fire Commissioners shall prepare a draft budget for the Authority for the following fiscal year for Fire Protection Services and present it to the City and District. On or before July 1 of each fiscal year, the Board of Fire Commissioners shall adopt an annual budget for maintenance and operation costs each year, which budget shall be based on the draft budget and any comments by the City and District. The Board of Fire Commissioners may amend the annual budget throughout the fiscal year. Section 6.2 Responsibility for Maintenance and Operations Costs. The City and District shall share responsibility for the annual costs of maintenance and operations for Fire Protection Services and any expenses of the Authority pursuant to Articles IV and VII. Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Page 11 of 2__020!8 I For the Ukiah Fire Authority DRAFT (City Manager's and Fire Chief's working copy) August 14, ~-~--i J~!~ ~3"~., ~ I City and District will meet annually on or about December 1 to determine the final audited annual payments for the preceding fiscal year for City and District, which shall be based on the relative responsibility for each Member Agency (e.g., 70% City, 30% District) for the fiscal year. Section 6.3. Payment of Maintenance and Operations Costs. City and District will pay the Authority an amount equal to respective obligations for costs of maintenance and operations for each fiscal year. City's and District's payments for the first fiscal year shall be prorated from the Operational Date to the end of the fiscal year. City and District will make quarterly payments. Section 6.4. Capital Acquisition and Replacement Fund. The City and the District agree to each create a capital acquisition and replacement fund (""capital fund"") for the purpose of creating a fund for replacement of the capital equipment and property owned by City and District, respectively, listed on Exhibits A, B and C. Section 6.5. Change in Services. Either Member Agency may request the Authority to change the services in Fire Protection Services, provided such Member Agency provides additional funding for such changed services if warranted. ARTICLE VII ADMINISTRATWE ; ~,lx.. The Authority's fire apparatus and vehicles will be identified as ""Ukiah Fire Authority"". Authority's personnel will be identified with uniforms wearing a ""Ukiah Fire Department'"' patch and badge. Section 7.2. Management. The management of the Authority shall be vested in the Chief Executive Officer. The Chief Executive Officer shall have the power: Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Page 12 of 2020 For the Ukiah Fire Authority DRAFT (City Manager's and Fire Chief's working copy) August 14, 9nnl a. To prepare and submit, in coordination with the City and District pursuant to Section 6.1, to the Board of Fire Commissioners an annual budget for the next succeeding Fiscal Year; bo To expend funds of the Authority whenever authorized by the annual budget or by a Member Agency for additional services; Co To retain any consultants, including certified public accountants, as authorized in the Authority's budget; d. To supervise operation of the Joint Facilities; eo To make recommendations to the Member Agencies for the construction of new fire station(s), the replacement of existing personal property and/or the acquisition of new personal property; and To perform such other duties as directed by the Board of Fire Commissioners. Section 7.3. California Fire Code. The City and the District will each continue to adopt the California Fire Code with such modifications deemed appropriate by each. The Authority will then adopt the California Fire Code for the Jurisdictional Area. The California Fire Code adopted by the Authority will be identical to the City's California Fire Code for the areas within the Authority's Jurisdictional Area that are within the incorporated limits of the City and will be identical to the District's California Fire Code for the areas within the Authority's Jurisdictional Area that are not within the incorporated limits of the City. Section 7.4. Administrative Support. The City shall provide administrative support functions to the Authority equal to those being received by the Ukiah Fire Department at the time just prior to the Operational Date of Authority. Administrative support functions shall include, but not be limited to, financial, legal, information systems, human resources, record management and clerical support. All of the privileges and immunities from liability, exemptions from laws, ordinances and rules, all wages and benefits, disability, workers compensation, and other benefits which apply to the activities of the officers, agents, or employees of the City when performing their respective functions shall apply to them to the same degree and extent while engaged in the performance of any of the functions or duties under this agreement. Section 7.5. Records and Accounts/Annual Audit. Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Page 13 of 2020!8 I For the Ukiah Fire Authority DRAFT (City Manager's and Fire Chiefs working copy) August 14, 2001Ju!y ?,, 200! The Authority shall keep accurate and correct books of account, showing the cost of providing Fire Protection Services within the jurisdictional area. Said books and records shall be open to inspection at all times during normal business hours by any representative of a Member Agency, or by any accountant or other person authorized by a Member Agency to inspect said books or records. The Controller/Treasurer shall cause the books of account and other financial records of the Authority to be audited by an independent public accountant or certified public accountant in accordance with "6505 and 6505.6 of the Act. ARTICLE VIII TERMINATION Section 8.1. Notice Required. This agreement may be terminated by City or District by giving written notice to the other party twelve (12) months in advance of the proposed termination date or such time as both parties mutually agree. Section 8.2. Continued Liabilities. Upon termination of this agreement, unless otherwise determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, any continuing obligations of the Authority shall be borne by the Member Agencies in proportion to their total monetary responsibility for costs of maintenance and operations for the life of the Authority. Section 8.3. Disposition of Joint Facilities. Upon termination of this agreement, all Joint Facilities, including any replacements, transferred by the City and District to the Authority pursuant to Section 5.1 shall be transferred back to the City and District. Area-wide Apparatus and Equipment paid for jointly pursuant to Section 5.2 shall be transferred to its designated owner. The other party shall be reimbursed by the designated owner for its contribution to the acquisition of the Area-wide Apparatus and Equipment in the amount of fifty percent (50%) of its depreciated value at the time of termination. Section 8.4. Surplus Money. Upon termination of this agreement, any surplus money on hand shall be returned to the Member Agencies in accordance with '~6512 of the Act (or its successor). Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Page 14 of 2020!8 For the Ukiah Fire Authority DRAFT (City Manager's and Fire Chief's working copy) August 14, 2001Ju!y 24, 200! ARTICLE IX MISCELLANEOUS Section 9.1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are made a part hereof. Section 9.2. Effective Date of Agreement. This Agreement shall become effective when signed and executed by both Member Agencies ('"'Effective Date'"'). Section 9.3. Operational Date of Authority. ! The Authority shall become operational on ~lgq'~'~' ~/ ., 2001, provided the Board of Fire Commissioners may meet, on or after the Effective Date to adopt a budget, approve an agreement with the City and other actions required to assure the Authority is operational on ., 2001 ('-"'Operational Date'"_'). Section 9.4. Term. This Agreement shall be effective on the effective date and shall continue in effect until terminated pursuant to Article VIII. Section 9.5. Annexation and Detachment. City and District agree that property which is within the jurisdictional limits of the District which is annexed to the City in the future will not be detached from the District. City and District further agree that if, by legislation or court decision, the District's share of the 1% ad valorem real property tax is reduced from the District's 2001-2002 share of the 1% ad valorem tax District wide or eliminated and/or the District's ability to levy a special tax for fire prevention and suppression pursuant to Government Code ~x)gS-§ 53978 and District's ""Ordinance Proposing a Special Tax for Fire Prevention and Suppression,"" dated March 4, 1997, is reduced below the maximum rate authorized by said ordinance or eliminated, the District hereby consents to detachment of those areas within the District which are also in the incorporated limits of the City for purposes of allowing City to provide fire protection services in such areas. Ci_ty and District further agree that if this Agreement is terminated pursuant to Article VIII, the District hereby consents to detachment of those areas within the District which are also Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Page 15 of 2029!8 For the Ukiah Fire Authority DRAFT (City Manager's and Fire Chief's working copy) August 14, 2001Ju!y 24,299! in the incorporated limits of the City for purposes of allowing City to provide fire protection services in such areas. Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Page 16 of 2029 For the Ukiah Fire Authority DRAFT (City Manager's and Fire Chief's working copy) August 14, 2001Ju!¥ 2d, 299! Section 9.6. Dispute Resolution. In the event the Member Agencies disagree regarding the interpretation or application of this agreement or cannot agree on the distribution of Joint Facilities and/or other assets of the Authority upon termination, they shall meet during a 120-day period in a good faith effort to resolve the disagreement. Either Member Agency may involve the services of a mediator. If the Member Agencies are unable to resolve the disagreement during the 120-day period, an arbitrator shall be selected by the Board to determine how the agreement should be interpreted or applied or to determine the distribution of the Joint Facilities and/or other assets. If the Board cannot agree on the selection of an arbitrator, each Agency shall select an arbitrator, and the two arbitrators shall select a third, who together shall decide how the agreement should be interpreted or applied or the manner of distribution of the Joint Facilities and/or other assets. The arbitrator(s) shall base the decision on this Agreement. The decision of the arbitrator(s) shall be final. The arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the California Arbitration Act (Code of Civil Procedure '1280 § 1280 et seq.). The costs of mediation and arbitration (excluding each Agency's own costs) shall be borne by the Agencies equally. Section 9.7. Headings. All section headings in this Agreement are for convenience of reference only and are not to be construed as modifying or governing language in the section referred to or to define or limit the scope of any provision of this Agreement. Section 9.8. Consent. Whenever in this Agreement any consent or approval is required, the same shall not be unreasonably withheld. Section 9.9. Law Governing. This Agreement is made under the Constitution and laws of the State of California. Section 9.10. Amendments. All amendments to this Agreement must be in writing, and must be approved by the legislative bodies of the Member Agencies prior to becoming effective. Section 9.11. Severability. In the event any provision of this Agreement is determined to be illegal or invalid for any Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Page 17 of 2029!$ I For the Ukiah Fire Authority DRAFT (City Manager's and Fire Chief's working copy) August 14, 200 llutyz24r~4}~ I reason, all other provisions and articles of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect Unless and until otherwise determined. The illegality of any provision of this Agreement 'shall in no way affect the legality and enforceability of any other provisions of this Agreement. Section 9.12. Non-Liability of Agencies. None of the officers or agents of the Authority shall be deemed, by reason of such stares, to be officers, agents or employees of either Member Agency or to be subject to any of the requirements of either Member Agency. Section 9.13. Successors. This Agreement shall be binding upon and all inure to the benefit of the successors of the City and District. Neither City nor District may assign any right or obligation hereunder without written consent of the other. Section 9.14. Notice. Notice to Agencies Members shall be given as follows: To City: City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 To District: Ukiah Valley Fire District 1500 South State Street Ukiah, CA 95482 Section 9.15. Survival. The Member Agencies' obligations under Article VIII and Section 9.6 survive the termination of this agreement. Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Page 18 of 2020!$ For the Uldah Fire Authority DRAFT (City Manager's and Fire Chief's working copy) August 14, 2001Ju!y ?., 26u0~ ! IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed on the dates shown here. CITY OF UKIAH Dated: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk UKIAH VALLEY FIRE DISTRICT Dated: President ATTEST: Board Secretary Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement PageT19~ of 202O!8"A ,r~t~ ~ I For the Ukiah Fire Authority DRAFT (City Manager's and Fire Chief's working copy) August 14, 2001ou.y .