HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-12-05 PacketSUBJECT:
AGENDA
SUMMARY
ITEM NO. 3a
DATE: December 5, 2001
REPORT
INTRODUCTION OF FIRE DEPARTMENT CAREER EMPLOYEES
Fire Department Career Employees for the "B" shift will be introduced along with a member of the
administrative staff. An organization chart of the Ukiah Fire Department is attached for the Council's
information.
Chuck Yates is the Battalion Chief/Fire Marshal and has been employed by the City of Ukiah for the past
15 years. He served as a Volunteer Firefighter for five years prior to that. Chief Yates served as a Career
Firefighter, Fire Apparatus Engineer, and Fire Captain before being promoted to his current assignment.
He is certified as a Haz-mat Specialist and EMT-1. His hobbies include being a Feroequinologist (lover of
old trains, also known as "Iron Horses") and a Philatelist (specialist in the study of postage and imprinted
stamps). Chuck lives in Ukiah with his wife of 27 years and has two sons in college.
Mark Hilliker is the Fire Captain/Shift Commander for "B" shift. He has been employed by the City of
Ukiah for the past 33 years. He began his career as a Firefighter and has served as a Fire Apparatus
Engineer before being promoted to his current assignment. Captain Hilliker lives in Ukiah where he
enjoys his two sons and working on his home. He is certified as a Haz-mat Specialist and EMT-1 and
takes pride in taking care of all Firefighters of the Ukiah Fire Department.
Michael Hamilton is a Fire Apparatus Engineer/Paramedic. He has been employed by the City of Ukiah
for the past six years and served as a Volunteer Firefighter for three years prior to his permanent
employment. Mike serves as an Acting Captain. Before his career with the City he was a building
contractor; he currently lives in Upper Lake. Mike's hobbies and interests include scuba diving, fly-fishing,
backpacking, R.V.'ing, and being the humble servant of a blue and gold Macaw.
Darrell "Charlie" Miller is a Firefighter/Paramedic. He has been employed by the City of Ukiah for the
past six years, serving as a Temporary Firefighter for the first two. He serves as an Acting Fire Apparatus
Engineer and Acting Captain. Charlie lives in Ukiah and was previously employed with Ukiah Ambulance.
Jonathan Lemke is a FirefightedParamedic. He was hired full-time eleven months ago after serving as a
Volunteer and Temporary Firefighter for the City of Ukiah. Jon lives in Ukiah.
Jared Apperson is a FirefightedParamedic. He was hired on November 25, 2001. He comes to us
from Lake Tahoe. Jared was raised in Ukiah and enjoys rock climbing, mountain biking, snow
boarding, surfing, and scuba diving. He is an instructor for the Wilderness Medicine Institute.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive introductions of Fire Department "B" Shift career personnel and
the Fire Marshal.
ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A
Requested by: N/A
Prepared by: Dan Grebil, Interim Fire Chief
Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager
Attachments: Organizational Chart for the Ukiah Fire Department
AP P ROVE D :~--'-~:~-¥~,~.~-.~ _'~
Candace Horsley, Cityl~anager
A~r~ ]
MINUTES OF THE UKIAH CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting
Wednesday, October 3, 2001
4a
The Ukiah City Council met at a Regular Meeting on October 3, 2001, the notice for which
had been legally noticed and posted, at 6:32 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers,
300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. Roll was taken and the following
Councilmembers were present: Larson, Smith, Libby, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. Staff
present: Public Utilities Director Barnes, Assistant City Manager Fierro, Risk
Manager/Budget Officer Harris, City Manager Horsley, City Attorney Rapport, Community
Services Supervisor Sangiacomo, Public Works Director/City Engineer Steele, and
Recording Secretary Kinch.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Ashiku led the Pledge of Allegiance.
3. PROCLAMATION
3a. October as Domestic Violence Awareness Month
Mayor Ashiku read the Proclamation designating October as Domestic Violence
Awareness Month and urged all citizens to actively participate in the scheduled activities
and programs sponsored by Project Sanctuary and to work toward the elimination of
personal and institutional violence.
Michael Harris, on behalf of the Board of Directors of Project Sanctuary, thanked the City
Council for their continued support of the organization. He noted that the Clothesline
Project is displayed in the foyer of City Hall.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
4a. Regular Meetinq of August 15, 2001
Councilmember Libby recommended a correction to page 6, third paragraph, and the first
sentence should read, "Councilmember Libby agreed with Mayor Ashiku's comments and
asked staff to prepare a cost analysis of our ambulance service."
M/S Larson/Smith approving the minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 15, 2001, as
amended; carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Larson, Smith,
Libby, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None.
5. RIGHT TO APPEAL DECISION
Mayor Ashiku read the appeal process.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
M/S Smith/Larson approving items a through i of the Consent Calendar as follows:
a. Adopted Resolution 2002-12 Approving and Authorizing the Execution of Program
Supplement No. 700 to Administering Agency- State Agreement for State
Funded Projects No. 000049;
Regular Meeting
October 3, 2001
Page ! of 16
b,
C,
d,
e,
f,
h.
Received Report to City Council Regarding Acquisition of Services From Spencer
Brewer for the Management/Production of the 2002 Sundays in the Park Concert
Series in the Amount of $7,500;
Awarded Two Year Contract to Parker, Lucas & Associates, and Economic
Development & Finance Corporation for Administration of the Ukiah Business
Loan Program (#00-EDBG-738) in an Amount Not to Exceed $46,250;
Awarded Two Year Contract to the West Company for Micro-Enterprise Services
Associated with the Community Development Block Grant Program (Revolving
Business Loan Administration #00-EDBG-738) in an Amount Not to Exceed
$81,445;
Awarded Contract to EBA Wastechnologies for Soil and Groundwater Investigation
Services at the North Fire Station (1800 North State Street) in the Amount of
$14,997.40;
Awarded Contract to Proseed for Landfill Erosion Control in the Amount of $17,800;
Awarded Professional Consulting Services Agreement in the Amount of $31,811, to
EBA Engineering to Prepare Construction Plans and Specifications for the Final
Cover of the Ukiah Landfill;
Awarded Professional Consulting Services Agreement in the Amount of $5,000,
Plus Actual Time-and-Expenses to Respond to RWQCB Comments, to EBA
Engineering to Prepare the Engineered Alternative Analysis for the Ukiah Landfill;
Awarded Contract for Power Pole Inspection and Treatment to OSMOSE, Inc. in
the Amount of $10,000 for Fiscal Year 2001/2002 and Renew Contract on a
Year-by-Year Basis as Budgeted Until June 2005.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Larson, Smith, Libby,
Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None.
7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
No one came forward to address Council.
8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
8a. Consideration of American Red Cross Request for Waiver of Rent
Community Services Supervisor Sangiacomo advised that the Mendocino County
Chapter of the American Red Cross (ARC) is requesting a waiver of past due and future
rent for the City's North State Fire Station facility through September 2001. This request
was first presented to Council at its August 1, 2001 meeting. A recovery plan was
presented to the Council at the September 19 meeting, and the ARC again requested the
past due rent be waived. Currently the deferred rent through September 2001 totals
$7,430.
He explained that since the last Council meeting, the local Board of Directors of the ARC
voted to rescind the Charter of the ARC Chapter. At a separate meeting later in
September, a general meeting of the membership voiced dissenting concerns and voted to
retain the Charter. He noted that Red Cross officials and local volunteers are committed to
continuing services to our area and to do so whether the Charter is retained or a Local
Regular Meeting
October 3, 2001
Page 2 of ]6
Service Delivery Unit is established. Other cities, businesses and citizens in Mendocino
County have contributed to reducing the current deficit. The total deficit currently reported
by the ARC for the Ukiah Chapter is $35,700.
Mark Freedman, State Coordinator for the State of California for the American Red Cross,
and a National Sector employee, explained that the determination of the retention or the
rescission of the Chapter Charter is at the Board of Governors level. Whatever their
decision, it is still the intent of the ARC to fulfill its mission as Chartered by Congress to
continue to deliver the services to the community. The request for some assistance in
waiver of the past will allow them to move through this transition period more smoothly. He
explained that their local budget would be affected by the decision made by the Board of
Governors later this month.
Discussion followed concerning other services that the ARC provides, such as health and
safety classes, which will continue because they provide revenue to the ARC along with
donations.
Rick Teeters, local business owner, advised that he has been Disaster Chairman of the
Red Cross for several years and has been involved with the Red Cross prior to 1993. He
expressed concern that local control is going to pass to some place like San Diego or Las
Vegas and much of the local volunteers and local donor base will be lost. He requested
that Council not make a decision on this matter at this time but defer the matter until after
the decision of the Board of Governors is made.
Mr. Freedman explained that the question before the City Council is not a function of
control but of economics. He explained that most services of the Red Cross are to deliver
and fund disaster relief, as well as to deliver emergency communications as necessary to
the armed forces. Beyond that, the delivery of "should services" and "may services" such
as preparedness and education, which includes first aid classes, are a function of
economics.
Discussion followed with regard to waiving the assessments. Mr. Freedman stated that the
assessments could not be waived. Discussion continued relative to the differences
between the functions of the Board of Directors, management, and the Board of
Governors, and the importance of these entities working together. There was also a brief
discussion of the current accounts payable for the local Chapter, which includes the
amount owed to the City.
M/S Libby/Smith approving waiver of past due rent from the American Red Cross through
September 2001 totaling $7,430.
Councilmember Larson was of the opinion that approval of the waiver should be an
equitable contribution from the City of Ukiah and proportionate to the rest of the County as
well as the cities that this Chapter serves. He noted that there was mention that the cities
of Willits and Point Arena have contributed monetarily, and for the sake of fairness of public
Regular Meeting
October 3, 2001
Page 3 of !d
funding for the Red Cross, perhaps there should be letters to the County and the City of
Fort Bragg suggesting that they contribute their fair share proportionately to Ukiah's
contribution to this effort.
Councilmember Smith agreed with that concept.
A brief discussion of the lease to the ARC followed.
Mayor Ashiku was of the opinion that with the discounted lease to the ARC, the City would
be contributing more than its fair share.
Councilmember Baldwin was supportive of the motion, as long a Council is not setting a
precedent for the future. He noted that there might be a need for the City to sell this facility
in the future.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Larson, Smith,
Libby, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None
9. NEW BUSINESS
9a. Discussion of the City of Ukiah Gibson Creek Property and Access
City Manager Horsley advised that the issue before the Council is whether to allow public
access to the City's right-of-way and to the small piece of City property that is a short
distance from the Standley Street entrance. The City currently has a right-of-way road that
follows Gibson Creek, and ends just past the remains of the City's old water reservoir
where a fish hatchery once stood.
In 1987 Jim Nix purchased the property that surrounds the Gibson Creek entrance from
Standley Street. For the most part the property has been posted since that time, and with
hikers being fairly respectful of private property and vandalism was at a minimum. During
the last 10 years Mr. Nix, as well as other property owners with property further up the
mountain, have experienced an increase in vandalism. She discussed vandalism,
destruction of private property, and fires that have occurred on these properties.
She explained that there are several liability issues that need to be considered. These are
not in themselves insurmountable issues, but will require planning and analysis before
changes to the status of the right-of-way are made. Other issues to be considered are
costs and private property rights of the surrounding areas. The major problem in the
Gibson Creek instance is that the City only owns a small 100'x200' strip of land where the
fish hatchery once stood and everything surrounding this property is privately owned. She
discussed potential options for dealing with the situation as identified in her Staff Report.
She noted that a letter was received from the Dept. of Fish and Game that noted their
concern about the fish in the area as well as the potential for fire. All of these concerns
would need to be discussed, analyzed, and meetings scheduled with neighbors and
property owners, as well as the Dept. of Fish and Game to discuss how these problems
and other issues could be mediated if it was determined by the Council that there is interest
Regular Meeting
October 3, 2001
Page 4 of ]6
in looking into the matter further.
City Attorney Rapport advised that he was asked to render an opinion whether there are
any restrictions on the City's ownership rights to the right-of-way that goes from Standley
Street up to the fish hatchery parcel or the use of the fish hatchery parcel itself. Based on
the documents that were available to him at the time that he prepared this opinion, he was
of the opinion that there wasn't anything in the City's title to the road that would prohibit the
City from allowing the public to use that road at the discretion of the City Council. He didn't
see anything in the deed to the fish hatchery parcel that imposes any restrictions on the
City's ownership rights in that parcel.
This morning he received a letter from John Behnke on behalf of Jim Nix. Jim Ronco, title
officer for First American Title, conducted additional research and found some documents
that cause him to have an unqualified opinion tonight. He is not sure if the documents that
were found would change his legal analysis. He has not had time to study the documents
thoroughly. The deeds and the documents that Mr. Behnke provided answer a mystery he
had concerning the property. This mystery was that the deed that grants the City a right-of-
way 30' in width as a road access to that parcel was granted to the City in 1897 but the
City didn't get title to the parcel that the road goes to until 1913. The additional documents
that he viewed show that in 1897 the Crockets that owned the parcel that Mr. Nix now
owns, granted the road right-of-way to the City and at the same time they granted the
ownership of the fish hatchery parcel to Mr. Crothers who was on the City Council at that
time. Mr. Ronco also provided a copy of the March 15, 1897 minutes from the City Council
meeting which indicates that Council intended to use that parcel for a fish hatchery and
that it granted the right-of-way to the City to provide access to the fish hatchery. The deed
to Mr. Crothers contains a paragraph that is not in the deed that Mr. Crothers used to
convey title to the City in 1913. There was some expression in that deed that the use of
the parcel is to be for a fish hatchery. If it is a use restriction, which he is not sure of, the
use restriction wasn't contained in the deed from Mr. Crothers to the City. He has some
questions over whether there is any legal limit for what the City can allow that road or that
parcel to be used for.
Another document that was attached to this information were minutes of a City Council
meeting on September 24, 1930 where there had been some discussion concerning
impacts to the creek from public access along that right-of-way. At that meeting, the City
Council passed a motion to allow the property owner at that time, Mr. Sears, to close the
road off to the public with a gate, to be constructed at his expense, and to post a sign on
the gate saying "private property - keep out". One of the possible legal claims that might
be made if the City opened it up to the public and it did cause a significant impact to the
surrounding property would be an inverse condemnation claim and part of that liability
would depend on whether this represents a significant change in the use of that road from
its historical use. To know what the City's liability would be, the fact that the City allowed it
to be closed to the public in 1930, we would need to know what the character of the use
was from that point to the early 1990's when the City again allowed that road to be gated.
Regular Meeting
October 3, 2001
Page 5 of 16
Upon a site visit with the City Manager he found it to be problematic because the road is
located above the creek, and the City doesn't own any of the property between the road
and the creek, or the creek itself. So if the public were tempted to do down that bank into
the creek, that in itself would represent a trespass on private property and the City would
need to deal with that issue. He agreed with the City Manager that a fence would not be
very practical and signs would not represent much of a deterrent. Staff would need to
determine what precautions it would take to exercise reasonable control over public use to
minimize those impacts on the surrounding property.
Mayor Ashiku explained that counsel representing Mr. Nix and Friends of Gibson Creek
are in attendance and noted that any decisions of the City Council can be appealed to a
court for review. He questioned whether Council should wait until the City Attorney has
formed an opinion so that Council has a basis to make a firm decision.
City Manager Horsley advised that a copy of the Inland Mendocino County Land Trust
was included with her Staff report. Their goals and purposes are to promote the health and
vitality of inland Mendocino forest, woodlands, grasslands, watershed, and wetlands, and
riparian and wildlife habitats, agriculture lands, and to protect the biological diversity of
Mendocino County. She has been advised that the Inland Mendocino Land Trust are not
in the position of raising funds to purchase open space at this time. They are asking
people who own property to put it into conservatorship so that it will stay in its natural state.
She pointed out that the Department of Fish and Game would be reviewing anything the
City did that involved the creek. They stated that "It is our observation that without
identified and maintained trails, garbage and restroom facilities, and provisions for routine
patrol of erosion, pollution, and poaching have become issues that threaten the already
sensitive ecosystem in Gibson Creek."
Councilmember Baldwin inquired if the City Attorney is aware of any state laws that
restrict private property owners' ability to deny access to fishable streams.
City Attorney Rapport stated that he is not aware of state laws that would affect access to
fishable streams, however, he is aware of state laws that create a public right to have
access to navigable waterways. He did not think Gibson Creek is a navigable waterway.
Councilmember Baldwin inquired if there are any deeds of property bordering Gibson
Creek that states specifically that access to the creek cannot be denied.
City Attorney Rapport advised that he is not aware of such deeds.
Councilmember Larson inquired if the Ordinance that was adopted in 1909 prohibiting
automobiles, motorcycles, etc. to be driven, is still in affect.
City Attorney Rapport explained that if it hasn't been repealed, it would still be in affect.
However, the Ordinance was not codified into the City Code.
Regular Meeting
October 3, 2001
Page {5 of 16
Councilmember Larson inquired if riding in a vehicle on that road on September 13th
constitutes a misdemeanor violation?
City Attorney Rapport answered affirmatively.
Councilmember Larson inquired if that also applies to Mr. Nix or any of his guests?
City Attorney Rapport explained that if the Ordinance has disappeared from public
records and its not easily found, if one were charged with violating the ordinance there may
be an argument that they weren't given reasonable notice that this type of conduct was
prohibited.
Consensus of Council was to proceed with discussion of issues surrounding the matter.
Public Comment Period Opened: 7:24 p.m.
A man distributed a letter to Council and discussed fence lines as being European notions,
not American.
Jennifer Puser, 309 Jones Street, read a letter written by Judy Pruden who was unable to
attend the meeting. In her letter, Ms. Pruden explained that she has led historical walking
tours along Gibson Creek for many years and discussed items of historical significance to
the Gibson Creek area and the former fish hatchery. She was of the opinion that the area
should only be open for educational purposes and did not believe fencing is needed.
A woman, Ukiah, presented two photographs to Council and agreed with Ms. Pruden's
letter. She felt the area is very magical.
Marlene Werra, 2 Lookout Drive, inquired about how people would like others to be
running though your backyard just because it is a scenic route and if the City would pay for
the vandalism that may occur. She noted that the risk of fire is substantial.
Robert Werra, 2 Lookout Drive, advised that he has lived in Ukiah for 40 years and has
never heard mention of the glory of the fish hatchery until a minority of people recently
discovered Gibson Creek as a place to go hiking. He felt there are adequate hiking trails in
the area and no need to hassle property owners over another hiking trail.
John Behnke, speaking on behalf of Mr. Nix, read a letter to the City Manager. He
explained that the City property in question is surrounded by private property. He
discussed the history of the fish hatchery dating back to 1928 and that it was subsequently
dismantled and sold for salvage in 1931. In 1930, the property owner who owned the
property where the fish hatchery was located sought help from the City to block off the
property due to vandalism and trash accumulating. In 1994 it was addressed by the City
Manager and the Public Works Director and determined that the City would post the gate,
allowing access only to persons with a common lock or arrangement. He felt the City has a
Regular Meeting
October 3, 2001
Page ? of ~-d
right to restrict access to the property. He felt it important to protect the resource and the
fragile area. He explained that Mr. Nix has protected and restored the area. He noted that
the picnic area established by Mr. Nix is not for public use, but was established by his
family for family use only. He wants to maintain a cooperative approach with the City.
David Nelson, attorney for the Friends of Gibson Creek for Access, reviewed City Attorney
Rapport's legal opinion as being accurate. Since the City owns the property, it has the
right to open it to public use. He urged Council to visit the site and felt that it is not a
question of locks and trees but that it is accessible for hikers into a natural state. It was his
opinion that Council should find a way for walkers and educational use, but not camping in
this area. He stated that vandalism is a reaction to people being fenced out. Gibson
Creek is a place people like to walk and enjoy. He agreed that that the Friends of Gibson
Creek would not want people walking over their property but a loss of private property
rights. Mr. Nix knew that the City owned a parcel and has done everything to stop public
use. He felt it important to keep in mind the vital use of this property in order to see how
the public access can be provided for and also protect the property rights of those living in
this area.
Hiawatha Blake, 517 South Oak Street, explained that in March of this year he was
introduced to the Gibson Creek area and ignored the trespassing signs. He urged the City
to allow public access.
Chris, lives on Standley Street above Gibson Creek, stated that the fish hatchery no longer
exists. It was his opinion that opening the area to the public would bring more vandalism
and mischief. He expressed concern with people smoking in the area. He questioned who
would control the area, where cars would park, and who would be liable for any damages
that may occur to people walking on the small road.
Man, Standley Street, did not see how opening this area would reduce vandalism.
Joe Wildberger, Ukiah, explained that there are many Grace Hudson paintings in homes
and the public does not have the privilege of viewing them. He noted that vandalism has
increased and expressed concern with liability issues related to hikers being injured while
using the area.
Paul Andersen, 309 Jones Street, was of the opinion that the Friends of Gibson Creek
has a right to enjoy places that are part of the community. He felt there should be limited
access to the Gibson Creek area.
Matt Eiffert, 1305 West Standley Street, stated that there are many pretty places around
the County that people can visit. He didn't feel people should have an explicit right to be
able walk to someplace that they think is pretty and use it just because they think it's
beautiful.
Susie Smith, Standley Street, explained that she has been walking on the property in
Regular Meeting
October 3, 2001
Page 8 of 16
question and has obtained permission from several property owners. She reported that her
home was broken into on a few occasions and she lives in the public part of Standley
Street. She asked Council to consider the Gibson Creek fish hatchery as a symbolic issue
and if the property is to be opened to the public, the matter should be considered very
carefully and done in a restricted way.
Jan Moore, 1021 West Perkins Street, advised that she is a Friend of Gibson Creek. She
referred to a Russian River cleanup with the Department of Fish and Game. She
supported Ms. Pruden's suggestion that we have control of the access at some time. In
looking at the whole watershed there are barriers to fish, and the Friends of Gibson Creek
would like to improve the quality of the creek and the fish life. They would also like to visit
the site to see what's on the map in the Gibson Creek Habitat and Enhancement and
Public Access Study that the City conducted.
Mary Lindley, 700 East Gobbi Street, discussed correspondence between Mr. Nix, then
City Manger Rough and Public Works Director Kennedy, concerning the issue of the
agreement and that the City would post the gate for access by "authorized personnel only".