~., .... LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit A: Real Property Exhibit B: Apparatus Exhibit C: Vehicles Exhibit D: Personal Protective Gear Exhibit E: Area-wide Apparatus and Equipment DAN GREBIL FIRE CHIEF City of Ukiah Candace Horsley, City Manager Ukiah Civic Center 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah, CA 95482 E'ST. 1940 1500 S. STATE STREET UKIAH, CA 95482-6709 (707) 462-7921 FAX (707)462-2938 uvfd @ sonic.net January 1 O, 2002 Candace, At the January 9, 2002, regular meeting of the Ukiah Valley Fire District, the Board of Directors unanimously voted to table the discussion for merging fire operations under a Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Ukiah. The Board reluctantly takes this action, but finds it necessary for the following reasons: --The current arrangement utilizes one fire chief for both the City of Ukiah and the Ukiah Valley Fire District. The protracted nature of the development of the proposed consolidation has caused neither entity to enjoy the level of administration required for an efficient organization. --The City of Ukiah is presently embroiled in negotiations with their Fire Department employees to determine the nature of their future employment. It is felt that it would be premature to combine employee groups without an understanding of the conditions of employment. --The City of Ukiah is in the process of answering a Public Employment Relations Board complaint filed by the City of Ukiah Firefighters Union, involving both the City and Interim Fire Chief Dan Grebil. The issues involved in this complaint show that the current employees of the City Fire Department would not accept Chief Grebil on a permanent basis. --The actions of the City of Ukiah Firefighters Union during the entire 20 months of negotiations between the City and the Fire District prove that they would not work effectively under a combined department. Moreover, to place the current staff of the Ukiah Valley Fire District into this proposed combined department would expose them to a hostile work environment. The Board of Directors is not willing to do this. --The actions of the City of Ukiah Firefighters Union has resulted in the loss of support for a combined department by the Ukiah Valley Fire District career staff and volunteers, and, ultimately, the Board of Directors. Page 1 of 1 The Board of Directors recognizes and wishes to express its appreciation for the hard work and support for the concept of a valley wide fire service to the following: --City of Ukiah Mayor Phillip Ashiku, Council members Kathy Libby, Phil Baldwin, Roy Smith, Eric Larson, and City Manager Candace Horsley. --Volunteer Firefighters of the City of Ukiah and the Ukiah Valley Fire District. --Career Firefighters of the Ukiah Valley Fire District. --Fire Chief Dan Grebil. The Board of Directors remains in support of the concept of a valley wide fire service organization. We do request, however, 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. The Board of Directors also unanimously voted to terminate the agreement for Administration of Fire Services between the Ukiah Valley Fire District and City of Ukiah, dated April 19, 2000, which has provided the District's Fire Chief as an Interim Chief Officer for the City's Fire Department. As noted in Paragraph 9 of this agreement, either party may terminate the agreement with 30 days written notice of intent. Therefore, Chief Grebil's services to the City of Ukiah will terminate February 10, 2002, unless the City of Ukiah opts to terminate the services prior to that date, as stipulated. Sincerely, Robert McAdoo, President Board of Directors Ukiah Valley Fire District CC: Council Members Board of Directors D.C. "Butch" Carpenter Robert Gattenberger Robert McAdoo Christopher Rowney James Taglio Page 2 of 2 ITEM NO. 9b DATE: January 16, 2002 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: DISCUSSION OF WATER ISSUES FOR MENDOCINO COUNTY INLAND WATER AND POWER COMMISSION VIDEO The City Council discussed this issue at its December meeting. There were some questions regarding exactly what the Inland Water and Power Commission (IWPC) was expecting the Council to discuss and recommend. I have recently spoken with Janet Pauli, Chair of IWPC, and she has clarified the issues. Ms. Pauli stated that the main issues are the Potter Valley Project and the situation with PG&E's proposal to sell the Project. Part of this issue would also be the decrease in divergence that is being proposed for the Eel River through the Potter Valley Project, with the resultant reduction of water to the valley water users. Another specific issue of great import currently is the discussion for the need of additional storage of water within the Ukiah Valley, mainly due to the population growth since the last extensive drought of 1976/77. In certain areas of the valley there were water shortages during that summer and it is evident that if there were another drought of the same severity, (Continued on Page 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discuss recommended issues to be included in IWPC video. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Determine input regarding video is not necessary at this time. 2. Expand on recommended issues as stated in staff report. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Attachments: N/A IWPC Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. IWPC Letter ~/c,,.^s,v~.~o~ Candace Horsley, Cil~ Manager additional storage would be needed just to provide current residents with water. One aspect of the additional storage would include the proposal that has been discussed for many years of raising the dam. In fact, when the Coyote Dam was built, discussion of raising it was included in the plan at that time as a Phase II project. IWPC has urgently requested the Corps of Engineers to perform the needed studies to determine the impacts and cost of raising the dam, and for the first time in over five years of requesting this study, it appears it has been budgeted by the Corps. The City of Ukiah receives most of its water from the underflow of the Russian River through the Ranney Collector. If the river ran dry, obviously this would affect the amount of water flowing under the river and additional storage reserves of Lake Mendocino could assist in keeping the flow at a more acceptable level. The exact effect of this would have to be determined through hydrology studies, the import of which will be discussed with the Council during the special presentation section of the January 16 agenda. The technical effects of raising Coyote Dam on our Ranney Collector at this time are unknown. Once the studies are performed, we will have more data to be able to share with the Council and the public. From staff's perspective, the major issues of decreased Eel River diversion, potential impacts of the sale of the Potter Valley Project, and appropriate amounts of water storage during times of drought are the major issues about which the public and City of Ukiah residents should be educated. Staff will be developing educational materials regarding the need for increasing the City's ability to treat water due to the reduction of water well output, and the impending enhancement of our Wastewater Treatment and Water Treatment Plants. Though these issues are critical to our citizens, they most likely are not of major importance to the entire valley. One topic of interest may be to nurture the concept of water conservation so people will be prepared for that possibility in times of drought. Mendocino County Inland Water and Power Commission P.O. Box 751 Ukiah, CA 95482 (707) 462-1961, FAX (707) 462-5681 November 12, 2001 Phil Ashiku, Mayor City of Ukiah City Council 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Dear Mayor Ashiku and City Councilmen, As a member of the Mendocino County Inland Water and Power Commission (IWPC) you are aware that we were formed to protect our current water supplies and water rights, and to look to the future by securing the water rights and developing new water necessary for our communities. Over the last five years we have successfully represented and protected our water supply during the ongoing Potter Valley Project license amendment process. We have been proactive in representing you during the Pacific Gas and Electric Company's (PG&E) divestiture attempt, the ESA Section 7 consultations on both the Eel River and the Russian River and in the pursuit of Federal funding for the Army Corp of Engineer's reconnaissance and feasibility study for increasing storage in Lake Mendocino (which was recently budgeted for fiscal year 2002!). We are continuing to closely watch the PG&E bankruptcy filing. The issues we have dealt with to date are ongoing and, unfortunately, we will be facing new, and increasingly difficult water issues in the near future. Some of the concerns we deal with are unique to each of our agencies and may not ever come to the IWPC, but our mutual concerns require continued and increased vigilance. Because of this, I believe we have an important role to play beyond communications with agencies that control water rights and compliance. We are involved day to day with the urgency of our water situation and the issues are very clear to us. This is not always the case, however, for our constituents. Often we find that the public lacks understanding of our history and the water needs of our communities. The IWPC has always been a forum for public comment, and now we feel it is important to expand that role to one of actively communicating with and educating the people we represent. Towards that goal we will be producing a 15-20 minute video that can be used in any public forum in the county. The video will give a brief history, the current water situation and clearly define our mutual concerns regarding the future. We need to start telling the story of our water. I have written this letter to ask each of the member agencies of the IWPC to prepare a brief report, or list, of prioritized issues. This will help us produce the format and clearly November 12, 2001, Page 2. delineate our most important concerns for the narrative of the video. This will also give us a starting point for the production of a series of articles and public meetings in which we can go into more depth as we continue to tell the story. After all, collectively, we are the story of water!! This will very likely be the first in a series of requests for information as we progress towards telling the story as completely as we can. Please provide your comments to the IWPC at the address above or give them to your Commission representative. Thank you in advance for your timely response. Sincerely, ,,.,.../Janet K.F.Pauli, Chairman cc: Candace Horsley, Ukiah City Manager ITEM NO. 9c DATE: January 16, 2002 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF 60-DAY EXTENSION FOR COUNTY OF MENDOCINO'S NEGOTIATIONS REGARDING TRANSFER STATION CONTRACT The City of Ukiah 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 time period for negotiations was given to the County to sign a contract. The City currently has agreed to a 15-year contract with Solid Wastes Systems, Inc. (SWS), the owner and operator of the Taylor Drive facility. Initial discussions with County Administration indicated they were requesting a full partnership status in the Transfer Station's operations and management and equal rights within the contract currently established between the City and SWS. Though the City was willing to offer concessions in several areas, equal partnership was not desirable mainly due to the extensive history and relationship between the City and SWS in developing the Transfer Station. Soon after the negotiations began with the County, SWS offered the City the lower rate for the combined City and County use of the facility even if the County did not participate in the Transfer Station. Under these circumstances, the County contract term is not an issue for the City and SWS will be meeting with County representatives to determine an appropriate contract period. Since the Council had requested that the County complete negotiations within a 60-day period, staff is requesting an additional 60-day time period for negotiations to be completed between SWS and the County. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve an additional 60-day timeframe for negotiations with the County of Mendocino for use of the Taylor Drive Transfer Station. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Determine extension of time is not appropriate. 2. Determine alternate period of time is appropriate for extension. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Attachments: N/A County of Mendocino Candace Horsley, City Manager None. 4/Can. ASRSWS102 Candace Horsley, CittManager AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. 10a DATE: JANUARY 16, 2002 REPORT SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF 2001/02 MID YEAR BUDGET AMENDMENT This Mid Year Budget Amendment is the opportunity to address any issues with financial implications which have occurred since the budget was adopted or are anticipated to arise throughout the remainder of the fiscal year. Modifications to the budget at this time allow for a greater degree of accuracy when actual revenues and expenditures are compared to budgeted figures at the end of the year. The specific accounts and dollar amounts are presented in the City of Ukiah 2001-2002 Mid Year Budget Amendment Summary of Transactions (attachment 1 to this report). Each proposal is discussed in this report. Fund 100, General: REVENUE: 0800 Charges for Current Services: Last summer the City of Ukiah Fire career and volunteer personnel were called upon by the State to assist in significant fire operations. The State Office of Emergency Services reimburses costs for personnel overtime associated with these activities. The reimbursements exceed the amount budgeted for this item. Staff recommends the Emergency Response Reimbursement-Fire account be increased by $20,000 to reflect the revenue received. EXPENDITURES: Departments 1501, Planninq and 2201 Building Inspection: At its October 17, 2001 meeting the City Council approved the new position of Development Permit Coordinator. It was noted at that time that the adjustment to salaries and benefits would be included in the Midyear Budget Amendment. This position will be (continued on page 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve Mid Year Amendment to the 2001/2002 Budget as specified in the 2001/02 Mid Year Budget Amendment-Summary of Transactions. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Determine modifications to budget amendment are necessary, identify changes, and approve revised amendment. 