She asked if it would be reasonable to expect anyone wishing to lead a group through a
locked, posted, gate to contact the owner and arrange for such a visit to be made. She
referred to previous discussions by Council concerning liability issues and noted potential
hazards of fire danger, garbage dumping, and personal property damage on properties in
this area. She recommended Council say "no" to the request to allow the property to be
accessible by the public.
Leif Farr, 616 Grove Street, explained that he served on the City's Parks and Recreation
Commission for six years that dealt with these issues. He discussed vandalism and noted
if the property were open to the public, he would consider it an extension of his regular
evening walks. Those walking outside the specified property are trespassing on someone
else's property and should be dealt with accordingly.
Igor Zbitnoff, North Pine Street, distributed a letter to the Council and read the letter aloud
in which he addressed his opposition to depriving responsible citizens of using public
areas.
Sylvia Rocha, 517 South Oak Street, supported access to the property.
Sanj Balajee, representing the Ukiah Valley Walk and Roll Coalition, explained that this
group promotes bicycling, walking, and other forms of alternative transportation in Ukiah.
On behalf of the Coalition, they strongly recommended Council support the proposal to
open the property to public access.
Norm Huey, life long resident of the Ukiah valley, advised that he has visited the Gibson
Creek area many times and took his children there. He felt the area would be destroyed if
opened to public use. He cited problems with the lack of parking and maintenance of the
area.
Regular Meeting
October 3, 2001
Page P of ]6
Phyllis Curtis, Ukiah, was of the opinion that the City, County, and private landowners
should work cooperatively to develop creeks that flow through the City. She suggested the
option of the City purchasing property from Mr. Nix that would relieve Mr. Nix of any
upkeep to the property.
David Hull, Ukiah, supported the rights of property owners to protect their land from
intruders. He explained that many landowners give permission to people when they know
they are not going to vandalize the property and are welcome to walk on the property. He
raised the point that some people may change their view if they had to pay the property
taxes and mortgage payment on the property and be responsible for maintenance and
upkeep.
lan Rhan, Ukiah property owner in the western hills, noted recent vandalism in the area.
However well meaning the Friends of Gibson Creek are, what comes along with them are
people that disrespect things that belong to others. He felt it extremely important to look at
the issue of fire danger, vandalism and policing of the area in the western hills.
Public Comment Period Closed: 8:45 p.m.
Recessed: 8:45 p.m.
Reconvened: 8:55 p.m.
Councilmember Baldwin was of the opinion that the vast majority of people are
trustworthy. Protecting the western hills and the Gibson Creek watershed is second to
none in the terms of the future of Ukiah. He discussed the issue of access, or lack thereof,
to the City-owned parcel. He felt the western hills are one of the greatest assets of the
City. He discussed the Open Space element of the General Plan and read an excerpt
regarding creeks and streams, development of pedestrian access along creeks flowing
through the City, developing pocket parks along creek channels on public lands where
feasible, and providing environmental benefits to the western hills. He felt there are rights
that have been established and asked that Council direct staff to research the prescriptive
right issue and whether they have been established. There is a need to set aside funds for
open space acquisition and for policing functions related to fire, vandalism, noise, and litter
to property. He recommended Council direct staff to work with the community and the Nix
family concerning a reservation system. He felt there should be no parking on Standley
Street, limitations on hours of use, there should be a clean up deposit, prohibition of
amplified music, and prohibition of motorized off road vehicles.
Councilmember Smith was of the opinion that there are issues about whether we are
going to have access up that creek or to recognize the private property owner's rights. The
only people he has seen taking care of it are the private property owners. He felt it
appropriate to have limited access to the area and would like to see some study of that
issue and how the City would set up limited access, with rules and regulations. Also, it
would be good to have an agreement with Mr. Nix relative to his expectations of it. He
acknowledged the work that the Nix family has done to clean up the area. He asked that
Regular Meeting
October 3, 2001
Page ]0 of 1_6
Council allow more time for the City Attorney to study issues.
Discussion followed related to the terrain of he City owned property where the fish hatchery
once stood. It was noted that there is a possibility someone could be hurt on the property
is they were not careful. There was discussion of the minimum width requirement for a
public road. It was noted that the requirement is for vehicles, not for pedestrians only.
Councilmember Libby was of the opinion that there is a long time history of vandalism
and problems in this area and the City has had problems with enforcement issues. She
expressed concern two attorneys have presented different information to Council, and new
information provided to the City Attorney needs to be reviewed in order to provide analysis
to Council.
Councilmember Larson was of the opinion that it is important to consider the
environmental considerations regarding fish and other habitat that the Dept. of Fish and
Game thinks may exist. He felt the City has the responsibility as one of the landowners
along the creek, to preserve and enhance that in any way that we can as long as we own
the land. He would not support anything proposed that may compromise that. He agreed
with comments from some property owners regarding potential fire danger in the area. The
fact that the hatchery no longer exists does not lessen its historical significance. He was of
the opinion that we should provide educational opportunities for children and adults to learn
about salmon and the history of the property.
City Attorney Rapport explained that there was some research done and the Gibson
Creek diversion was part of that research. There are a number of things that you have to
establish in order to perfect the Prop 14 right to preserve it into the present. He was
unsure if the City has done that.
Councilmember Larson was of the opinion that we should explore whether we still retain
water rights on the property. There should also be a mutual respect for the land; its beauty
and natural culture should be first and foremost for everyone. We could attempt to develop
some guidelines and a program by which trained, educated guides could provide tours of
this area, with the historical perspective, and possibly an environmental perspective. If the
City and property owners could strike an agreement, it would replace all prior deeds and
covenants to the property.
City Attorney Rapport stated that unquestionably if the City and the property owner could
reach an agreement on a way to utilize that easement, it would avoid a lot of legal issues.
Councilmember Larson advised that he is not comfortable that Mr. Nix is the sole keeper
of the gate in determining who should have access. He felt it should be the City's
responsibility. He did not think that the City needs Mr. Nix's permission for people to go up
there. He referred to Ordinance 181 that banned vehicles and specifically addresses the
issue of motorized vehicles and bicycles. Therefore, someone walking on the property
would not be subject to a fine.
Regular Meeting
October 3, 2001
Page 1_ ] of id
Mayor Ashiku stated that, relative to water rights, he did not see any point in taking any
more water out of that limited resource and destroying the habitat. He concurred with
Councilmember Larson's concern for the environment. It was his opinion that public
access would be incompatible with preserving that environment. Due to erosion, debris,
and the presence of humans along that narrow corridor, it would upset the habitat and
environment. He felt that in order to preserve the environment, staying away from the
environment would be the only way to ensure that the fragile ecosystem remains in tact.
He is equally concerned about fire hazards. He felt the City should make a commitment to
participate with the property owners to maintain the stream in a healthy way and free of
debris so that it doesn't impact the ecosystem. While he thinks the area is very beautiful, if
there were public access, it would become a sterile place. Trespassing and liability issues
will always remain and how that would be managed for even small groups is an issue. It
was his opinion that the hills and other areas should remain restricted with reasonable
access. He was of the opinion that restoring the riparian corridor and enhancing the
environment is the highest priority.
Councilmember Baldwin was of the opinion that one of the significant, natural areas
within the City limits is off limits to everyone who doesn't and can't afford a million dollar
mansion. He felt that this is what the tape recording will show Mayor Ashiku's words to
say.
Mayor Ashiku stated that in reality the property owners do have access to that stream but
there are very few of them. If you allow for general access, you will have an uncontrollable
situation and people will trample over the environment. He felt that perhaps it is best to
have a gate to act as a deterrent so as to have a minimal affect on the environment. He
supported protecting the fragile ecosystem.
Councilmember Baldwin hoped the majority of Council would agree to ask Staff to work
with the Nix family and the Friends of Gibson Creek and to return in about two months with
a plan for limited controlled access to the creek with many stipulations and many
expectations, including a clean up deposit. He asked Council to read the General Plan and
its reference to establishing trails.
Mayor Ashiku explained that if it is the majority of Council's opinion to allow for access, he
asked that Council pursue the appropriate environmental studies.
Councilmember Libby was of the opinion that there would be some liability issues
associated with allowing public access into this area and this would need to be addressed
prior to allowing access. She agreed with Mayor Ashiku and felt that this City-owned
property should not allow public access.
Councilmember Larson was of the opinion that the City should hold itself to the same
environmental studies that were required of Mr. Nix when he got his Use Permit.
Regular Meeting
October 3, 2001
Page ]2 of ]6
Mayor Ashiku was of the opinion that the City should perform the necessary
environmental studies that are required for the project and for the magnitude that Council
defines.
Discussion continued relative to preserving the environment and watershed as a
wilderness area and thereby denying access. Limited access to the property was
discussed at length. It was noted that if the City allows limited access to the property, it
should have an agreement with Mr. Nix so that it is clear between all parties. There is also
a need to define the amount of limited access for educational programs. Staff discussed
establishing a program for guided tours and providing trained guides. There could be
limitations to certain areas so that the creek would not be disturbed. Discussion continued
with regard to a park system and maintenance. There was further discussion of whether or
not to limit public access to lands that may have a fragile ecosystem.
M/S Larson/Baldwin directing staff to prepare the necessary environmental analysis and
program analysis, to provide a reasonable program for restricted public supervised access
for environmental education purposes to the Gibson Creek property to be proposed and
conducted on a trial basis and with an annual review.
Mayor Ashiku advised that he is not supportive of the motion.
Motion failed to carry by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Larson and
Baldwin. NOES: Councilmembers Smith, Libby, and Mayor Ashiku. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
City Manager Horsley inquired if Council would like the City Attorney to return to Council
with a final opinion on the matter.
Mayor Ashiku responded affirmatively. The City Attorney's opinion could be provided to
Council in memo format rather than as an agenda item.
Various members of Council thanked the City Attorney for his research on the matter and
the public for attending and its input.
9. NEW BUSINESS
9b. Approval of Cold Creek Compost as the Green and Wood Waste Processor for
Solid Wastes Systems Transfer Station
City Manager Horsley advised that the Transfer Station Agreement between the City of
Ukiah and Solid Wastes Systems, Inc. (SWS), requires that the City approve the final
destination of the green waste and wood waste that is received at the Transfer Station. At
this point in time, SWS is requesting the City's approval of Cold Creek Compost Inc.,
located in Potter Valley, as a permitted facility within Mendocino County.
M/S Larson/Libby approving Cold Creek Compost as the service provider for the Transfer
Station green and wood waste; carried by the following roll call vote: AYES:
Regular Meeting
October 3, 2001
Page ]3 of ]6
Councilmembers Larson, Smith, Libby, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None.
ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None.
9. NEW BUSINESS
9c. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing 2001-02 Grant Funding for Community
Based, Non-Profit Organizations
Risk Manager/Budget Officer Harris advised that in response to the City's solicitation, 18
entities applied (requests totaled $62,500) for the $30,000 available in 2001-02 grant
funding to community based, non-profit organizations. These applications were reviewed
by a committee composed of two Councilmembers and three staff members with
recommendations to fund a portion or all of 11 programs. The committee recommends
adoption of the proposed resolution for funding of $30,000 for community-based
organizations. The committee was going to request that the Council look further into the
possibility of having some significant funding for some projects. During the next round of
allocations staff will look at major projects that could be funded instead of the smaller ones.