2. Determine budget amendment is not necessary and take no action. Citizen Advised: NA Requested by: NA Prepared by: Michael F. Harris, Risk ManagedBudget Officer Coordinated with: Department Directors, Gordon Elton, Director of Finance and Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: 1. 200!/,Q2.,MidYear Budget Amendment-Summary of Transactions. APPROVEB:.~~'~- ~ Candace Horsley, City,Manager APPROVAL OF 2001/02 MIDYEAR BUDGET AMENDMENT JANUARY 16, 2002 Page 2 responsible to three functions, Planning, Building Inspection, and Engineering and Administration. The Planning Thus funding will be split between the three with 25% of the costs attributed to Planning, 25% to Building Inspection, and 50% to Engineering and Administration. The Planning Department's portion of the new position expenses total $5,109. The Building Inspection Department's portion is $5,035. Department 1601, Personnel: It has been determined that a personnel classification study is necessary for the Water Utility, as the departments have been modified due to changes in State requirements and operational necessities. Outside consultant assistance will be necessary to complete this task. At a cost of approximately $8,000. Due to the unanticipated length and complexity of the Fire Unit negotiations, the budgeted amount for negotiators is not meeting actual expenses. In addition, the use of a labor consultant for the completion of the Electric Unit consolidated Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) was not budgeted. Neither of these two negotiations has been completed. There may also be other occasions requiring consultation with labor attorneys during the remainder of the year and thus additional funds are necessary. Staff is requesting an increase of $6,000. The Personnel Department has been continuously recruiting for vacant positions over the past few years. Some hard-to-fill positions (Planner and Elec. Distribution Engineer) and lower paid part-time positions (Parks, Conference Center, and Airport Attendants) have required multiple recruitments in order to attract a single successful candidate. In addition to the volume of recruitments advertised for, Staff has attempted to selectively broaden the scope of advertising for hard-to-fill management and technical positions, which results in increased advertising costs. The Press Democrat has become very expensive. While attempts are made to condense the ads as much as possible, reducing the cost, this resource must be continued if people outside the Ukiah area are to be reached. Not everyone takes the Ukiah Daily Journal or has Internet access to our website. Since March 2001, approximately 40 recruitments have been processed and there are still seasonal Community Services recruitments ahead, as well as other "unknown" vacancies that might arise before the end of the fiscal year. The total spent on advertising costs at the end of last fiscal year was $20,448. At the current mid-year point the department has spent approximately one-half that amount, already exceeding the adopted annual budget by $5,000+. It is recommended that the Advertising, account be increased by $10,000. Department 2101, Fire: As noted in the Revenue discussion, career fire personnel were called upon to assist the State in outside of the area fire operations. This resulted in increased overtime costs to the department. These costs are reimbursed, but the expenditures of $4,975 must be accounted for. Department 2190, Fire Volunteers/Explorers: As noted in the Revenue discussion, volunteer fire personnel were called upon to assist the State with fire operations. This resulted in increased volunteer stipend costs to the department. These costs are reimbursed, but the $7,000 of expenditures are to be identified. APPROVAL OF 2001/02 MIDYEAR BUDGET AMENDMENT JANUARY 16, 2002 Page 3 Department 3001, Engineering Administration: This is the third department affected by the new Development Permit Coordinator position. The Engineering and Administration's portion of the expenses total: $10.071. The multi-phase implementation of the Geographic Information System (GIS)is underway and the aerial photography and digital mapping are nearly complete. The work products of this phase are already in use by the Planning and Public Works Staffs. The next step, with an estimated cost of $20,000, is to update the City's license for the Environmental System Research Institute (ESRI) GIS software and convert the Autocad Map data developed in the first phase to ESRI format, the standard for GIS systems. Both the Planning and Engineering and Administration Departments are using $11,500 of their current budgets to meet these expenses. $8,500 is necessary to finalize this task. Department 3110, Street Maintenance: Repair of the drainage along the railroad in the northern portion of the City has been identified as an issue requiring immediate attention. The situation is causing flooding along the east side of the Fairgrounds and Mazzoni Street and the Railroad has no resources to correct the problem. Staff proposes to dredge the channel which will require use of equipment from an outside vendor at an estimated cost of $3,000. Departments 6110, Recreation Administration and 6111, Sports-Youth Basketball: The hourly wage for the Community Services Assistant is proposed to be increased by $2.00 per hour due to the increase in the minimum wage, enhanced responsibilities, the requirement to work weekends, and the lack of qualified applicants. This position is split between Recreation Administration and Sports-Youth Basketball with the costs to each being $2,072 and $691 respectively Fund 220, Parking District: In November the Gofor parking enforcement vehicle became inoperative and an immediate replacement was necessary. An electric golf was rented until the Nissan electric vehicles could be made functional. Since modifications to the doors of the Nissans are necessary, the golf cart will continued to be used. This situation was unforeseen at the budget adoption and additional funds are required. Staff recommends an increase of $2,625 to fund the rental for three and one half months at $25 per day. Funds 250, Special Revenue and 341, Surface Transportation Project: The City has been requested to reapply for the Hazard Elimination Safety (HES)grant project to replace the traffic signals at Gobbi and State Streets, which could not be completed during this current fiscal year. The revenue and expense is to be removed from the budget (Special Revenue Fund 250) to appropriately reflect the project status. Funds to cover the design expenses ($31,600) for the project will be transferred from the Surface Transportation Project Fund (341). The revenue will be reduced by $212,000 and expenses will be reduced $180,400. Fund 334, Economic Development Block Grant (EDBG): Revenue and expenditures for the California Community Economic Enterprise grant (#00-EDBG-738) were estimated at the time of the budget since the specific details of the programs involved were unknown. Subsequent City Council actions have authorized consultant agreements to complete the tasks associated with this economic development APPROVAL OF 2001/02 MIDYEAR BUDGET AMENDMENT JANUARY 16, 2002 Page 4 endeavor. An additional $400,000 of revenue should be identified to reflect the total $500,000 of grant funding. Contracts with the West Company ($81,445) for business consulting, Applied Development Economics ($37,500) for grant administration, Economic Development and Financing Corporation ($28,250) for loan underwriting and processing, and Community Development Services ($18,000) for marketing, as well as $234,805 of added potential loan expense are recommended for inclusion in the expenditure listing. Fund 600, Airport: Hourly wages for the part-time employees at the Airport are proposed to be increased by $1.00 per hour due to minimum wage increases and recruitment difficulties. Further, due to the increased workload at the Airport an additional 300 hours is requested for the Seasonal (Airport Maintenance Attendant) position. These increased expenses are offset by increased fuel sales revenue. Approval of these changes total $4,327 Fund 660, Solid Waste Disposal Site: Both budget revenues and expenditures for the Disposal Site Fund were dependent upon the closing of the Landfill and opening of the Transfer Station. Since both actions have occurred, more precise figures are available for inclusion in the budget. Revenue has totaled $106,407, $76,407 more than budgeted. In October the City Council authorized the payment of $190,220 to the County for maintenance of Vichy Springs Road in compliance with the agreement between the City and County regarding the landfill operation. This amount was not budgeted as the final figures had not been agreed to at the time of budget adoption. Fund 695, Golf: Golf Cart Rental License revenue, paid by the Golf Pro as part of the compensation contract, was inadvertently omitted from the adopted budget. It is recommended that revenue be increased by $2,500 to correct this matter. The hourly wage for the part-time Parks~Golf Service Worker is proposed to be increased by $1.50 per hour due to minimum wage increases and to more accurately reflect the labor market based upon the responsibilities and duties of this position. Approval of this change will total $545. Fund 698, Fixed Assets: In August, the Electric Utility advised the City Council of the award of the SB 5X energy conservation grant program to the City. This program has two components, the first of which is to be implemented this year. $40,000 has been received to fund Civic Center Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) units and the photovoltaic systems on the new Civic Center addition. Neither the revenue nor the expenditures were included in the 2001/02 budget. An increase of $40,000 to both revenue and expenditure accounts will accommodate this grant activity for this year. The Street Maintenance Contribution to Capital Fund is identified as $40,000, while the reciprocal amount of revenue in the Equipment Replacement Fund (698) is $57,000, causing a $17,000 shortfall in the amount being reserved for major Street equipment. Further, there is an error (both typographical and numeric) in the amount to be expended by Street Maintenance for equipment replacement during this current year. The budget documents a "one-ton cab/chassis" for $3,400 instead of $34,000; the total of $59,400 authorized is thus $30,600 less than the $90,000 necessary for the required purchases. To APPROVAL OF 2001/02 MIDYEAR BUDGET AMENDMENT JAN UARY 16, 2002 Page 5 rectify these issues staff recommends an increase of $17,000 to the Street Maintenance Contribution to Capital Fund account and an increase of $30,600 to the Street Maintenance Equipment Replacement Fund account. These actions will reflect the appropriate expense and revenue between the general fund and equipment reserve and allow for the necessary purchase of replacement equipment. Fund 820, Water: Due to a medical absence, Water Treatment Plant staff has had to work additional overtime hours to maintain appropriate staffing levels. $3,000 of additional funds are necessary to cover these expenses through the remainder of the current fiscal year Additional legal expenses are being incurred with the use of the City's water rights attorney required for the renewal of the City's water permit and Russian River water issues. It is recommended $30,000 be approved to cover these costs. An Urban Water Management Plan is being required by the State Water Resource Control Board. The estimated cost of the study is $40,000, with an anticipated July completion date. Staff requests an increase of $40,000 to fund the Plan. CIVIC CENTER UTILITIES, BUILDING MAINTENANCE, AND RENTAL OF LAND AND BUILDING ALLOCATIONS The original budget allocations for Utilities (account 210), Building Maintenance (account 305) and Rental of Land and Buildings (account 330)were based upon the addition to the Civic Center being occupied by January 1. This has not occurred and the accounts must be modified to reflect the current office configurations. This affects all departments and funds which occupy the Civic Center. The following amendments are necessary to correct this accounting. UTILITIES: increases to Billing and Collection ($34), Building Inspection ($99), City Council ($1,598), Dispatch ($96), Engineering and Administration ($322), Finance ($179), Fire ($5,957), and Planning ($240); and decreases to Administrative Support (-$399), City Clerk (-$573), City Manager (-$7), Electric (-$416), Garage (-$7), Golf (-$15), Parking (-$7), Personnel (-$101), Information Technology (-$317), Parks (-$11), Police (-$2,298), Purchasing (-$429), Recreation (-$7), Sewer ($-15), Solid Waste (-$39), and Water ($-7). BUILDING MAINTENANCE: increases to Billing and Collection ($1,032), Fire ($36), Information Technology ($761), Planning ($424), Police ($601), Purchasing ($57), Sewer ($51), and Water ($67); and decreases to Administrative Support (-$1,427), Building Inspection (-$479), City Clerk (-$2,024), City Council (-$2,601), City Manager (-$64), Electric (-$832), Engineering and Administration (-$2,768), Finance (-$1,672), Garage (-$86), Golf (- $48), Parking (-$252), Parks (-$49), Personnel (-$371), Recreation (-$40), Solid Waste (- $519), and Street Maintenance (-$100). RENTAL OF LAND AND BUILDINGS: increases to Billing and Collection ($1,400), Electric ($3,483), Information Technology ($1,138), Parking ($17), Purchasing ($1,330), Sewer ($402), and Water ($420); and decreases to Administrative Support (-$1,750), Building Inspection (-$17), City Clerk (-$2,503), City Council (-$333), City Manager (-$35), Dispatch (-$18), Engineering and Administration (-$70), Finance (-$665), Fire ($-542), General Government Buildings (-$647), Golf (-$52), Parks (-$52), Personnel (-$438), Planning (-$52), Police (-$874), Recreation (-$18), and Solid Waste (-$17). Staff recommends approval of the 2001/02 Mid Year Budget Amendment as presented. mfh:asrcc02/0116BA Account Number CITY OF UKIAH FISCAL YEAR 2001/02 MID YEAR BUDGET AMENDMENT - SUMMARY OF TRANSACTIONS JANUARY 16, 2002 Amount Type Comments 100.0800.614.001 100.1001.210.000 100.1001.305.000 