The committee was unanimous in their recommendations as specified in the resolution.
Councilmember Smith recused himself from the matter. Although his employer, Ukiah
Valley Association for Habilitation, applied for funding under this program, they were not
awarded an allocation at this time.
Councilmember Larson advised that he is a member of the Board of Directors of the
Senior Center and does not sit as a Council appointee, nor does he receive a salary for
that position.
City Attorney Rapport recommended that both Councilmembers Smith and Larson should
recuse themselves from voting on the matter.
M/S Baldwin/Ashiku adopting Resolution 2002-13, authorizing 2001-02 grant funding for
community based, non-profit organizations.
Councilmember Baldwin commented that everyone seemed to look forward to more
significant applications in the future and may apply for the full amount, so that the
community would see more of an impact.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Libby, Baldwin, and
Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilmembers Larson and Smith. ABSTAIN:
None.
9. NEW BUSINESS
9d. Discussion and Direction Regarding Willits By-Pass (Councilmember Larson)
Councilmember Larson explained that this matter was put on the agenda in case a
decision was not made this past Monday at the Mendocino Council of Governments
(MCOG) regarding funding for the Willits By-pass. He reported that it was MCOG's
decision to allocate $2 million out of the competitive funding towards the Willits By-pass.
Regular Meeting
October 3, 2001
Page 14 of ]6
He reported that out of all the MCOG funding, TEA and local transportation money, bike
and pedestrian money, rail money, and the competitive and formula distribution monies,
the City will be receiving approximately $1.9 million out of the total of $18 million. He
continued to discuss funding for the Willits and Hopland By-passes, which could climb to
approximately $140 million within a couple years. If the state is expecting Ukiah to fund
our share at the same rate, we can expect to not receive very much STIP funding. He
would like to see MCOG address that in terms of a more formal policy as to how we are
going to allocate those funds, both for the state's sake in terms of how much Caltrans and
those projects can expect from us out of the STIP funding, and how much is reasonable for
us to reserve for more local projects.
10. COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilmember Smith advised that Councilmembers Larson, Libby, and Baldwin
attended a special meeting of the Ukiah Valley Fire District. He felt that Councilmember
Larson deserves some credit for speaking on behalf of the City Council.
MTA has made an offer to purchase the old Fjords building and property and are waiting
for a response from the property owner.
He attended the NCPA annual conference last week and brought back some interesting
information for Council, which he distributed. The conference helped with his education on
the issues. There was some concern about the P.G.&E. bankruptcy filing because
P.G.&E. owes NCPA $10 million. Their reorganization plan indicates they will pay the $10
million. He has not learned about Contract 2948A and what it means, but he plans to
discuss the matter with Public Utilities Director Barnes. In their reorganization plan,
P.G.&E. will honor that contract.
Councilmember Libby reported attending the Fire District meeting and it had an impact
that some Councilmembers were present. She also attended the meeting of the Red
Cross. She found it very interesting and had a long discussion with a Board member the
following day. There were a lot of people at the meeting that had misinformation
concerning rescinding the Charter and what it meant.
She reported that Assistant City Manager Fierro is helping the Community Recreation
Center put together a brochure for fund raising.
Councilmember Baldwin reported that new car lot located on the east side of Perkins
Street decided to have their sign 30 feet in height after a change in use. He read the Sign
Ordinance, and felt the auto dealer should have met the current Sign Ordinance. He
requested that the Planning Department look into the matter. The car lot is located across
from Burger King where the old Texaco station once stood.
He reported on some noise issues with dirt bikes practicing and racing on Sunday
mornings at the Fairgrounds. He was unsure if the City has received complaints about the
Regular Meeting
October 3, 2001
Page ]5 of ]6
noise. They start at 7:30 or 8:30 a.m. and felt that the City should consider writing a letter
to the Fairgrounds.
City Manager Horsley advised that she would contact the Fairgrounds manager about the
matter.
Councilmember Baldwin also noted a potential noise problem with the 2-cycle scooters
that have become increasingly popular. He inquired if there is anything in the City's Noise
Ordinance regarding the use of these scooters.
Some Councilmembers noted their annoyance with the noise generated by this mode of
transportation. There was an inquiry if the scooters are required to be licensed.
Mayor Ashiku reported that he attended the NCPA meeting with Councilmember Smith.
The next meeting will be held on the October 25 at the Geysers and invited everyone to
attend. He noted that Councilmember Smith is fulfilling his appointment to NCPA and is
not voting member.
Councilmember Smith explained that the NCPA office should be notified of his
designation as a voting delegate.
11. CITY MANAGER/CITY CLERK/DIRECTOR REPORTS
City Manager Horsley reported that the League of California Cities' conference is
scheduled for the week before Christmas. Those Councilmembers wishing to attend
should contact her office.
The work at the dam is completed and there is a piece of equipment that they had to leave
because there wasn't enough time for it to be removed. Administrative Analyst Ann Burck
did a great job of organizing the project. If anyone would like a tour of the site, they should
contact her office.
She thanked Administrative Assistant Kathy Kinch for volunteering to attend this meeting in
the absence of the City Clerk who went home ill today.
12. CLOSED SESSION
None.
13. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the City Council meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
Marie Ulvila, City Clerk
Kathy Kinch, Recording Secretary
Regular Meeting
October 3, 2001
Page ]6 of !6
MINUTES OF THE UKIAH CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting
Wednesday, October 17, 2001
The Ukiah City Council met at a Regular Meeting on October 17 2001 the notice~O~:::~iCh
' ' .:~:~:~:~iii!:=:~:=i:=~=:i~::.~~: : ::=. i~' ?::
had been legally noticed and posted, at 6:30 p.m. in the Civic Center Counqj!i,~,G~h'ambetSi:'
300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. Roll was taken
Councilmembers were present: Larson, Smith, Libby, Baldwin, and M~'~::'~iku. Staff
present: Public Utilities Director Barnes, Electric Supervisor Bart0.t~ei, C~munity
Services Director DeKnoblough, Finance Director Elton, Assistant =:~i~Manager Fierro,
Interim Fire Chief Grebil, Risk Manager/Budget Officer Harris, City Manager Horsley,.
Associate Planner Lohse, City AEorney Rappo~, Com~y Se~i~S Supe~isor:.:~.
Sangiacomo, Deputy Public Works Director Seanor, Pu~::!:~::.W0tE~..pirector/City Engineer
Steele, Planning Director Stump, Police Chief William~::~:~::~::;;~fi~d City cl~erk Ulvila.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Councilmember Baldwin led the Pledge of At~g:~:':'::~ :: ~a:n~e~
PRESENTATION
3a. Presentation by Assembl~oman Virginia Strom aa in's Office Regarding
City-Owned Electric Utility~ ...... :~:~:~:~::~:~ ~:~: ::.:::;~;::~:~;~ :~?? .
Kathy Kelley, representing Asse~ ~an Virginia Strom-Ma~i~?~ffice, pre~ented a
Resolution passed by the Ca[i~~:~:=~ ~embly in recognitie~ ~'the nation s public
owed utilities during this ti~::~::'°~?ower'"==:~~ e~.:~:~:~. Octobe~?~-13, 2001 has been
designated National Public Power ~eek.
Mayor Ashiku, Public Utilities Dire~r~.~::nes andEl~6Ctric Supervisor Ba~olomei
accepted the Re.~!~mn on behalf of t~?~ity of Ukiah.
ab. ~iamation: O er 14-20, 2001~.:~?~b'kiah Valley Association for Habilitation
· :::~:~ H) Week .
May°f~As'~iEU:ma~:~ ~;~~ti~:~;~:~a~Signating October 14-20, 2001 as Ukiah Valley
Association f°~ ~abii~tion (uV~::~:::::'::~'k in recognition of its 40~' anniversa~, encouraging
pa~icipation in th;~.Awards and Anniversa~ Dinner on October 19, and congratulating the
UVAH:.Board of Dire~0rs, st~ff, and volunteers for their significant contribution to our
community and a job'::~elt~d~ over these last 40 years.
Roy Smit~ ~ecutive~: ~:~ector of UVAH, accepted the Proclamation.
: :. ;:::;
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
4a. RegUi~ Meeting of September 5, 2001
City ClerE~:~J~ila recommended the following corrections to the minutes:
;:la~ paragraph, second sentence should read "Section 2827 requires that electric
util~Eies??~ffer net metering to residential customers who install and operate solar electric
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page ] of 3]
generating facilities of 10 Kilowatts (Kw) or less to their residences."
Page 6: third paragraph beginning with Director Barnes, second to last sentence should
read "He explained that under the Investor Owned Utilities, and SB5x monies and 29x
monies customers under the Investor Owned Utilities are able to receive up to $5~50 per
Kw installed back."
Page 7' second paragraph beginning with Director Barnes, delete the second d~i~al fr0~
all references to monetary value in sentence two.
Councilmember Smith recommended a correction to page 11, eighth ~;~gra~i ihat the
"0" at the end of the sentence be deleted.
M/S Smith/Larson approving the minutes of the Regular ue~i~gof September 5, 2001~
amended; carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Q~"~i=¥~mbers Larson, Smith,
Libby, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABS~: Non~? ABSTAIN: None
5. RIGHT TO APPEAL DECISION
Mayor Ashiku read the appeal process.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR ....
M/S Baldwin/Larson approving items a through e of the C:6~t Caleg~r as follows:
a. Approved Disbursements for Mo. nth of September 2001;
b.
c. Received Report of Acquisition ~?~E:.ive Rep:!~"~ ~9~Uter Systems From Premio
Computer, Inc. in the Amount of
d. Rejected Claim for Damages fr ii:i :i : ii!:i i'arn H. iaucci, and Referred to Joint
Powers Auth~[::~?.~edwood Empir~?~hicipal Insurance Fund;
e. Received:~::B~?::~?:~:pncil Regardi~::,~:;~ub::~::Notification Regarding Vacancies on
Moti~ ~igd by the fg~gg~[9!I call Vg~?AYES: Councilmembers Larson, Smith, Libby,
BaldWin, a~a~Mayor:~i~:~?~::~N~ES:N~e. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None.
fo~:~9: add:::[~ss Council.
9b. AP~al of N~?~evelopment Permit Coordinator Position and Salary
Clas~Eication
City Manag~ Horsley advised that the proposed position would provide technical
assistance::~::~the Building, Planning, and Public Works Depa~ments, for the specific
; ::~::?:pgrpose ~?fa~ilitating and coordinating the permit process, thus eliminating these duties
~mm th~:~ent staffs. The position would replace the now vacant secretarial position that
w~:::::::~O~erly assigned to these depa~ments. This new classification would result in an
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page 2 of
estimated increase to the Planning, Building, and Engineering budgets of approximately
$7,300 each ($21,914 total through the end of the current fiscal year).
M/S Smith/Baldwin Approving "Development Permit Coordinator" job descriptig~;: ~nd
salary classification.
Discussion followed related to how the position would benefit the public wi:[~.~er permit
processing. It was noted by staff that it would be a full time position :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilme~eis Larsonl ~h,
Libby, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSENT: Hone. ABSTAIN: Non~::!:
6:48 p.m. Recessed.
7:00 p.m. Reconvened.
.....................