100.1001.330.000 100.2101.21 0.000 100.2101.305.000 100.2101.330.000 100.1201.210.000 100.1201.305.000 100.1201.330.000 100.1301.210.000 100.1301.305.000 100.1301.330.000 100.1501.110.000 100.1501.151.000 100.1501.1 52.000 100.1501.154.000 100.1501.1 550000 100.1501.210.000 100.1501.305.000 100.1501.330.000 100.1601.21 0.000 100.1601.250.000 100.1601.250.000 100.1601.690.002 100.1601.305.000 100.1601.330.000 100.1905.210.000 100.1905.305.000 100.1905.330.000 100.1915.330.000 100.1965.210.000 100.1965.305.000 100.1965.330.000 100.2001.210.000 100.2001.305.000 100.2001.330.000 100.2101.115.001 100.2101.210.000 100.2101.305.000 100.2101.330.000 100.2190.250.001 100.2201.110.000 100.2201.1 51.000 100.2201.1 52.000 100.2201.1 54.000 100.2201.1 55.000 100.2201.210.000 100.2201.305.000 100.2201.330.000 $ 20,000 R $ 1,598 E $ (2,601) E $ (333) E $ (573) E $ (2,024) E $ (2,503) E $ (7) E $ (64) E $ (35) E $ 179 E $ (1,672) E $ (665) E $ 4,183 E $ 693 E $ 124 E $ 91 E $ 18 E $ 240 E $ 424 E $ (52) E $ (101) E $ 8,000 E $ 6,000 E $ 10,000 E $ (371) E $ (438) E $ (399) E $ (1,427) E $ (1,750) E $ (647) E $ (317) E $ 761 E $ 1,138 E $ (2,298) E $ 601 E $ (874) E $ 4,975 E $ 5,957 E $ 36 E $ (542) E $ 7,000 E $ 4,183 E $ 693 E $ 85 E $ 61 E $ 13 E $ 99 E $ (479) E $ (17) E Reimbursements from State of California Office of Emergency Services Increased cost of Civic Center Utilities. Decreased cost of Civic Center Building Maintenance. Decreased cost of Civic Center Rental. Decreased cost of Civic Center Utilities. Decreased cost of Civic Center Building Maintenance. Decreased cost of Civic Center Rental. Decreased cost of Civic Center Utilities. Decreased cost of Civic Center Building Maintenance. Decreased cost of Civic Center Rental. Increased cost of Civic Center Utilities. Decreased cost of Civic Center Building Maintenance. Decreased cost of Civic Center Rental. Regular salary cost for Development Permit Coordinator Group insurance cost for Development Permit Coordinator Workers Compensation Insurance cost for Development Permit Coordinator Medicare cost for Development Permit Coordinator Unemployment Insurance cost for Development Permit Coordinator Increased cost of Civic Center Utilities. Increased cost of Civic Center Building Maintenance. Decreased cost of Civic Center Rental. Decreased cost of Civic Center Utilities. Classification study for Water Utility Additional Negotiation expense Additional advertising expense Decreased cost of Civic Center Building Maintenance. Decreased cost of Civic Center Rental. Decreased cost of Civic Center Utilities. Decreased cost of Civic Center Building Maintenance. Decreased cost of Civic Center Rental. Decreased cost of Civic Center Rental. Decreased cost of Civic Center Utilities. Increased cost of Civic Center Building Maintenance. Increased cost of Civic Center Rental. Decreased cost of Civic Center Utilities. Increased cost of Civic Center Building Maintenance. Decreased cost of Civic Center Rental. Increased reimbursed overtime expenses Increased cost of Civic Center Utilities. Increased cost of Civic Center Building Maintenance. Decreased cost of Civic Center Rental. Increased reimbursed volunteer stipends Regular salary cost for Development Permit Coordinator Group insurance cost for Development Permit Coordinator Workers Compensation Insurance cost for Development Permit Coordinator Medicare cost for Development Permit Coordinator Unemployment Insurance cost for Development Permit Coordinator Increased cost of Civic Center Utilities. Decreased cost of Civic Center Building Maintenance. Decreased cost of Civic Center Rental. Page 1 of 3 CITY OF UKIAH FISCAL YEAR 2001/02 MID YEAR BUDGET AMENDMENT - SUMMARY OF TRANSACTIONS JANUARY 16, 2002 Account Number Amount Type Comments 100.3001.110.000 $ 8,366 100.3001.151.000 $ 1,386 100.3001.152.000 $ 170 100.3001.154.000 $ 123 100.3001.155.000 $ 26 100.3001.210.000 $ 322 100.3001.305.000 $ (2,768) 100.3001.330.000 $ (70) 100.3001.800.000 $ 8,500 100.3110.305.000 $ (100) 100.3110.310.000 $ 3,000 100.3110.711.000 $ 17,000 100.6001.210.000 $ (11) 100.6001.305.000 $ (49) 100.6001.330.000 $ (52) 100.6110.110.000 $ 1,997 100.6110.152.000 $ 40 100.6110.154.000 $ 29 100.6110.155.000 $ 6 100.6110.210.000 $ (7) 100.6110.305.000 $ (40) 100.6110.330.000 $ (18) 100.6111.110.000 $ 666 100.6111.152.000 $ 13 100.6111.154.000 $ 10 100.6111.155.000 $ 2 220.4601.210.000 $ (7) 220.4601.305.000 $ (252) 220.4601.210.000 $ 17 220.4601.255.000 $ 2,625 250.0600.488.001 $ (212,000) 250.9815.800.001 $ (180,400) 334.0600.488.002 $ 400,000 334.4713.250.000 $ 33,750 334.4713.250.001 $ 81,445 334.4713.683.000 $ 234,165 341.283.250 $ 31,600 575.5801.330.000 $ (7) 575.5801.305.000 $ (86) 600.5001.111.000 $ 3,938 600.5001.152.000 $ 78 600.5001.154.000 $ 54 600.5001.155.000 $ 12 600.5001.156.000 $ 245 612.3505.210.000 $ (15) 612.3505.305.000 $ 51 612.3505.330.000 $ 402 660.0800.646.001 $ 78,100 660.0800.646.002 $ 23,081 660.0800.646.003 $ (29,250) E Regular salary cost for Development Permit Coordinator E Group insurance cost for Development Permit Coordinator E Workers Compensation Insurance cost for Development Permit Coordinator E Medicare cost for Development Permit Coordinator E Unemployment Insurance cost for Development Permit Coordinator E Increased cost of Civic Center Utilities. E Decreased cost of Civic Center Building Maintenance. E Decreased cost of Civic Center Rental. E Additional GIS costs E Decreased cost of Civic Center Building Maintenance. E Equipment for dredging railroad channel E Increased Street Maintenance contribution to capital E Decreased cost of Civic Center Utilities. E Decreased cost of Civic Center Building Maintenance. E Decreased cost of Civic Center Rental. E Increased regular salary cost for Community Services Assistant E Increased Workers Comp Insurance cost for Community Services Assistant E Increased Medicare cost for Community Services Assistant E Increased Unemployment Insurance cost for Community Services Assistant E Decreased cost of Civic Center Utilities. E Decreased cost of Civic Center Building Maintenance. E Decreased cost of Civic Center Rental. E Increased regular salary cost for Community Services Assistant E Increased Workers Comp Insurance cost for Community Services Assistant E Increased Medicare cost for Community Services Assistant E Increased Unemployment Insurance cost for Community Services Assistant E Decreased cost of Civic Center Utilities. E Decreased cost of Civic Center Building Maintenance. E Increased cost of Civic Center Rental. E Golf cart rental as replacement for Parking Enforcement vehicle R HES grant revenue not used E HES grant expenditures not incurred R Added grant revenue to reflect total $500,000 grant E New consultant services for grant admin, marketing, and loan processing E New consultant services for business consulting E Additional funds for potential loan expense T Transfer to Special Revenue for HES project design expenses E Decreased cost of Civic Center Utilities. E Decreased cost of Civic Center Building Maintenance. E Increased non-regular salary cost for Airport Attendant E Increased Workers Compensation Insurance cost for Airport Attendant E Increased Medicare cost for Aiport Attendant E Increased Unemployment Insurance cost for Airport Attendant E Increased F.I.C.A.cost for Airport Attendant E Decreased cost of Civic Center Utilities. E Increased cost of Civic Center Building Maintenance. E Increased cost of Civic Center Rental. R Self haul landfill receipts R Commercial hauler landfill receipts R Actual revenue received from Ukiah Solid Waste for billing Page 2 of 3 Account Number CITY OF UKIAH FISCAL YEAR 2001/02 MID YEAR BUDGET AMENDMENT - SUMMARY OF TRANSACTIONS JANUARY 16, 2002 Amount Type Comments 660.0800.646.006 $ 4,476 660.3401.210.000 $ (39) 660.3401.305.000 $ (519) 660.3401.330.000 $ (17) 660.7301.250.000 $ 190,220 678.2040.210.000 $ 96 678.2040.330.000 $ (18) 695.0800.662.030 $ 2,500 695.6120.110.000 $ 525 695.6120.152.000 $ 11 695.6120.154.000 $ 7 695.6120.155.000 $ 2 695.6120.210.000 $ (15) 695.6120.305.000 $ (48) 695.6120.330.000 $ (52) 696.1390.210.000 $ (429) 696.1390.305.000 $ 57 696.1390.330.000 $ 1,330 697.1305.210.000 $ 34 697.1305.305.000 $ 1,032 697.1305.330.000 $ 1,400 698.0600.488.001 $ 40,000 698.1915.800.001 $ 40,000 698.3110.800.000 $ 30,600 800.3733.210.000 $ (416) 800.3733.305.000 $ (832) 800.3733.330.000 $ 3,483 820.3901.210.000 $ (26) 820.3901.250.000 $ 40,000 820.3901.305.000 $ 67 820.3901.330.000 $ 420 820.3908.115.000 $ 3,000 820.3908.250.000 $ 30,000 R Yard waste collection revenue E Decreased cost of Civic Center Utilities. E Decreased cost of Civic Center Building Maintenance. E Decreased cost of Civic Center Rental. E Payment to County for Vichy Springs Road maintenance E Increased cost of Civic Center Utilities. E Decreased cost of Civic Center Rental. R Golf Cart Rental License revenue E Increased regular salary cost for Parks/golf Service Worker E Increased Workers Comp Insurance cost for Parks/Golf Service Worker E Increased Medicare cost for Parks/Golf Service Worker E Increased Unemployment Insurance cost for Parks/Golf Service Worker E Decreased cost of Civic Center Utilities. E Decreased cost of Civic Center Building Maintenance. E Decreased cost of Civic Center Rental. E Decreased cost of Civic Center Utilities. E Increased cost of Civic Center Building Maintenance. E Increased cost of Civic Center Rental. E Increased cost of Civic Center Utilities. E Increased cost of Civic Center Building Maintenance. E Increased cost of Civic Center Rental. R Revenue for SB 5X Energy Conservation Grant E SB 5X energy conservation projects E Increase for one-ton cab/chassis error E Decreased cost of Civic Center Utilities. E Decreased cost of Civic Center Building Maintenance. E Increased cost of Civic Center Rental. E Decreased cost of Civic Center Utilities. E Urban Water Management Plan E Increased cost of Civic Center Building Maintenance. E Increased cost of Civic Center Rental. E Increased overtime expense E Additional legal services Type: "E" is Expenditure "R" is Revenue "T" is Transfer Page 3 of 3 ITEM NO. lOb DATE: January 16, 2002 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: DISCUSSION CONCERNING MENDOCINO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS ROAD TAX SURVEY- (COUNCILMEMBER LARSON) Dow & Associates has just completed a survey in Lake County regarding the citizens' interest in an additional $.25 sales tax for road repair and maintenance. The response was extremely positive and the Mendocino Council of Governments (MCOG) has selected a consultant to survey Mendocino County regarding the same issue to be placed on the November 2002 ballot. Councilmember Larson, as the MCOG representative, will be discussing this issue with Council. In addition, the League of California Cities has sent information regarding Proposition 42, the Transportation Congestion Act, to be on the March 5, 2002 ballot. Proposition 42 would allocate a portion of the existing state sales tax on gasoline to cities and counties for transportation improvements. This money currently goes into the State General Fund. The details of the Proposition and impact to small cities are included with this report as Attachment #3. Phil Dow, Executive Director of MCOG, estimates Ukiah would receive approximately $195,000 per year on average over the next 20 years if the Proposition is passed. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discuss MCOG Road Tax Survey and Proposition 42, and provide direction to staff ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. N/A Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Attachments: N/A Councilmember Larson ./. Candace Horsley, City Manager ~ 1. Excerpt from Lake County survey; 2. Newspaper article regarding Mendocino County transportation problems; 3. Proposition 42 materials. APPROVED:L(~__2, t~~.x ,~c.,.,s,ucoG.,o~ Candace Horsley, Cit~Manager FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN & ASSOCIATES OCTOBER 18, 2001 Interviewer Station Time Began Time Finished Total Time LAKE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION SURVEY 220-1191 N = 200 CLEARLAKE FINAL Hello, I'm from California Opinion Research, a public opinion research company, lam not trying to sell you anything nor ask you for a donation. We're conducting a survey about issues that concern people in your area and are only interested in your opinions. May I speak to ? (MUST SPEAK TO PERSON LISTED. VERIFY THAT THE VOTER LIVES AT THE ADDRESS LISTED, OTHERWISE TERMINATE.) le Sometimes things come up and people are not able to vote. How likely are you to vote in the November 2002 general election for Governor, Congress, and other offices and ballot measures? Will you definitely vote, probably vote, are the chances 50-50 that you will vote, will you probably not vote, or will you definitely not vote? Definitely vote ................................ 79% Probably vote .................................. 17% 50-50 ................................................... 5% Probably not vote ............. TERMINATE Definitely not vote ............ TERMINATE (DON'T READ)DK/NA ........... TERMINATE 2, And how likely are you to vote in the March 2002 primary election for Governor, Congress, and other offices and ballot measures? Will you definitely vote, probably vote, are the chances 50-50 that you will vote, will you probably not vote, or will you definitely not vote? Definitely vote ................................ 69% Probably vote .................................. 23% 50-50 ................................................... 6% Probably not vote ............................ 2% Definitely not vote ........................... 1% (DON'T READ)DK/NA .......................... 1% . Would you say that things in are generally headed in the right direction, or do you feel they are off on the wrong track? (READ EACH, DO NOT ROTATE) RIGHT WRONG (DON'T READ) (DON'T READ) DIRECTION TRACK MIXED DK/NA a. Lake County .......................... 47% ................... 30% ....................... 17% ........................ 7% FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN & ASSOCIATES 220-1191-CLEARLAKE PAGE 2 (ASK IN CITY OF CLEARLAKE ONLY) C. Clearlake ............................... 