8. P U B LIC H EAR IN G
8a. Public Hearing Regarding Notificatio~ ~i?~rd of Law Enforcement
Block Grant, Determination of Fund ~i'"i°ca(~=i~!;~!~i?~pP:~val of Budget
Amendment
Police Chief Williams explained that the City of Ukiah's aP~l.i~tion for g[~nt funding, FY
2001/02, from the Federal Bureau=9~ Justice Assistance was =~:~prove~ i~=~?=the amount of
$32,045 with a local City match 9~;?~6~?=~ for a total project awa~ ~:$~,606. The Local
Law Enforcement Block Gran~:~(~B~):~!~:b~used for the Offi~ranscription Project
at a cost of $20,000 and~?;~~=~' ~aining~='~='~~==~===~?~]5,606 the on-going Radio
Communications Improvement Proj. e~,
Public Hearing Opened: 7:02 p.m.
No comments re~i~ ....
ri ~ p.m.
Public Hea ~.
.
M/S Sm~Eh~Larson apPlYing the Office~'nscription Project ($20,000) and Radio
Comm~i~tions Improvement Project ($~'5,606) at a total cost of $35,606 as an
expe~itu~'~ ~9gra~?~=~e~?2~~~l Law Enforcement Block Grant, and approving
amendment ~5~ ~..~01/902 bU~¥~=~creasing revenue in account 207.0900.488.002
(2001/02 grant '~pue) to $32,045, increasing revenue in account 207.0900.905.000
~~l!aneous ~ ~=gue) by $1,061, decreasing expenditures in accounts
2b~~?~;250.000 a~~ ~7~b1.690.000 by $3,000 and $2,000 respectively, increasing
expend~es in account.~=~=~2001.711.000 to $15,606, and increasing revenue in account
698.0900.9~201 to~$~5,606 for Transcription Activities and Radio Communication
Improveme~S~ carried by the following roll call vote' AYES: Councilmembers Larson,
Smith, Libby~Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN'
None.
...... ~U~LIC H EARING
8b~??~:~?=~::~ ?.~:~peal of Planning Commission Denial of Temporary Use Permit No. 01-34:
.
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page 3 of 3
Ukiah Recycle, 1080 Cunningham Street
Associate Planner Lohse advised the Planning Commission considered Temporary Use
Permit No. 01-34 on September 12, 2001, to allow the establishment and operation of an
outdoor recycling center designed to serve as a temporary replacement facility ~fo~ the
recycling center housed in a recently damaged structure on the eastern half of
property. The proposed temporary outdoor facility would allow the recycling~ines§ ~
continue operation until a determination could be made regarding the dame~ ~structurel~
The Planning Commission denied the Use Permit on a 3-2 vote, ba~?~:"~ ~be four
findings made by the Commission referenced on Page 5 of the S~mber'~i 200,1
Planning Commission minutes. The applicant timely appealed the Pl~ing Commi~i~n s
decision to deny the project on September 21,2001.
The proposed site plan has been modified to include a chai~';:li~ ~ence creating a barrier
between the dilapidated building and the outdoor ope~ati~;~"and additional bins would be
added for glass collection. The outdoor recycling op~fibn wo~!¢: be utilized for aluminu~
cans, glass, plastic, metals, and larger recyclabt~:'?~Ebms woUlS:,?i::B~¢t be collected at this
facility. Staff concluded prior to the Planning G~'~i~iCn he~'~i;:~hat a workable plan
had been prepared whereby staff recommende~"appr:~!?,9~;~ Pr~0sed project subject
to various Findings and Conditions of Approval designed~t~!i;i~dress concerns relevant to
the temporary operation as well as the problems existing with;, t~e original :[ecycling center
operation. He noted neighborhood::: property owners expresS~ ~nce~:'the temporary
operation would exacerbate the~,~~g~:ii:,p,[oblems including suc~::i"?~i~~~s as noise, trash
and debris not appropriatel~:~:~i~:i'~':~i~i ~,,,,~,::screening, and~:i?iiack of landscaping
maintenance which was origi~i:~iY~'~i~uired"~'::i~i':i~'~ili~~h~n the Us~':~'~i~'ermit establishing the
recycling operation was apP~:~ved. :::~' :~ii:::::
He noted regarding the appeal consid~ati~:i':: the Plan~i~'g Department has changed its
recommendatio:.~:,t~:~ ~i~port denial of t~i~::~!~::~porary Use Permit based on the concurrent
Planning Com~ii~i'~.~iEi~ings and the f~ that:the site has not been properly maintained
since the :,e~ii~ation ~ Submitted. H~~i ~i~Sized the importance of the applicant
cleaning~maintaining ~ site. He addr~~"the modified Site Plan and noted no major
been ..........Howeve[, "i~,§[allation of a chain fence and increasing the
numb'~r applicant is requesting a 45-day extension
on the Use P~;~i~::iication an'~':'~'~§~:~has provided alterative actions in the Staff Report,
dated October :: :'~:~:~:~i: 2001. He reported staff received several letters supporting
~:.rei~s~tement of t~.~roject:;,:: The applicant is working with the owner of the building to
det~:f~i~e,whether th~:~',~ent building would be renovated or rebuilt. Staff reaffirmed
there h~ ~n project.::~iCations proposed that would be beneficial to maintaining the
site once if~,'~?~!i~ Cleaned;, ~"~h as construction of the fence, placement of portable restroom
facilities an~:::~ecycling bins, and sufficient visual screening.
Public Hea~i~g Opened' 7:15 p.m.
Wayne:~:B~nolds, Ukiah, applicant, clarified he is requesting a 45-day extension to
c~ti"a.~;~:':i~is operation to allow time to improve the property to include construction of a
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page 4 of 3]
wooden or slat fence around the parameters of the operation and placement of recycling
bins to keep material off the ground. He explained that the property owner has agreed to
renovate the building.
n
Councilrnernber E~aldwin inquired regarding the applicant's original letter a d
the recycling center would no longer accept.
Mr. Reynolds explained the operation would no longer accept cardbo~r~i ii~'~i ~iin and/or
other similar materials. The recycling center would accept aluminU~: Cans a~:.~ell as
aluminum siding if appropriately bundled for shipping.
Mr. Lohse noted the neighbors located to the no~h of t e s~a~e not ~o~ive of t~:~
O~un~il~b~r Libby stated the Conditions of :~Sval r~late to maintaining "goo~
neighbor" standards and site improvements to ::~~ a quali~:~:eration. She inquired
whether the applicant would be capable of co~:~l~i:~~ pro~~:: ~roject modifications
within 45 days.
Mr. Reynolds replied affirmatively. He briefly elaborate~?~:~he list o~ improvements
according to priority.
; ......
A brief discussion followed rog t~:~~ ~?~?:~:~aterial and heig~ ~ uirements relevant
to th e p re p o sed new fen ce. :??~:~.~:~:~ ...... ==============:=======:::
: .......... ................ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
City Manager Horsley questioned ~the~~Pplica:~ ~id continue to operate for a
prolonged period of time within the fen:~:~:~::~meters S~ld the prope~y owner elect not
to renovate the exi~i~g::building
Mr. Reyn~]~?::~eplied t~:~?~business coul~~ from cargo containers but he was not
suppo~i~.?~6f this approach:. If the owner e~{ not to repair the building he would make
plans ~:.::~r~l~ate his o ion. ~:::;:~ ~?:
: :: ::::: ::: ::. .~;~ ~ :
Councilmem~:~:~i.~6Y inquired f:~6~:~:':~ public safety standpoint what legal measures
would be impoS~;~:~:~g the owner to demolish and potentially reconstruct the building.
~~p?::~ted the prope~y owner is aware of the pending building
conde~iion procedu~ ::~d this issue would be tentatively agendized as a nuisance
item for a~i~: at a re~alar City Council meeting. He also noted the prope~y owner is
experiencin~l~surance problems in connection with the building. He clarified that the
applicant is ~king approval for the six month original Tempora~ Use Permit in addition to
the 45-day ~ension request. It would be beneficial if the applicant were to clean the site
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:~ ~ithin 45:d~S and noted, should the Tempora~ Use Permit be granted, the operation
::~gl:d ::b~liowed to continue for six months. It was noted the nuisance abatement
p~~?~ould encompass many months and, therefore, reconstruction of the existing
:~: ~: Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page 5 of 3]
building could be delayed for a year.
There was a brief discussion relevant to the actual operation of the recycling business
specifically identifying what materials would be accepted and/or processed.
Public Hearing Opened: 7:15 p.m.
John McCowen, Ukiah, was supportive of the project and stated the bu,:~i~:~ ~rOvides a
necessary service to the community. In his opinion, the recycli~:~ '~Usine~ ~as in
character with the existing neighborhood and was not aestheti~iiy and/or
displeasing. .
Bill Evans, Ukiah, stated it appears the business ha~ :,::~D~':b:~ioperating within the
confines of the prope~y when other businesses in th:~e~ are pr6Perly maintained and:
professionally operated.
Michael Munn, Ukiah, owns a business Iocat~??~D~ the:~j~ and referred to the
recycling business from an aesthetic point of vieW as ~D~:d.''
Lisa Munn, Ukiah, did not favor the initial project when it ~ ~esented ~ the Planning
Commission on September 12,::~:~;::~01, and stated the b:~~::?~?~:~:~:~ not comply
aesthetically with the standards :~?~:~:~eighborhood.
It was noted the project also~~asses ...................................... ~king and tra~i~:::::'::::~ ~::Congestion problems.
John UcCowen stated he has never~D~e~ ~rking an~Circulation problems with the
r e cy c li n g b u sin e s s. ~:::~':
Chris Ruddi~ ~i~ ~ner of prope~ ~D thff~cinity, was not suppo~ive of the project
as the bus~D:~:~: is not a~priately maint~i~e::~??~/or managed allowing the market value
of the exi~i~g prope~ie~ decline.
Councilmemb~ ~mith was not optimistic the prope~y owner would accomplish the
~ :: ~ ::::~:~es~ site im~~en~in compliance with the Conditions of Approval and Ukiah
M:d:~i~i~l ~Code with['~?~:?~::~he~:~i~ month period. He favored approval of the six month
~:~Cation to allow for continued operation but encouraged the
Tempo¢~:~::~se Permit ,
applicant t~?~:~?~gin Ioo~i~' for an alternative site as soon as possible.
City Manag~:.:Horsley advised staff would closely monitor the recycling operations to
ensure confOCmity with the provisions of the Conditions of Approval and the Code
::~quirem~D~Should the Council approve the Tempora~ Use Permit application.
T~e~:~e~s a brief discussion regarding appropriate parking accommodations.
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page 6 of 3~
Councilrnember Baldwin inquired regarding the provisions outlined in Condition of
Approval No. 5 and whether the applicant was already in operation.
Mr. Lohse reported the applicant's business is still in operation and it is the
procedure for the applicant to be allowed to continue operation while going:t~:~:~Ugh
Use Permit process.
Councilmernber Baldwin inquired as to how and when approvai:~ ~:~:~:id b;::~?~ined
regarding the outdoor operation. ~' ¥~:?i?:~i~i:::~.:.~
Mr. Lohse replied that the original Condition as submitte~i ~ould allowed
Planning Department the opportunity to inspect the site~::':~:applicant was ready.
Staff changed its recommendation on the premise that~.'~:~:ppropri~te changes were not:
adhered to in accordance with the proposed Site Pla~'.:~ ~tandards submitted.
Councilmember Baldwin questioned regardi~?:~ition :N~:~::?.?~::: as to whether the
applicant would be allowed to operate until the~:::::'~lanni~ and: ~::~bli~:'::Works DepaAments
inspect and approve the site.
Mr. Lohse noted it could continue operate if the project sit~::~[es~S with the Use
Permit application and the ite plans. Staff woui~?~i~er changing the
wording relevant to Cond ',ific time perio~:.::~ established for the
applicant to be in com Site ~: :: :~
Councilmember Smith inquired ab~:the;~bn inte[~p~t~tion of Condition No. 5 and
whether the Use Permit could be issu~! ~~e immedi~ly whereby the six-month time
period would a?9~:~:~i~. He fu~her :i~::~::red if the a~plicant chose to shut down the
operation while~i~~ng the projec~dific~tions to comply with the 17 Conditions of
Approval, .if ~:~b six-mon~?~eriod would b~in ~:a:~6:n staff's prope~y inspection?
Mr. ~~ replied affir~~!~::, as word~d: ~?~he Condition with the exclusion of a specific
date~:' ~t::w~ ~9~ed the~ ~i~i~ ~9~ ~en operating in compliance to the Site Plans as
originally su6~~ ~e busin'~:'~"'::~?~ever ceased to operate.
::::::::::::::::::::::
~~llmember ~ in inggired whether a reasonable time frame could be incorporated
........... i'n:{~:~~i~ion No. 5 ~ ~;~:~licant to be inspected and approved.
Mr. stum~ ~ted reg~;~ng Condition No. 5, the City Council possesses the option to
approve the ~mpora~ Use Permit for six months by speci~ing an action date or advising
the applicant~:~ is not operating in an outdoor fashion according to the standards provided
for in the Sit~::::;:~:'lans and that if the Temporary Use Permit were approved, there would be a
:~:::~:::six month~::?~riod to fully comply with the Code and Conditions of Approval for the
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page ? of 3 ]
Mayor Ashiku proposed Council approve the Temporary Use Permit for six months to
operate the recycling business temporarily to include compliance with the project
Conditions allowing staff the opportunity to make the appropriate assessment relevant to
determining whether a permanent Use Permit is justified in the future as well as~tQ ~allow
time to determine the fate of the existing building.
Councilmember Libby expressed concern that the applicant would be un~i~:i~0 meet the
required project conditions within 45 days.
M/S Libby/Smith approving Temporary Use Permit No. 01-34, that:~"~: 17 ConditiS~S of
Approval be met within a 45 day time period to begin immediately, inclUS:i~g ~he findin~t0
support the approval of the Use Permit as indicated in th.9?:~:!~9Ding C6~mission St~ff
report, and that staff will regularly inspect the site an~ ~i~:~b ~¢mpliance of the 17
Conditions of Approval
Mr. Reynolds stated he understands that all 17 Ge~ii~.ions of A~roval must be met within
45 days and he would be able to construct the:.':~~i i~plem~?;~.new recycling bins,
and clean the site during that time. ' ........... .....
Mr. Stump noted noncompliance of the above-referenceS'~"~:~ditions wj~bin the 45-day
period would constitute grounds ~9~ revocation and, theref°~i ~he r~ation process
would begin as outlined in the U~ ~i~ipal Code.
Councilmember Larson c~e~ on t~'~:'~:~!i~~i~,i,:~d inquir~!:'Whether approval of a
Temporary Use Permit for t6e outd~r establis~i~::~i~iii~ai[di ~reclude the existing Major
Use Permit. :?'~, ? ............ ?:' .........
Mr. Stump repli:9~?~i'~i~ ively and noteai~'b existing Major Use Permit is still valid.
Councilm~'er Lars&~ ~°ted the Plan~ii~.~mission possesses the authority, when
necess~i~ ~fo proceed :~h revocation 9~i,::~::~::'~,i~?~ajor Use Permit and inquired whether
revo~~ P~oceedin? i~,::!,~,~:::~:~ave a~y~::~ffect or bearing on the operation under the
Mr, Stump repli~ ~:~,gatively and noted once the six months has lapsed the Temporary
is no I~':'~[valid
There WaS,'::e:brief discu~i~h relevant to a good neighbor policy and staff noted the City
does not ~ : an offici~i~';~olicy.
Councilrne~r Larson addressed the negative visual impacts the business has imposed
on the neigb~rhood, but noted the nature of the business provides an untidy appearance.
:He stated ~! business provides a vital service to the community and its operation should
':~ntinuei ~°mpliance with the Conditions of Approval is important with visual screening a
~i~! ~e stated part of the problem associated with the business is the unwillingness of
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page 8 of 3]
the property owner to assist the tenant in making improvements to the existing structure
and other business related necessities. He suggested utilizing the 45-day period by
cleaning the area to meet the prioritized Conditions of Approval and to develop a plan
whereby a written commitment would be made by the property owner to redeveigP the
property for the tenant or alternatively, create a plan assisting the tenant with rel
business. He recommended the Planning Commission or City Council revieW:.~,i~proJ~;
in 45 days relevant to a progress report and development plan.
There was discussion relative to potential liability issues in conjunc~!~?~ith thD'~:e×isting
condemned building and it was determined the new fence, as refer~Oed on the:'~iSed
Site Plan, would created a buffer between the business and :.the bui:i~Di~g~::Althoug~: ~°t
conditioned, the buffer exists on the Site Plan and, therefore, i~ ...... ~,a¢ of the ~rOject. The ci~
Building Inspector requires a buffer between 20 and 25 f:~ ~:'~:~i':~temented.
Mayor Ashiku stated the buffer should be implementS8 immediately to avoid potential
safety hazards.
It was not known whether the subject building P~:SseS~'~ el~i~al ~wer and staff would
verify this issue.
Councilmember Baldwin commented on the importance of sU~ing .p~i~e enterprises.
Motion carried by the ~,:::?.,,,AYES: Council~6:~rs Larson, Smith,
Libby, Baldwin, and Mayor ~i'kd~i~:i i NOES'?~"~i ~.ENT: N~:~i ABSTAIN: None.
9. NEW BUSINESS :~ii': ',:i? ............
9a. ~nd Possible Ad~,e~ ~::a Miti. :Ne_qative Declaration for the
HulI-Piffem:~:'.iS~bdivision and O~':~errnit Pr~)j~'ct -
Planning Dir ~:'~:~~@ advised th~:~?: ~[oposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was
prepared ~,.~::~::e Hull/Pi~0 five-parcel S~:.~i~i~n and Use Permit project on a 40-acre
parcel i~:,.~i~Western hil S~e area. The proj~?iihvolves the construction of a single-family
home ~ :~:~e~of the p~¢i~.a:n:d a Use B::e'~'it for the legalization of unauthorized grading
and ~:'~st'~ti~, actL~ii~ ~i~'~red on the property. The Public Hearing focuses
on the appr~i~~s of the:~:::"~'~ii~d Negative Declaration; whether it adequately
identifies potentf~l~;:~:~ignificant environmental effects and whether such effects can be
~ig~e.d. The me~¢ ~fthe Subdivision and Use Permit would be noticed separately for a
fUt~ 8i,8¢retionary :~iggi ;'"i:::: The City Council must discuss the proposed Mitigated
Negati~ ~¢laration a~ 8~ermine if it adequately identifies potentially significant adverse
environment! impact~i?~nd decide if the proposed mitigation program adequately
eliminated t~!~:!:impacts or reduces them to a point whereby no significant effects would
occur. If the?;~buncil is unable to make this finding based upon the Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative DeDi~ration, comment letters, Response to Comments and other project related
:.; ~ocumen~i0ns/records; it must require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report
(EIB)
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page 9 of $]
He briefly elaborated on the project background and stated an enforcement action was
taken on this project in 1998 relevant to unauthorized grading activity whereby the
appropriate requisite permits were applied for. He stated the project evolved to include a
subdivision with the intent to build a home on one of the lots. Staff reviewed the pro~$ed
project and after the preparation of an Initial Study determined there would be
significant environmental effects. Staff was unable, at that time, to identi~?~;~ufficie~!
mitigation measures to pursue a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and there~9~.i~eguired the
preparation of an EIR. In response, the applicants revised the proje~'~bst ~Otably to
reduce the height of structures, to maintain a ce~ain color palate fO;~::~i~ e~eri~of the
buildings, and to develop/propose fire protection mitigation measure~;,~ey also suBdUed
additional technical information, a Visual Quality Analysis, and 8dditio~I ~e~otechnical/sSil
information whereby staff reviewed the information and co~¢~ed ther~'~re mitigati°~
measures that staff could identi~, which is the reason fo(~'.;'~:~'6~'~8~d Mitigated Negative
Declaration. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was p~e~ted for ¢Sblic review and it was
sent to the State Clearinghouse for distribution~ ~(ate gad federal agencies, the
Depa~ment of Fish and Game, and the Depa~me~ ~ ForestrY??~ere were no comments
made in response from any agency except the:?~:~8~iso Co~...Blanning Depa~ment
during the required 30-day review period. H~ note8: ~ ~ere many a~iculate and
meaningful comments received from the public focusi~;~.~.~:...a wide range of potential
impacts that included water runoff/drainage, soil instabil~,;~.~..~¢ter qualitY, vegetation
removal, gro~h inducement, trafficgeneration, as well as othC'~?;~!Sted?;~bntial impacts.
Staff reviewed and responded.;~.~:~;~~:;;?~;~Dmments relevant to '~ ~osed Mitigated
Negative Declaration whereb~~::;~¢'~'~8iS~,~?,:;~,,,,,;~itigated Nega~b~?~eclaration still was
appropriate for the project~:~::~?;:~:~e~:.~!anning'O~~i:~n revie~b~ the information and
conducted a lengthy public hearing ~arding t ~.~.:~'~'~;~'~:~:~'~'?~:'~'~ ~'~ .....
~'"O~e ?,::M~gated Negative Declaration
on September 26, 2001, whereby [~ Co~:i~'Sion c~.8i~'~Sed the Mitigated Negative
Declaration did not successfully eval~e,~;;:~:,~;:~ll the imp~t~ and that the accompanying
mitigated measu~e?~i~,:not sufficientl~ ~8:dress the impacts proposed. The Planning
Commission:,:~.~;~~t~ voted to r~m:~;~d that the City Council require the
p eparati0~:~f ~n EI R
· :~ :: ~ :,~ ~ :,: ~ :,~ :~:,~ :, ~:~
He re,elated the Cit~'~.~DM,8.~:il. must,¢i~:'~ss and consider the Mitigated Negative
Decl~ti°~?;;: ~8~: de~i~;~~('~:~?,~?.~ ~n be adopted for the project based upon its
independent jS~~"i and the ~'~8::~'information submi~ed. If the Council determines
that the Mitigate~';;:~egative Declaration is not adequate, it must require the preparation of
~ ~':::EtR. He repo~eS~.;e of the main Planning Commission issues was the geology of the
:~i~:'~::':~'~;":~e was testi~~..~;~ing the Planning Commission hearing from a registered
engine~?:geologist ~~:~sing concern regarding the adequacy of the Geotechnical
Studies, t~ ~etential f~:~ebris slides, and that other potential events on the prope~y were
not satisfaCtOrily addressed in the geotechnical information submi~ed. The applicants
submi~ed a~::~ional information addressing the above-referenced concerns to the City
Counoil.