42% ................... 44% ......................... 9% ........................ 6% FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN & ASSOCIATES 220-1191-CLEARLAKE PAGE 3 (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 4. Next, what do you think is the most serious issue facing the residents of (CLEARLAKE) that you would like to see local government do something about? (OPEN-END, DO NOT READ CODES) Air quality/air pollution/smog .......................................... 0% Bridges deteriorating/need repair .................................. 0% Bridges too narrow ........................................................... 0% City streets/deteriorating/in need of repair ............... 22% County roads/deteriorating/in need of repair ............ 13% Crime ................................................................................... 2% Drugs ................................................................................. 12% Education/public schools .................................................. 2% Gangs ................................................................................... 1% Government spending/budget ........................................ 3% Growth and development ................................................ 1% Highways deteriorating/need repair .............................. 1% Jobs/unemployment/the economy ............................... 10% Juvenile violence ............................................................... 2% Lake quality ......................................................................... 5% Open space disappearing ................................................. 0% Pollution generally/the environment ............................. 1% Property taxes .................................................................... 1% Public transportation ........................................................ 1% School overcrowding/class size reduction ..................... 0% Traffic congestion ............................................................. 1% Traffic safety ...................................................................... 0% Vineyard development ..................................................... 1% Violence ............................................................................... 0% For clean up community .................................................. 7% For health care issues/Better medical services .............. 0% For poverty and welfare issues ........................................ 3% For water supply quality/Cost .......................................... 2% For lack of police presence/Police enforcing laws ........ 1% Police misconduct/Bad cops ............................................. 2% More activities for children's use .................................... 1% senior issues ....................................................................... 0% Need more housing/Affordable housing ........................ 1% Other (SPECIFY) 6% (DON'T KNOW/NA) .............................................................. 3% FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN & ASSOCIATES 220-1191-CLEARLAKE PAGE 4 , And what do you think is the most important transportation issue or problem facing (CLEARLAKE) right now? (OPEN-END, DO NOT READ CODES) Bridges deteriorating/in need of repair ......................... 0% Bridges too narrow/need widening ................................ 0% City streets deteriorating/need repair ......................... 21% Congestion/gridlock .......................................................... 1% Construction on roads ...................................................... 4% County roads deteriorating/need repair ...................... 13% Funding is too Iow/budget cuts ....................................... 0% Lack of bicycle facilities .................................................... 0% Lack of bus service/poor bus service ............................ 13% Lack of pedestrian facilities .............................................. 1% Lack of roads/streets ......................................................... 4% Public transportation/mass transit (general) ............... 18% Traffic safety ...................................................................... 0% Waste/inefficiency ............................................................. 0% For senior transportation ................................................. 1% Gas prices ............................................................................ 2% Other (SPECIFY) 2% (DON'T KNOW/NA) ............................................................ 24% . Now let me read you a list of issues people are sometimes concerned about these days. After you hear each issue, please tell me whether you consider it to be an extremely serious problem, a very serious problem, a somewhat serious problem or not too serious a problem for people who live in (LAKE COUNTY/CLEARLAKE/LAKEPORT). If you don't have an opinion on a particular item, you can tell me that too. (ROTATE) EXT VERY S.W. NOT SERIOUS SERIOUS SERIOUS SERIOUS NO PROBLEM PROBLEM PROBLEM PROBLEM OPIN. []a. [lb. []c. [Id. lie. []f. Jig. [Ih. Iii. The availability of good paying jobs for people that want to work .......................................................... 38% ............ 34% ............ 16% ............. 9% .............. 4% The condition of local streets and roads ................................................ 63% ............ 28% ............. 9% .............. 1% .............. 1% Unplanned growth and development ............................................ 9% ............. 20% ............ 26% ............ 36% ............ 11% Traffic congestion on local streets and roads ..................................... 5% .............. 9% ............. 22% ............ 64% ............. 1% The availability of convenient bus service ............................................... 12% ............ 10% ............ 20% ............ 48% ............ 12% The amount you pay in local tax es .......................................................... 10% ............. 8% ............. 19% ............ 56% ............. 8% The condition of county roads ............. 37% ............ 19% ............ 18% ............ 23% ............. 4% Waste and inefficiency in local government ............................................. 19% ............ 23% ............ 21% ............ 14% ............ 24% The quality of local public schools ...................................................... 16% ............ 12% ............ 23% ............ 31% ............ 20% FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN & ASSOCIATES 220-1191-CLEARLAKE PAGE 5 (ASK IN CLEARLAKE ONLY) []j. The safety of Clearlake streets .............. 20% ............ 16% ............ 32% ............ 29% ............. 5% []k. Bridges that are too narrow ................... 6% .............. 8% ............. 17% ............ 59% ............ 11% []1. Bridges that cannot carry large vehicles ...................................................... 4% .............. 7% ............. 11% ............ 58% ............ 21% FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN & ASSOCIATES (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 220-1191-C LEARLAKE PAGE 6 NOW I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU ABOUT A MEASURE THAT MAY APPEAR ON A FUTURE LOCAL BALLOT. (ASK IN CLEARLAKE ONLY) $. Tills measure might read as follows: CLEARLAKE STREET, WALKWAY, AND TRANSIT REPAIR AND IMPROVEMENT ACT. In order to repave and improve local streets and roads; fix potholes; widen roads and improve safety on local streets; build and repair sidewalks; widen narrow bridges; improve bus stops and shelters; repair and replace deteriorating bridges; and develop and improve pedestrian and bicycle paths shall the City of Clearlake enact a 1/2-cent sales tax for 20 years, with independent annual audits published in local newspapers and a citizens watchdog committee? If the election were held today, would you vote Yes in favor of this measure or No to oppose it? (IF YES/NO, ASK:) Will you definitely vote (YES/NO) or just probably? (IF DON'T KNOW/UNDECIDED, ASK: Are you leaning toward voting yes or no?) Definitely Yes ........................... (ASK Q10)--56% Probably Yes ............................ (ASK Q10)--13% Undecided, Lean Yes ................ (ASK Q10)--8% Undecided, Lean No ................. (ASK Q10)--2% Probably No ............................... (ASK Q10)--5% Definitely No ............................ (ASK Q10)--11% (DON'T KNOW/NA) .............. (SKIP TO Qll)--7% FORU i SUNDAY. VOICES Putting money where, potholes are It's appearing more likely than not that next November county voters will be' asked to approve a one-half percent sales tax dedicated to repairing 'road infrastruc- ture. For those of you who may have come in late, recent discussions here have cen- tered on transportation issues in local government. In a nutshell, any analysis of those issues revolves around funding and the resulting spending priorities employed by local officials. ,While it's true that the state has starved local government of essential tis- ca[ nourishment, .it's also true that the locals oftentimes make logic-defying decisions when it comes to spending pub- lic funds under their control. This' is not the time to replow the old ground covering the bones of a number of tax-funded boondoggles, i.e., the Slavin Study pay raises. It's enough to say, that no matter how we got here, we:re here and' we're all stuck.with the fiscal reality of it. Reality is an estimated road-repair bill of $115 million for the county's neglect- ed road system. According to Phil Dow, executive director of the Mendocino Council of Governments (MCOG), the tab increases to approximately $200. mil- lion' when the cities' (Ukiah, Fort Bragg, Willits and Point. Arena) share of dilapi- dated infrastructure is factored in. The scope of the dilemma is found in numbers. The county's $170 million bud- get allocates approximately $14 million to the local Department of Transportation. That amounts to an 8 Per- cent investment in roads. City budgets reflect similar outlays as a percentage of overall spending. The bottom line is local government does not come close to receiving enough revenues to pay for a $200 million road rehabilitation program. According to the County Administrator's Office, no less than $4.5 million is needed each and every year. just to 'maintain county roads in their current County, Po, lit al ,type · BY JIM HIELDS substandard cOndition.. · There are no quick, easy or painless solutions to solving the 'problem Since it centers on money. At an early December meeting, MCOG officials decided it may be time to ask county voters how badly, they .want their roads repaired and are they wil!- ing to pay for it with a special tax, By:a unanimous vote,. 'the transpOrtation agency, approved, spending $25,000-to $40,000 for a voter opinion 'survey regarding a one-half percent sales tax for transportation purposes. MCOG is the countyWide transporta- tion planning agency Which.allocates'var- ious kinds of local, state and .federal transportation funds to local government. Its seven-member board is drawn from city and county 'government (one council member from each of the four. cities, two SuPes, and one countywide elected offi- cial). I spoke With Dow last week, and he gave me a progress report on the poll. By the end of the month the polling firm is expected to have been retained. Once the pollster is on board, Dow and MCOG members and staff will assist with the scope, format and detail of the actual sur- vey. Most likely, a voter survey conducted in Lake County in October will be used as a model-for Mendocino County. Approximately 800 Lake County voters were surveyed in the earlier poll which found: · Voters clearly perceive the condition of local streets and roads to be one of the most important ,problems' facing Lake ~ Substantial majOrities of voters indi- cate that they would vote "yes" .on a mea- sure to increase sales taxes in order to fund street and road improvements. Among the key specific findings of the surveys were the following: · Voters across Lake County see dete- flora, ting county roads and city streets as one of the most serious problems facing' their area. · In response to an open-ended ques- tion, clear pluralities of Clearlake and Lakeport voters named deteriorating local streets or county roads as the most serious problem for local government to, address. In the unincorporated areas, con- cern about the .economy edged concern about roads, but only narrowly. · Substantial majorities of voters in Clearlake (91 13erc6nt), Lakeport (80 per- cent),' and the unincorporated areas (57 percent) said that the condition of local streets and roads was an "extremely" or "very serious" problem. · .Far smaller proportions said that "the amount you pay in local taxes;'. (18 per- cent in Clearlake, 14 percent in Lakeport, and 20 percent in .the unincorporated areas) was an "extremely" Or '.'very seri- ous'' problem. · At least two-thirds of those polled in each area of the county would back a half-cent sales tax increase to' fund .trans- portation improvements. Fully 77 percent of Lakeport voters~ 73 percent of Clearlake voters, and 66 percent of voters in the unincorporated areas say that they would vote "yes" on such a measure if the election were held today. The polling firm which conducted the Lake County survey surmised that, "The See SHIELDS, Page A-8 Jim Shields is the publisher of the Mendocino County 'Observer in Lay- tonville. 'A-8 - SUNDAY, DEC. 30, 2001 Shields i Continued frotn Page A-7 fact that concern 'about rOad conditions exceeds concern about taxes bodes well for the passage of a sales 'tax mea- sure.'' Lake County officials have yet to. decide whether to place the transportation sales tax on the ballot, but they are expect- ed to .act in the near future, perhaps after Mendocino County tips'its hand on the issue. Dow says the Lake' County p°ll also showed that voters had little or no interest in funding "big-ticket" trans- portation projects,' such as adding a new highway lane or other major road construction projects. "The message that really came out in the Lake County survey :was that the public could care less about major pr.ojeclts that w{/ know are going to be needed for "the future[' Dow said, ".They.want potholes fixed and lOCal roads and streets repaired. The vot- ers are saying the emphasis needs to be on maintenance and rehab to the existing (road) system." He explained that a survey. polling ... Mendocino County :voters is expected.to be con- ducted in'January, with its restflts tabulated and analyzed before :the ,end' of February. approved, the one-half percent sales tax would.raise an addi~ tional $4 to $4.5-million, annually, for the coUnty and four cities. The sales-tax pro- ceeds would be returned to the source'of origin, Which means the county would receive about $2 million:each year,. with the r~mainder .going to the city where it was generat- .ed. The sales tax would' be .effective for 20 years. ' I thought city cOuncilman Denny Mclntire, who repre- sents 'Willits on MCOG, summed up the basic dilemma when he .said at .the MCOG meeting, "People .in Willits ..The-.poll results 'will 'then. be. ,want potholes fixed, but .they 'pr°videdt'0:the"BOS'and.:the'don't want-'to pi~y,; ~ tax four. cities;. At':ihat" point"2the' i '(increaSe) to "do ... If the 'ball is in the'. politicians' court, transportation tax' measure If. the '.local jurisdictions . goes.': before' ;the' VoterS, w~.,ll decide" to. put'"the sales:i.ax :find'OUt what theY're Willing .measure '-on. 'the" Nov~/n)ber '2002 ballOt,'it'W0uld reqU[r6 a 'to 'do. After_ all, they'll' be :asked to put' their, money two-third~-.. :V0ter'. ~appm~"al.. . If where, the Potholes are. .. : .- TO: FROM: SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM # 8a & 8b MEE TING DA TE: 12/19/01 MEMORANDUM Loretta Ellard, Deputy Director (Planning) ~~ ~ Voter Opinion Survey in Mendocino County - Transportation Sales Tax (a) Appointment of Subcommittee to Select Consultant (b) Discussion/Recommendation- Use of"released" STP d(1) Funds At the December 3rd MCOG meeting, Phil provided a report to the MCOG Board of Directors on the issue of conducting voter opinion surveys to ascertain the level of public support for a 1/2 cent sales tax for transportation purposes. He relayed the positive polling results recently obtained in Lake County (which indicate a strong likelihood that a 2/3 majority could be obtained) and recommended that MCOG authorize a similar voter opinion survey in Mendocino County. After discussion, the MCOG Board voted to: Set up a TAC subcommittee to select a qualified polling consultant through an RFP or RFQ process (with all five entities to be represented). . Enter into a contract to conduct voter'opinion polling to provide representative samples in Ukiah, Fort Bragg, Willits, and unincorporated areas. (Note: Although Point Arena was not included due to population size, a smaller sample from Point Arena may be obtained.) Utilize $25,000 in unallocated MCOG funding to initiate this project, with the remaining $15,000 to $20,000 to be identified after the fiscal audit. All sources of funding would be programmed in an amendment at the February, 2002 meeting. . Coordinate with the administration in each entity to ensure that the assumptions of the "straw man" ballot measure are consistent with each entity's needs. At this TAC meeting we are requesting: (a) volunteers to serve on the consultant selection committee (one from each city and the County); and (b) that the TAC reconsider its previous recommendation to distribute the $30,808 in "released" d(1) funds to the County and cities per adopted formula, and instead, recommend that these funds be used for this voter opinion survey. ,/' (.. ~, i), ,---,---- ATTACHMENT Attachment # 9 Regular Calendar MENDOCINO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS MCOG Meeting STAFF REPORT 1213101 TITLE: SUPPORT FOR ACA 4 (PROP.42) DATE: November 3, 2001 SUBMITTED BY: Phil Dow, Executive Director //~~. BACKGROUND: In conjunction with the Governor's budget deals that financed his "Traffic Congestion Relief Program" in June 2000, an agreement was made to finally redirect some of the sales tax on gasoline to transportation purposes. Previously, it had gone entirely to the State general fund. The agreement redirected a certain amount so that 40% would go to the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), 40% would go directly to counties and cities based on pre-established formulas, and 20% would go to transit. The budget agreement that currently provides this funding was due to expire in 2006, but was extended to 2008 by another budget deal this year. Assembly Constitutional Amendment 4 (ACA 4) will appear on the March 5, 2002 ballot as Proposition 42. If approved by the voters, it will make this funding re- direction permanent. A group of legislators has requested that MCOG endorse ACA 4. ANALYSIS: Transportation in Mendocino County stands to gain from ACA 4 in three ways: 1. 40% of these revenues are added to the STIP. This results in a larger local share in each fund estimate. . 40% of these revenues go directly to the counties (half) and cities (half). Although allocation formulas are not beneficial to rural counties and small towns, all five local entities now receive funding that is used primarily for maintenance. This is an inadequate source of maintenance funds, but is much needed. 20% of these revenues go toward statewide transit. Some of these funds are returned to Mendocino County in the form of slightly higher operating funding for Mendocino Transit Authority. ACTION REQUIRED: Take action to endorse ACA 4 and authorize the Executive Director to respond to the "Taxpayers for Traffic Relief/Yes on ACA 4" Campaign Committee with an endorsement from the Mendocino Council of Governments. ALTERNATIVES: MCOG may choose not to endorse ACA 4. RECOMMENDATION: Staff strongly recommends endorsement of ACA 4. There is no down side to support. SAFER ROADS AND TRAFFIC RELIEF · TJTJ I 1; [.llJI I~ -~ I [~1-' I =1 ;~ December 2001 Dear Local Government Official, Please join the League of California Cities in supporting Proposition 42, the Transportation Congestion Improvement Act, on the March 5, 2002 statewide ballot. As you may already know, Proposition 42 would allocate a portion of the existing state sales tax on gasoline to cities and counties to be used for transportation improvements. Cities and counties combined will receive 40 percent of the Proposition 42 revenues. Twenty percent of will be earmarked for cities for local street repairs and maintenance. Twenty percent of the revenue will be earmarked for counties for local road repairs and maintenance. Another 20 percent is provided to public transit agencies, and the remaining 40 percent goes to the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), which is primarily composed of locally-identified projects. Proposition 42 is an important measure for all cities and counties as it would provide a much needed on- going reliable source of funding for our streets, roads and other local transportation projects. Proposition 42 is especially important now as many local transportation sales tax measures are set to expire over the next few years. I hope that you and your council will join the League of California Cities and the Yes on Proposition 42 campaign coalition of law enforcement and transportation officials, business, labor unions and taxpayers in supporting this measure. Enclosed please find a sample support form and resolution. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact campaign coalition director Ted Green at (310) 996-2671 (tgreen@woodwardmcdowell.com) or campaign internal education director Jason Barnett at (650) 340-0470 {jbarnett@woodwardmcdowell.com). Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Christopher McKenzie Executive Director, League of California Cities TAXPAYERS FOR TRAFFIC RELIEF/YES ON 42 · A COALITION OF TAXPAYERS, CONSTRUCTION, BUSINESS, LABOR, ENGINEERS AND COMMUTERS 11300 West Olympic Blvd.//840 · Los Angeles, CA 90064 · 310/996-2671 · Fax 310/996-2673 111 Anza Blvd.//406 · Burlingame, CA 94010 · 650/340-0470 · Fax 650/340-1740 website: www. yesprop42.com · e-mail: info@yesprop42.com L SAFER ROADS AND TRAFFIC RELIEF SAFER ROADS - TRAFFIC RELIEF - WITHOUT NEW TAXES Requires the gasoline sales tax- A TAX WE ALREADY PA Y AT THE PUMP- be used to improve highways, local roads and mass transit. An annual audit of Prop. 42 funds will be required to help guarantee transportation projects get delivered on time and on budget. Improve Highway, Bridge and Street Safety California's once safe and beautiful highways are now the third most deteriorated roadways in the nation, and growing less safe by the day. More than 6000 California bridges and overpasses are structurally deficient or no longer meet highway safety or design standards. Prop. 42 will provide desperately needed funds to help fix potholes and repair dangerous roads, highways, bridges, intersections and school routes - in every city and county in the state. Speed Up Traffic Relief and Mass Transit Projects Los Angeles has the most congested traffic in the country. San Francisco/Oakland is second, San Diego sixth, and Sacramento, San Jose and San Bernardino/Riverside follow close behind. Prop. 42 guarantees gasoline sales taxes - taxes we already pay - will be used for transportation improvements. It will help speed up the delivery of planned traffic relief projects on highways and local roads, and expand local bus and commuter services, such as VTA in San Jose, Sacramento light rail, MUNI, Green and Blue lines in L.A., the San Diego trolley, BART, Caltrain, Capitol Corridor, Southern California's MetroLink, ACE, and the Coasters in San Diego. Create Jobs and Stimulate the Economy Speeding up transportation projects has the added benefit of creating thousands of new jobs in construction, engineering and related services- at a time when we need them the most. Every dollar spent on highway improvements generates about six times that amount in economic benefits. Join California Highway Patrol Commissioner Dwight Helmick, the California Organization of Police and Sheriffs (COPS), California Fire Chiefs Association, California Office of Emergency Services Director Dallas Jones, Calif,.. 'nia Taxpayers' Association, California State Automobile Association-AAA, Automobile Club of Southern California.AAA, California Transit Association, Transportation California, California Alliance for Jobs, California Taxpayer Protection Committee, California State Association of Counties, League of California Cities, California Chamber of Commerce, labor unions, seismic safety engineers, local and state transportation officials, seniors, commuters, transit riders, parents and many others. YES on PROP. 42 SAFER ROADS- TRAFFIC RELIEF- WITHOUT NEW TAXES TAXPAYERS FOR TRAFFIC RELIEF/YES ON 42 · A COALITION OF TAXPAYERS, CONSTRUCTION, BUSINESS, LABOR, ENGINEERS AND COMMUTERS 11300 West Olympic Blvd. #840 · Los Angeles, CA 90064 · 310/996-2671 · Fax 310/996-2673 12/4 111 Anza Blvd. #406 · Burlingame, CA 94010 · 650/340-0470 · Fax 650/340-1740 website: www.yesprop42.com ° e-mail: info@yesprop42.com Prop. 42 will help speed up highway, street and mass transit improvements. It also guarantees every city and county additional funds to repair and maintain local roads. Here's a few examples of reqional projects awaiting completion: Alameda · Extending rail service to Livermore · Widening Rte. 84 from 4 to 6 lanes from Livermore to Sunol · Westbound truck climbing lane over Altamont Pass · Adding train service across the Dumbarton Bridge Contra Costa · Extending rail service to Antioch · Speeding up work on fourth bore for Caldecott Tunnel · Expansion of 680/Route4 interchange · Improvements to State Route 4 Fresno · Extension of Highway 180 from Highway 33 to I-5 · Improvements to Highway 99 · Traffic improvements to and widening of Herndon Avenue · Expansion of public transit Kern · Widening and improving Highway99 · Widening and improving State Route 58 in Bakersfield Los Angeles · Improving the San Diego Freeway (405) and the Ventura Freeway (101) interchange and travel over Sepulveda Pass · Countywide freeway improvements including I-5, 1-10, Route 14, Route 60, and U.S. 101 · Expansion of Metro Rapid Bus service · Expansion of rail service to Pasadena, East Los Angeles and West Los Angeles · Construction of a Busway in the San Fernando Valley along the Burbank/Chandler corridor MarinlSonoma · Speeding upwidening of 101 · Expansion of ferry service · New580/101 connecting ramps Napa/Solano · Widening/improving 80/680/Route 12 interchange · Widening 680 to 6 lanes north of the Benicia Bddge · Expansion of Route 29 from Route 12 to Solano County Orange County · Fixing freeway bottlenecks on the 405 from Warner to Beach Blvd., the 55 freeway, the 5 and the 91 · Expansion of MetroLink commuter rail service by doubling existing Metrolink during peak pedod operations and adding new service from Fullerton to Laguna Niguel · Increasing "Bus Rapid Transit" service on Beach and Harbor Blvds. Riverside · Railroad grade separation on major streets · Improving MetroLink Service · Improvements to 1-215 · Widening of 1-15 from Temecula to Corona · Construction of a new East-West corridor between Riverside and Orange County · Interchange improvements along 1-10 in Coachella Valley · Improvement of local bus services Sacramento · Light rail from downtown to Sacramento International Airport · Improvements on Hwy. 50 and 1-80 east of downtown · Improvements to local roads and local bus service San Bernardino · Improvements to 1-10 · Widening of 1-215 between San Bernardino and Riverside · Widening of 1-15 in the Cajon Pass · Expansion of MetroLink commuter rail service San Francisco · Improvements to Doyle Dr. approach to Golden Gate Bridge · Speeding up extension of light rail service underground into Chinatown · Replacement for Transbay Terminal San Diego · Widening of I-5 throughout the county · Widening of 1-15 from Keamey Mesa to Escondido · Rail transit expansion and improvements San Joaquin Valley · Widening and improvements to Highway 99 · Expansion of ACE commuter rail service to Bay Area · Expansion of public transit system San Luis Obispo · Widen Route 46 to four lanes from Paso Robles to Fresno San Mateo · Speeding