:~ ~ :
~:nci!~:mber Baldwin inquired whether staff was challenging the Planning
C~i~i~°n's unanimous decision.
:' ;:: ~?:~ ~: ~ R e g u la r M e e tin g
October 17, 2001
Page ~0 of 31
Mr. Stump replied staff believes the Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately identifies
the significant environmental effects potentially caused by the project and that the
mitigation measures successfully offset those impacts and, therefore, was supporti~:?~0f the
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Oouncilmember Baldwin inquired regarding page 52 of the Initial Stu~ ~ether staff
consulted with City Manager Horsley about the Mitigated Negative
Mr. Stump replied that he keeps the City Manager informed of the :'~:~Ms of all P~Sj~¢ts,
and that she did not make any recommendation regarding the ~sted Neg~ti~ :
Declaration or project merits ....
Tom Brigham, Ukiah, applicant representative,:~ ~.~d~essed::~:~e written and oral
comments relevant to the project and stated a legal f~!§': is ne~ssary for this proceedingi
He stated the proceeding is concerned with appr~l:~:igf a Mitig~t~ Negative Declaration
and not the project merits. He reported praj~:::~:'!~Panent ~~ents and Planning
Commission discussion concentrated heavily 0~the ~:~::~itsi:~ ~e stated the project
opponents do not favor hillside development of any type.:::::~::':~::~:Subject property is zoned R-
1whereby residential, one-acre parcels could be approve~;:~h:~there i~::::nothing in the
Hillside Zoning Ordinance to prohibit the project. However, aP:~i I o[:::~i~pproval of the
project is not the subject of this p:e~~[,,~hearing. He addressed'::~i~:Ues proposed by
the public opponents and th~: ~i~i~'::~':i?:~~i~ion, which inclu~ ~ii~imed illegalities by
the applicants, matter of ~ii~i~¥~e~:'?~.,~tudies"'~::~:'~'~:~ ~~:~billside ~i:nances, and alleged
potential enforcement problems. H~i,,i~0nsidere~?~~:~O~:be.?:hon-issue items. He first
addressed the applicant illegalities a~or leg~i~tion of C~'~ih unauthorized activities and
stated this issue pertains to approvai~:.~f~i?~:~,,,~i!i~e Perm~!::::::~'hich is not the subject of this
hearing. The o~]?~e~ion of this issue~:~:~i~e reviewed by Council is whether the above-
referenced ac~i~'~?:'ii~e environment~i:~.~:i:~pact$. He stated the unauthorized activities,
the measur~:::?~'he appli s took to corr:~:t~ ~ctivities, and staff's response to those
correctio~?~hould be di~:ssed and clarifi~i~?~he property was purchased in 1998 and
the aP~ii~s cleared repai.r~i~::"~ulverts and placed shale on the road in an
effo~ to i~Ov~ '~ that time, it was the applicants' intention to
subdivide the ~iiii:a¢~¢:: Parcels i~8~':~ 20-acre parcels for each family, Hull and Piffero,
and construct t¢8'~?~;Omes on each of the two 20-acre parcels. Vegetation was cleared to
:~,:~.:~. ~ Breperty in adS~i~ :to the: road improvements and this work should be distinguished
fro~'::~eiiSlearing acti:~i~s::.,::~ a neighboring property owner. Water sources had to be
establi~Si:.~rior to app i':~¥or construction of the proposed homes. A water supply was
located an~'~'?~e well ~::'~rilled after securing a permit. It was connected to a temporary
water storag~';:;:,~ank whereby staff halted the activities at that time. The Hillside Zoning
Ordinance P~ides that a permit must be secured for any construction or grading. He
::~.questioned~:~ether placement of a temporary storage tank on the property constitutes
~:~ ¢onstructi. o,~:?~:~nd stated that grading encompasses the moving of 50 cubic yards or more of
~h. ~;~e~:applicants put in a telephone line whereby staff believed trenching activity had
0~:,(~ii but in actuality, the line was plowed into the road. Staff may not presently view
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page 11 of 31
this procedure as grading activity. He conceded the other activities associated with the
land improvements did result in the moving of more than 50 cubic yard of earth thus
requiring a permit. It was his understanding that removal of shrubs and clearing not
involving grading does not require a permit. He noted the activities that had th~,,?~blic
interested and/or upset, did not require a permit. A permit was necessary for th9 WOrk
improvements, however the applicants were not aware of this requirement;:
He addressed the second non-issue to include the concept that shQ~i!~':th~::: ~r~ject be
allowed to proceed it would establish precedence or that the projec~:~?~:~ld
n0~ i~eed
until the hillside study is completed, and/or until a future undefined::"Ni!!!~ide Ordin~:~i~ is
adopted. The problem with this approach is that the applicants appli'~::~.f::or subdiVi~i~
approval under the existing law and therefore possesses~:~:~tegal ri~ to have th~i~
application processed under the existing law and not a fu:~ ~¥~t may be retroactively
applied to their project. He fu~her addressed the third ~9~ ssue cO::~cerning enforcement
and noted whether the mitigations could not occur D~use ~ty staff could not enforce
them is a speculative argument. This hearing~;~ompasS~;~:~:?hether the Mitigated
Negative Declaration identifies all of the signifi~::~:~i~0nm~D~i~:~ects that may occur
and whether they are either avoided or mitigat~:d to ~?~:~iD~:~:~he:~ they are no longer
significant by the mitigation measures. The foundation f0:~i~:~determination can be found
in the CEQA guidelines, specifically outlined in section l~O~?ems E~.:and F5. The
determination whether an EIR is re:g:uired is contingent upon ~~er :~ is substantial
evidence before the agency t::~i ~::~:~:::.::~:~oject may have a ~i~t effect on the
environment and not on whetb~.~.~.~::~::~::~:~?~:~?:~.~:~b~:i~::~:controversy ove~::.~issue. Evidence of
significant impacts dictates ~ ~parati~:::'~:::~::~f:?;~:~;~!R. ~he ::~idelines provide that
argument, speculation, unsU~stanti~ narrati ~'~i:;~i~:~;;?;:;~:~e~Bence clearly inadequate or
erroneous or evidence not creditabl~ ~ball ~ ~nstitut~ ~8;~:Stantial evidence to include
facts, reasonable assumptions predi~ ~;~n facts, ~'expe~ opinions supposed by
facts. He stated. :he Planning C~:~ission publi~ hearing, speaker Julie Bawcom
was not a lio~ and that he::~;:~;~pinies::s, speculations, and/or conclusions are
"riddled wi~b~:;fabtual ~nac~ac es. He nO(88..~8;:~r the CEQA guideline her commentary
could not::::::bb considered?:~ substantial e~:~e, Staff reviewed the standard areas of
possi:~:i~:~:;:~ir~onmental:::~~:~.:::.and specifi~lly identified some of those potential effects.
Staff~h¢~':~9~¢d ~,9~:??;~f~?,~~ ~~ial environmental effects could be eliminated or
reduced to i~i~;~i~t levels B:~'~"~':':(~::'~'~"::'~itigation measures. He noted there are some
differences bet 9;~what staff and the public opponents have identified as potential
~i~~nt environmental e~:ects. The issue is whether the potential significant
........ ~:'~'~i~~St effects ~,::~n successfully mitigated. The applicants have submi~ed
profesS[8~l repo~s enCOmpassing substantial evidence on the project issues.
Mr, Brigha~::~tated his clients would indemni~ the City against any legal costs it may
incur relevant;~:~o legal liability for the a~orney's fees of others in connection with a legal
challenge ta~;~: approved Mitigated Negative Declaration. He addressed the visual impact
:~' :; ::~!~sues no~i~;'~'Mr. Benke is a vew qualified and credible geotechnical engineer.
~ ~~ noted the minimum lot size for a R-1 Hillside Zoning District depends upon the
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page 12 of 3~
slope of the ground and stated a 10,000 square foot lot would be acceptable provided the
ground is level. A larger lot is required as the ground becomes steeper.
Councilmember Larson inquired whether there are a specific number of parcel sizes ~hat
could be obtained.
Mr. Stump replied that the parcel sizes vary.
Councilmember Larson inquired regarding the geotechnical report::,~?~ad de~i~Pment
and noted there was no reference to this issue by Attorney Brigham!~?~
Mr. Brigham replied staff characterized this issue as minor,~ ~velop~i~ht, but he h~
no knowledge as to the extent of pad development,
Councilmember Baldwin inquired as to the natu:[~:i~i~f ~ork ~l?vant to the Communi~:
Development Agency in Marin County, ~::~'~:~:~::':::~:~:~:::'~':'
"::~::~ :,~ ~ ~ ~ ~::~ ~, .... =================================================
Mr, Stump replied the aforementioned agency Was co'~ ~?~:d stated the agency title is
misleading as it was actually the former Planning ~:~:~:~Community Development
Depa~ment considered to be the Marin County Planning D~ment,
Councilmember Baldwin inqui~?~:~gr the agency was eve~ :~lbyed to oppose a
development project, ~:~:.~::::?~:~ ~ ~ ~:~':~:~'~?:~?~:~ .......
Mr. Stump had no knowledge and ~ted Mr. ~ :~ ably answer this question.
Henry Benke, applicant's geotechn'i~:~::~::~::~;~i:neer fro~:~?~'isual Impact Analysis, stated
his business spg~!~ in environme~] :'graphics whereby the applicants hired him to
prepare a visB~:~~i~::~f the propose~;?:?~[ojec~;~::~::He stated his firm has prepared data in
oppositioq:::~ ~: project. ~::::::~e provided a c~:~p:~:~ generated 3-D visual quality analysis
ove~ie~:~0:m data prodUCed from an AutO~B?:soffware program. This program allowed
inform~ti~?L:~ubject to::~:~~:[~.quiremg~:~:to be evaluated and/or project information
utlllzmg' ' d~g:~a!?:!~ag~:Dg~O:~:~:~le~te~i~S:~i~fo' ' ~::~ ......... ' rmatlon. .... The demonstration provided a vane~
of views fro~:~~:: ~antage ~~:~?~king into consideration the vicinity of the homes
relationship to s~:~Unding vegetation in ceAain locations, the actual residential distribution
pe for the sit, in terms: of design/size/color, projected land visual images at build-
out~;:'~i~ terrain i~Dg~ Ahd other peAinent digital imaging necessa~ in identi~ing,
project.:: ~ drawing ~6~i~sion regarding significant visual impacts subject to CEQA
requiremeA~according:~:~to the project plans. He addressed the distance considerations
and stated:~s software adequately incorporates this data and defines the scale
propoAionat~l~ from the project plans.
::::::::::::::::::::::
::::;.:~::~0uncilm~ber Baldwin questioned the software's ability to depict depth and size of
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page ]3 of 3]
Mr. Benke stated visual images regarding depth and size are affected on the software by
elevation variances of the sites depicted for comparison purposes. Therefore, the actual
distance from the homes is not perceived as a straight lateral distance due to incline in
elevation. He stated the viewer is used to perceiving a horizon line as if it were a pe~ectly
flat surface.