up interchange improvements along 101, including Willow Road, University Avenue and Broadway · Widening Route 92 from 4 to 6 lanes between 101 and 280 · Speeding up electrification of Caltrain from SF to Gilroy Santa Clara · Speeding up work on widening 1~1 from 6 ~ 8 lanes from Metcalf Road to Cochrane Road · Widening 880 to 8 lanes from Route 237 to 101 · Speeding up construction of BART from Warm Springs to 'San Jose Ventura · Widening Route 23 between Moorpark and Thousand Oaks · Widening 101 freeway from Johnson Drive in Ventura to Vineyard Avenue in Oxnard 11/29 A PULITZER PRIZE-WINNING NEwsPAPER · Santa Rosa,'Califomia Michael J. Parman, ~ublisher Catherine BarnettrExecutive Editor Robert L. Swofford, Managing Editor Peter Golis, Editorial Director EDITORIALS Road , orks Do Californians care enough to spend more'on streets, highways? To one has ever accused Californians of consistency: The public wants open space [ '~ ~ and cheap housing; first-rate schoolS ~ ~. · and cut-rate property taxes.. So it's no surprise that a recent Field Poll found that Californians believe taxes shouldn't be in- creased but aren't sure which programs should be cut in order to close fhe state's $12.4 billion budget gap. This conflicting message will make it difficult.for lawmakers.who are returning to Sacramento next week to face the largest deficit in a decade. Voters won't be happy with program cuts but will be even less pleased if the Legislature increases taxes. California's schizophrenia plays directly into the hands of proponents of a March ballot measure that would require the sales tax. on gasoline be used exclu- sively for transportation projects. (Currently, the sales tax on gasoline is mingled with ali sales tax rev- enues and spent on general fund programs.) In essence, the ballot measure would allow state voters to both have their cake and eat it, too: It " wouldn't raise current taxes, just redirect revenues to meet a critical need There's no doubt that California's transportation system is decaying. A new study bY The Road Infor- mation Project cortt*u-ms that California is now last among the states in transportation spending and tn-st in the percentage of dilapidated roads. During the past two years, when the state was flush, the governor and Legislature agreed to spend an additional $6 billion on transportation. But an on- going increase is needed to maintain current roads, expand overcrowded highways, improve bus systems and' build' raft systems. The March ballOt measure would partially meet this need by earmarking an ad- ditional $1.5 billion annually for these programs. The problem with this approach is that the $1.5 bfl- 'lion must come from other state programs. And so it's back to the original quandary. A better solution would be to raise the gas tax' to pay for transportation projects. BUt this pay-as-you- go approach wouldn't be consistent for inconsistent. Californians. I - 3- z z Z_ SAFER ROADS AND TRAFFIC RELIEF Support Form I / We support Proposition 42 on the March 5, 2002 statewide ballot. Proposition 42 will make our roads safer and reduce traffic without higher taxes by requiring the gasoline sales taxes we already pay be used to improve highways, local roads and mass transit. You may add my/our name to your coalition list and may use it publicly. Organization Name Date Authorized Signature Printed Name Title Mailing Address City, State, Zip Phone FAX E-Ma# Address Organization Website Please give us a quote on why you or your organization supports Prop 42: (optional) Please FAX your completed form to Ted Green at (310) 996-2673. THANK YOU! 11/14 TAXPAYERS FOR TRAFFIC RELIEF/YES ON 42 · A COALITION OF TAXPAYERS, CONSTRUCTION, BUSINESS, LABOR, ENGINEERS AND COMMUTERS 11300 West Olympic Blvd. #840 · Los Angeles, CA 90064 ° 310/996-2671 ° Fax 310/996-2673 111 Anza Blvd. #406 · Burlingame, CA 94010 · 650/340-0470 · Fax 650/340-1740 website: www.yesprop42.com · e-mail: info@yesprop42.com '~' SAMPLE RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSITION 42 WHEREAS, Proposition 42 will help make our roads safer and reduce traffic without higher taxes by requiring the gasoline sales taxes we already pay be used to improve mass transit, highways and local roads; and WHEREAS, Proposition 42 is based on the principle that taxes paid at the gas pump should be used for transportation purposes; and WHEREAS, traffic is paralyzing travel with Los Angeles now ranked the number one most congested urban area in the country, San Francisco/Oakland Second, San Diego sixth and Sacramento, San Jose and San Bernardino/Riverside following close behind; and WHEREAS, with our neglected transportation system needing attention, California has the third worst deteriorated roads in the nation and more than 6000 of our bridges and overpasses are structurally deficient or no longer meet highway safety or design standards; and WHEREAS, Proposition 42 will provide a stable and ongoing source of transportation funding that will make it possible to plan for our future transportation needs; and WHEREAS, Proposition 42 will guarantee funds to every city and county to help fix potholes, repair dangerous road conditions and improve the safety of children walking or biking to school; and WHEREAS, Proposition 42 will help speed up highway safety and traffic relief projects, and expand and improve mass transit systems; and WHEREAS, all Proposition 42 projects will be subject to an annual audit and standard accounting practices to ensure they are delivered on time and on budget; and WHEREAS, by speeding up transportation projects thousands of new construction and other jobs will be created, our economy will be stimulated and every dollar invested in our highways will result in almost six times that in economic benefits. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, SUPPORTS Proposition 42. Organization Name Date Authorized Signature Printed Name Title Mailing Address City, State, Zip E-Mail Address Organization Website Please fax to (310) 996-2673. Questions about Prop 42: Call (310) 996-2671. 12/4 Official Ballot L~bel for Proposition 42: TRANSPORTATION CONGESTION IMPROVEMENT ACT. ALLOCATION OF EXISTING MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL SALES AND USE TAX REVENUES FOR TRANSPORTATION PURPOSES ONLY.' LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Requires, effective July 1, 2003, existing revenues resulting from state sales and use taxes on the sale of motor vehicle fuel be used for transportation purposes as provided by law until June 30, 2008. Requires, effective July 1, 2008, existing revenues resulting from state sales and use taxes be used for public transit and mass transportation; city and county street and road repairs and improvements; and state highway improvements. Imposes the requirement for a two-thirds of the Legislature to suspend or modify the percentage allocation of the revenues. Fiscal Impact: Starting in 2008-09, about $1.4 billion in state gasoline sales tax revenues, increasing annually thereafter, would continue to be used for state and local transportation purposes. Proposition 42 Text: Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 4--A resolution to propose to the people of the State of California an amendment to the Constitution of the State, by adding Article XIXB thereto, relating to 5ransportation. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST ACA 4, Durra. Transportation funding: sales and use tax revenues. The Sales and Use Tax Law imposes a tax on the gross receipts from the sale in this state of, or the storage, use, or other consumption in this state of, tangible personal property. That law requires revenues derived from those taxes to be deposited in the Retail Sales Tax Fund. Existing law requires the balance of that fund remaining after various specified allocations to be allocated to the General Fund. This measure would, for the 2003-04 fiscal year and each fiscal year thereafter, require all moneys that are collected during the fiscal year under the Sales and Use Tax Law, with respect to the sale or use of motor vehicle fuel, and that are required to be transferred to the General Fund pursuant to that law, to instead be transferred to the Transportation Investment Fund. This measure would, for the 2003-04 to 2007-08 fiscal years, inclusive, require moneys in that fund to be allocated for transportation purposes as provided in a specified statute. This measur~ would, for the 2008-09 fiscal year and each fiscal year thereafter, require moneys in the fund to be allocated only for transportation purposes specified by this measure, and would specify the allowable percentage amount to be allocated for each specified transportation purpose. This measure would allow the Legislature to suspend or modify these requirements under certain circumstances, if the act so providing is approved by 2/3 of the entire membership of each house of the Legislature. WHEREAS, California's continuing economic prosperity and quality of life depend, in no small part, upon an expansive and efficient ~ransportation system; and WHEREAS, The need to maintain, expand, and improve California's multimodal transportation system increases as California continues to grow; and WHEREAS, Public investment in transportation has failed to keep pace with California's growth, and additional fiscal resources are needed simply to maintain, much less expand, California's transportation system; and WHEREAS, The failure to address California~s transportation funding needs will drain economic vitality, compromise public safety, and erode quality of life; and WHEREAS, It is now necessary to address California's transportation problems by providing additional state funding, in a manner that protects existing constitutional guarantees set forth in Section 8 of Article XVI of the California Constitution, for the funding of public education; now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Assembly, the Senate concurring, That the Legislature of the State of California at its 2001-02 Regular Session commencing on the fourth day of December 2000, two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, hereby proposes to the people of the State of California that the Constitution of the State be amended by adding Article XIXB thereto, to read: ARTICLE XIXB MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL SALES TAX REVENUES AND TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT FUNDING SECTION 1. (a) For the 2003-04 fiscal year and each fiscal year thereafter, all moneys that are collected during the fiscal year from taxes under the Sales and Use Tax Law (Part 1 (commencing with Section 6001) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code), or any successor to that law, upon the sale, storage, use, or other consumption in this State of motor vehicle fuel, and that are deposited in the General Fund of the State pursuant to that law, shall be transferred to the Transportation Investment Fund, which is hereby created in the State Treasury. (b) (t) For the 2003-04 to 2007-08 fiscal years, inclusive, moneys in the Transportation Investment Fund shall be allocated, upon appropriation by the Legislature, in accordance with Section 7104 of the Revenue and Taxation Code as that section read on the operative date of this article. (2) For the 2008-09 fiscal year and each fiscal year thereafter, moneys in the Transportation Investment Fund shall be allocated solely for the following purposes: (A) Public transit and mass transportation. (B) Transportation capital improvement projects, subject to the laws governing the State Transportation Improyement Program, or any successor to that program. (C) Street and highway maintenance, rehabilitation, reconstruction, or storm damage repair conducted by cities, including a city and county. (D) Street and highway maintenance, rehabilitation, reconstruction, or storm damage repair conducted by counties, including a city and county. (c) For the 2008-09 fiscal year and each fiscal year thereafter, moneys in the Transportation Investment Fund shall be allocated, upon appropriation by the Legislature, as follows: (A) Twenty percent of the moneys for the purposes set forth in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b). (B) Forty percent of the moneys for the purposes set forth in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b). (C) Twenty percent of the moneys for the purposes set forth in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b). (D) Twenty percent of the moneys for the purpose set forth in subparagraph (D) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b). (d) The transfer of revenues from the General Fund of the State to the Transportation Investment Fund pursuant to subdivision (a) may be suspended, in whole or in part, for a fiscal year if both of the following conditions are met: (1) The Governor has issued a proclamation that declares that the transfer of revenues pursuant to subdivision (a) will result in a significant negative fiscal impact on the range of functions of government funded by the General Fund of the State. (2) The Legislature enacts by statute, pursuant to a bill passed in each house of the Legislature by roilcall vote entered in the journal, two-thirds of the membership concurring, a suspension for that fiscal year of the transfer of revenues pursuant to subdivision (a), provided that the bill does not contain any other unrelated provision. (e) The Legislature may enact a statute that modifies the percentage shares set forth in subdivision (c) by a bill passed in each house of the Legislature by rollcall vote entered in the journal, two-thirds of the membership concurring, provided that the bill does not contain any other unrelated provision and that the moneys described in subdivision (a) are expended solely for the purposes set forth in paragraph (2) of subdivision (b). L SAFER ROADS AND TRAFFIC RELIEF Who Supports Prop. 42 on the March 5, 2002 Statewide Ballot? (as of 12/13/01) Police, Fire and Public Safety California Highway Patrol Commissioner Dwight Helmick California California California California California Highway Patrol Commissioner M. J. Hannigan (Retired) * Highway Patrol Commissioner J.E. "Jim" Smith (Retired) State Office of Emergency Services Director Dallas Jones Fire Chiefs Association Organization of Police and Sheriffs (COPS) Taxpayer Protection California Taxpayers' Association California Taxpayer Protection Committee National Tax Limitation Committee Butte County Citizens for Better Government Fullerton Association of Concerned Taxpayers Kern County Taxpayers Association Marin United Taxpayers Association Orange County Taxpayers Association Shasta County Taxpayers Association United Californians for Tax Reform Waste Watchers Transportation and Highway Safety Automobile Club of Southern California-AAA California State Automobile Association - AAA Structural Engineers Association of California California Transit Association California Commuters Alliance California Association of Councils of Government California Rebuild America Coalition TAXPAYERS FOR TRAFFIC RELIEF/YES ON 42 · A COALITION OF TAXPAYERS, CONSTRUCTION, BUSINESS, LABOR, ENGINEERS AND COMMUTERS 11300 West Olympic Blvd.//840 · Los Angeles, CA 90064 ° 310/996-2671 · Fax 310/996-2673 111 Anza Blvd.//406 ° Burlingame, CA 94010 · 650/340-0470 · Fax 650/340-1740 website: www.yesprop42.com · e-mail' info@yesprop42.com '~- California Association for Coordinated Transportation * Infrastructure Delivery Council Rail Passenger Association of California RAILVOTE Self-Help Counties Coalition Metropolitan Transportation Commission (Bay Area) Amador County Transportation Commission California Association of School Transportation Officials, Chapter I (San Bernardino County) Contra Costa Transportation Authority Council of Fresno County Governments Fresno County Transportation Authority * Glenn County Transportation Commission * Livermore/Amador Valley Transit Authority':' Madera County Transportation Commission Mendocino Council of Governments Merced County Association of Governments Modoc County Transportation Commission Transportation Agency for Monterey County* Napa County Transportation Planning Agency * Nevada County Transportation Commission Orange County Transportation Authority Riverside County Transportation Commission Sacramento Area Council of Governments San Diego Association of Governments San Joaquin Council of Governments Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission Tulare County Association of Governments Ventura County Transportation Commission Transportation California The Transit Coalition Business, Labor, Local Government, Education and Others California Alliance for Jobs California Chamber of Commerce California State Association of Counties League of California Cities Marian Bergeson, Former Member, California State Board of Education Associated General Contractors of California California Business Roundtable California Conference of Carpenters California State Council of Laborers Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors of California International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union 3 (Northern California) International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 12 (Southern California) State Building and Construction Trades Council of California County of Plumas * County of Siskiyou County of Tuolumne City of Brea City of Clayton City of Marina American Public Works Association, Sacramento Chapter Lake County/City Area Planning Council Hon. Dan Donahue, Councilmember, City of Vallejo and Board Member, Solano Transportation Authority Hon. Kevin R. Jenkins, School Board Member, Hanford High School District Hon. Vern D. Moss, Supervisor, Madera County * Hon. Bill Overman, Supervisor, Siskiyou County Hon. Julie Pierce, Mayor, City of Clayton and Commissioner, Contra Costa Transportation Authority Hon. Richard Shoemaker, Supervisor, Mendocino County Hon. Joan Smith, Supervisor, Siskiyou County * Chris Stampolis, Chair, Planning Commission, City of Santa Clara Dr. David Stine, President, San Bernardino County School Board Hon. Tom Stallard, Supervisor, Yolo County Amalgamated Transit Union, California Conference Board American Council of Engineering Companies Asphalt Pavement Association California Association for Local Economic Development California Building Industry Association California Business Alliance California Business Properties Association California Cast Metals Association California Cement Promotion Council California Dump Truck Owners Association California Association for Coordinated Transportation * Infrastructure Delivery Council Rail Passenger Association of California RAILVOTE Self-Help Counties Coalition Metropolitan Transportation Commission (Bay Area) Amador County Transportation Commission California Association of School Transportation Officials, Chapter 1 (San Bernardino County) Contra Costa Transportation Authority Council of Fresno County Governments Fresno County Transportation Authority * Glenn County Transportation Commission * Livermore/Amador Valley Transit Authority* Madera County Transportation Commission Mendocino Council of Governments Merced County Association of Governments Modoc County Transportation Commission Transportation Agency for Monterey County* Napa County Transportation Planning Agency * Nevada County Transportation Commission Orange County Transportation Authority Riverside County Transportation Commission Sacramento Area Council of Governments San Diego Association of Governments San Joaquin Council of Governments Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission Tulare County Association of Governments Ventura County Transportation Commission Transportation California The Transit Coalition Business, Labor, Local Government, Education and Others California Alliance for Jobs California Chamber of Commerce California State Association of Counties League of California Cities Marian Bergeson, Former Member, California State Board of Education Associated General Contractors of California California Business Roundtable California Conference of Carpenters California State Council of Laborers Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors of California International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union 3 (Northern California) International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 12 (Southern California) State Building and Construction Trades Council of California County of Plumas * County of Siskiyou County of Tuolumne City of Brea City of Clayton City of Marina American Public Works Association, Sacramento Chapter Lake County/City Area Planning Council Hon. Dan Donahue, Councilmember, City of Vallejo and Board Member, Solano Transportation Authority Hon. Kevin R. Jenkins, School Board Member, Hanford High School District Hon. Vern D. Moss, Supervisor, Madera County * Hon. Bill Overman, Supervisor, Siskiyou County Hon. Julie Pierce, Mayor, City of Clayton and Commissioner, Contra Costa Transportation Authority Hon. Richard Shoemaker, Supervisor, Mendocino County Hon. Joan Smith, Supervisor, Siskiyou County * Chris Stampolis, Chair, Planning Commission, City of Santa Clara Dr. David Stine, President, San Bernardino County School Board Hon. Tom Stallard, Supervisor, Yolo County Amalgamated Transit Union, California Conference Board American Council of Engineering Companies Asphalt Pavement Association California Association for Local Economic Development California Building Industry Association California Business Alliance California Business Properties Association California Cast Metals Association California Cement Promotion Council California Dump Truck Owners Association ITEM NO. 10¢ DATE: January 16, 2002 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR THE RIPARIAN AND RIVERINE HABITAT GRANT PROGRAM FOR RIVERSIDE PARK DEVELOPMENT The passage of the "Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000" (Proposition 12) provided funds for local assistance including a number of competitive grant programs. The City has already applied for a series of grants under the Roberti-Z'Berg-Harris Urban Open Space and Recreation program, which are yet to be awarded. In addition, City staff has now identified the Riparian and Riverine Habitat Grant Program as a possible source of funding for the initial phases of development for the Riverside Park Project. The intent of the grant program is to provide "funds on a competitive basis to increase public recreational access, awareness, understating, 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. Unlike the previous applications approved by Council, no matching funds are required for this program. Continued on Page 2 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt the resolution authorizing the application to the Riparian and Riverine Habitat Grant Program for the Riverside Park Development Project. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Determine the application to the Riparian and Riverine Habitat Grant Program is inappropriate at this time and do not move to adopt the resolution. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A N/A Larry W. DeKnoblough, Director of Community Services Sage Sangiacomo, Community Services Supervisor Candace Horsley, City Manager Charley Stump, Director of Planning Brian Keefer, Associate Planner I Proposed Application Resolution APPROVED: '...~ '~/~,_ Candace Horsley, Cit~Manager Using the Riverside Park conceptual design previously approved by the City Council, staff is recommending applying for $400,000 in Riparian and Riverine grant funds. If the application is successful, up to 25% of the grant could be used towards planning, design, and permits. The bulk of the funds would be used for parking, trails, riverbank stabilization, and habitat enhancements. The City would have up to eight years to utilize the funds. Additional funds will be required to fully complete the project and staff will continue to identify possible funding sources. Staff recommends the Council adopt the resolution authorizing the application to the Riparian and Riverine Habitat Grant Program for the Riverside Park project. RESOLUTION NO: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FOR THE RIPARIAN AND RIVERINE HABITAT PROGRAM UNDER THE SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, CLEAN WATER, CLEAN AIR, AND COASTAL PROTECTION BOND ACT OF 2000 For the Riverside Park Development WHEREAS, the people of the State of California have enacted the RIPARIAN AND RIVERINE HABITAT PROGRAM, which provides funds to the State of California for grants to local agencies and federally recognized California Indian tribes to increase public recreational access, awareness, understanding, enjoyment, and protection of California's irreplaceable rivers and streams, and WHEREAS, the California Department of Parks and Recreation has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the Program and the grant Project shown above within the State, setting up necessary procedures, and WHEREAS, said procedures established by the California Department of Parks and Recreation require the Applicant's Governing Body to certify by resolution the approval of the Application before submission of said Application to the State, and WHEREAS, the Applicant will enter into a Contract with the State of California for the Project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Ukiah hereby: . . . . Approves the filing of an Application for local assistance funds from the RIPARIAN AND RIVERINE HABITAT PROGRAM under the Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000; and Certifies that the Applicant has or will have sufficient funds to operate and maintain the Project; and Certifies that the Applicant has reviewed, understands, and agrees to the General Provisions contained in the Contract shown in the Procedural Guide; and Appoints the City Manager as agent to conduct all negotiations, execute and submit all documents including, but not limited to, Applications, agreements, payment requests and so on, which may be necessary for the completion of the Project. Resolution No. Page 1 of 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED on the 16th day of January 2002 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Phillip Ashiku, Mayor ATTEST: Marie Ulvila, City Clerk Resolution No. Page 2 of 2 AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. 10ct DATE: January 16, 2001 REPORT SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION OF MTA FACILITY AT FORMER FJORDS LOCATION BY SUPERVISOR DELBAR Mendocino County Supervisor Michael Delbar contacted Mayor Ashiku and requested that this item be placed on the agenda for discussion. A County representative will present their issues to the City Councilmembers at the meeting. Enclosed for your information is a letter that was sent to the Board of Supervisors by MTA regarding a Board of Supervisors inquiry of this facility. RECOMMENDED ACTION' Discuss proposed MTA facility at former Fjords location ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. N/A Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Candace Horsley, City Manager N/A 1. Letter from MTA APPROVED:, (~ ~q ~.~ 4:Can:ASRMTA.102~'a''~ce ~io'r~ley, C~ Manager SERVING MENDOCINO COUNTY SINCE 1976 Mendocino Transit Authority December 18, 2001 Board of Supervisors County of Mendocino 501 Low Gap Road Ukiah, CA 95482 Dear Supervisors, Thank you for your letter of November 6, 2001. At our meeting of December 12, the MTA Board discussed your request. We have reaffirmed our decision to proceed with development of a North Ukiah Transit Center as planned. With regard to the Fjords site, permanent control of a North Ukiah Transit Center is imPerative and urgent irrespective of a downtown transfer location. It is, and always has been, essential to our operation. We have thoroughly evaluated seven other possible sites. Fjords is the only viable location from the point of view of the security and convenience of our customers and the safety of bus operations. This site is supported by local businesses. MTA still needs an upgraded downtown transfer site, and the train station would be an excellent location for that. We will continue to do whatever we can to assist the City of Ukiah in accomplishing its goals at this location. Sincerely, ~ Charles Peterson, Chair Board of Directors C: MTA Board of Directors Phil Ashiku, Mayor, City of Ukiah 241 Plant Road · Ukiah, California 95482 · (707) 462-5765 Fax (707) 462-1760