Recessed' 10:00 p.m.
Reconvened' 10:18 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 10:18 p.m
William French, Ukiah, questioned Attorney Brigham's asse ant of the'~0ject and held'
the Attorney responsible of possibly biasing the Coun~i!!i,,~::~,~:~::':'~:::~ not oPposed to the
project, but favored the concept of implementing an Ei!.~i~'i~:~S in hiS::"bpinion; many issues::
have not been appropriately mitigated. He recom~:~'ded an independent review b~
implemented.
Mayor Ashiku stated audience comments should refl~t?i~:~:~:~!,:~dequaCies of the Mitigated
Negative Declaration.
Gerald Keiffer, Ukiah, favored the,~ull/Piffero project and stat~e ~l~ibants intend to
ty ~;~ ~?~ g th ..... ~'::~~' o
presage the natural beau ~a creatin e least f impact and
f ~ ~j~ ~meat D~ fly
recommended approval o ed Negative ation. He brie
summarized some of the 8~:'~:'~:i~9 ~?~:~:~~ ~y the a6 ilc
vem ~::::~:~:: ants and noted the
ia ~d t b~JO ~:~:~?:~?:~Oti~abl y fl
proposed homes are des n o w profile ~ e from the valle ocr.
Laura Flogg, Ukiah, expressed her ~?:~?~i~:~the proc~:~of municipal government and
stated the Plan:~i~:g~:~mission did ~ a unanimous recommendation that an EIR
would be requi~:~~y there should~:~ full..c~onsideration.
David ~treth, Ukia~ ~e~ified engine~:~:'::geologist, stated he favored the concept of
gradiD~:~::~:~::hillsides ~i~[:=egulato~ guj~::~J"ines. In his review of the geological and
geot~ni~j~epo~8~?~~ ~:~~~is hazards analysis was inadequate. He utilized
technical ter~i~y~:~:to substanti~J~:::~=his argument against the analysis regarding free
flowing debris. H~?~?~uppo~ed implementing an independent firm and/or ce~ified geologist
t0 ~pp[opriately ac~ the"factor of safety" for grading on the site. He expressed
that eleva~¥~ ~:ef:~0und water levels in the swales along with increased water
pressur~?:::~d material in~:~Jh~:~e swales could create the potential for debris flow. A public
safety haZ~d?~::develoP~?~hen the potential for debris and/or mudslides exist.
Mayor Ashi~ stated Mr. Longstreth's testimony was in opposition to the project expe~
analysis and ............. J~quired whether there were actual identifiable issues proposed regarding the
~ project that~buld potentially be hazardous to development in the hillside.
M~::~Streth replied the consultant for the applicant proposed drainage into the swales
...............
............ :
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page
that could be potentially dangerous as landscaping is altered to allow for the home pads.
He was concerned with the potential slide hazards associated with the development of on-
site sewage systems and associated leach fields. He recommended further analysis with
on-site sewage systems and accompanying percolation tests located near potentia!~les
ensuring appropriate mitigation measures would be implemented to prevent the ~0~§'i,~il~
of mud slides. He noted projects require a quantitative analysis and or standsrd:.~'VeloP~
to act as a tool allowing regulators to make appropriate decisions. He::: 9nced the
grading issue requiring a "factor of safety" figure for the site to avoid the :~'(i~:,i'::.fer future
debris flow and/or mudslides
Julie Bawcom, Ukiah advised that she spoke at the Planning CommiSSion hearing'~::d
her testimony is specifically detailed in the September 26~,;;::.i.~9~: minU~i', She has~
Masters Degree in geology encompassing post graduate~::':i6'::~'~;:~9ineering geology and
is a registered geologist as well as a certified enginee~i~:~i~i':~eologi'§fl~ She briefly outlined.:
her 15 years of professional experience relevant::~f;:::~.~'bbris flew and mud slides. She
reported licensed engineering geologists are qua!i~? evalua~ gD.otechnical reports and
bedrock material that deal with septic systems~ ::;",~':~i~;~$ition reinhart to the project was
neutral, but noted the project possess certain mSdslid:~:::i~S/~°ncb'rns. She provided a
cursory review of the geotechnical reports and identified':'~',:;:~i~ential public safety hazard
that, in her opinion, has not been appropriately addres¢~:!~,:~:,:::She re~mmended an
independent review be implementD,:~,~:: as City staff does not e~:~p~ ~'e expertise to
evaluate the geotechnical inforrn~iiiS~i';i.:wbich is standard practic~::.~i;~?:::~:er municipalities
She was one of the authors o~',~:~!',~?,'~?La '~$!:!~es:.and Engineering :~::~'logy in the Western
Hills in Central Mendocino::~nt~!!i?~i':~hat in"~i~'~ ~?,~:Ddslide R~ard Map. This study
encompassing a slope stabili{Y anai~iS was ~?~b~kground data for future site-
specific studies. She stated the p~:~j~¢t has ~:t provi'~ ~r a detailed slope stability
analysis. She drew attention to the ':~tD,.~ii~'l for deb~!~:~low hazards that exist on the
hillside and slop~i~t~::and in her opi~,i~::, were not appropriately addressed. She noted
there are one,~:~:~i~:'::':'::~i~:~everal minor alii~ium filled swales that descend from the home
sites. She:: d some df~i~he minor alluvid~ ~it!~?~wales are more serious than the deeper
in-sized ~:~nels becau~ ~hey do not ac~i::i'~te alluvium, as there is enough water to
wash~ ~,. She ad~i~ tbe~e may ~ §~:?:::"~ problem associated with the project, but the
repo~ d° ~bt ::appropri~i~::~~:~i~ issue and, therefore, recommended the initiation
of an on-site:i~~ent revie~:::~{~::;:'ili~espond with this particular issue.
~,:MonPere, U~i~ili~tated~:during his long time residency on the west side of Ukiah, he
the re~i~i?,~ western hill slides. It was his opinion after reviewing the
geoteC~;~;~!:.:report thai,i~i?'i~ity does not have adequate information to address the debris
flow issue~'.!I ,~e recom~e;~ded the approval of a project EIR that would address potential
mudslide is§~s in the western hills.
David Nels6~i~; Ukiah, stated it is obvious the proposed project would have an impact on
· e weste~:~::;:?~h'ills and, in his opinion; the project has not been sufficiently mitigated. He
~ed ~ ~isting road presents an obvious visual impact in addition to the, visual impacts
t~?:i~;:::::~ei~ted by the hillside development. He drew attention to Mr. Benke s presentation
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page 15 of 31
and stated as a person drives up Perkins Street, it would be a large impact to view five
homes in the western hills. He noted the project would be the first subdivision in the hills
and expressed concern relevant to the potential visual cumulative effect should all the
parcels be subdivided and developed. He stated this important aspect has not,::~en
appropriately mitigated whereby an El R would examine other alternatives in
out and the resulting visual impacts. He did not favor approving projects on,~'! ~'rcel'bY~: :;
parcel basis and that the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration does not adSress long-
term effects.
Igor Zbitnoff, Ukiah, stated the focused FIR recommended by the Pi~Di. ng Com~i~iDn
would appropriately address the issues of light/noise/visual i~pacts, 'bSiid:~out potential;
land stability, and fire protection. He recommended proceedi~:~ith a foS;8:~ed FIR noti~
the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration does no~:::,,S~"~:i'~:,~t!~: addreSs the issues
referenced above in an effort to preserve the delicacy.~D~?ffagility 6fthe western hills. He
noted a focused FIR would ensure an effective steW~d§~ip of t~e western hills and urged
appropriate action by the Council in this endeave~!~:':::;~.~
Scott Bassani, Ukiah, was supportive of the P~ject ~!?i'~;~:~9~en~d the applicants for
the care and maintenance of the western hills relevant t6?,~.proposed project.
Chamise Cubbison, Ukiah, expres~ed concern regarding th~i~:~~tial,~::~mudslides and
substantiated her position with e ~s:::9~ such occurrences wh'~!~i~i~iAr developments
have taken place and noted tb~ ~g?,?,i',~ mgdslides in the w~~ hills. She was not
opposed to the project, but?~ ~!~r~ed c0:~i~ ~at;:~ot enou~i~:'?information has been
formulated to allow the proje~{ to pr~d withoutli~:~&~iate ~itigation measures in place.
Terry Poplawski, Ukiah, noted the ~p~ Mitigatea~:i::Negative Declaration does not
adequately add:[,~iiiiiii:~b~:, potential enVii~:mental effects the project may create, and,
therefore sup ~"~'~i'~?~ii'~!~concept of i~:'~i~ting :::,an EIR to further review grading, fire
protection,, ~:'many °{~iproject issue~i~p~.
Phyl!ii~ ~is, Ukiah,:.:~, ed::subdivisio~n ~?;~[he west hills is inconsistent with the Ukiah
Gen~I ~:i:'~ :and S~~ ~?~i~at~ent with Findings. She expressed concern
whether proC ai:n ~:i~h the pr~j~{i~::i~:~ld set precedence for future hillside development
in the City and ::~i~y:: in, the event the County adopts the Ukiah Valley Wide Plan. She
~ed..to the C:~::::s Pl~:nning Department comments stating that allowance for
exceptio~:~?: ~h~i~ be carefully evaluated. She stated clustering, which is
encour~:,by the Ukia~ ~:,~eral Plan, should be considered as the single most important
mitigatio~::~asure in:,~Ucing impacts to a number of areas. She stated maintaining
adherence t'~; Bitigation measures after project approval and construction would be difficult
to enforce. ~ was concerned with the City's ability to effectively monitor the 41 existing
:mitigation m~:Sures. She drew attention to the City's initial inability to effectively monitor
:';:::~::~p~st una~:~h:~'.~ized hillside activities causing land erosion and mud to slide into Gibson
~:;~eek.
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page id of 3]
John Hiller, Ukiah, supported the Hull/Piffero Mitigated Negative Declaration and stated
the applicants have taken the necessary measures ensuring the project would carefully
and appropriately be developed.
Joan Herman Ukiah, did not favor the project noting the natural beauty of th~ ~iii~ide
would be disturbed by the development
John McCowen, Ukiah, stated he has experience with visual impacts QDi':::~ ~Stern hills
and noted the visual presentation tended to minimize the project p~i~,~ii:y with:'~:¢~rd to
vegetation removal and whether the visual display actually repre§~.~e:d the
visual impact a person would see on the hills from the valley flgor. He '~~ssed concern:
relevant to the visual presentation that there was no consid~ation fo~:~iveways anB
access cuts and the associated removal of vegetation, ::~:b d the project would
represent a significant visual impact and will change the ~Pearanee of the western hills.
Jan Moore, Ukiah, commended Mr. Hull for givi,~g ~r a tour ~ the area and expressed
concern relevant to the safety of the hillsides i:~?~e~:f~??;~9~::fire ~?:~dslide potential and
noted the recommended focused EI R would ad:dress:~i~:B~;~,;~f~?'~ydr010gy, geotechnology,
water/drainage, air quality, and noise issues. She recom~~d a peer review as well as
additional project studies be implemented.
Ga~ Bassani, Ukiah, questione~ ~~8:~. other similar project~:::~ development
have been subjected to as m:~;;~'¥~ ~;~be Hull/Piffero p~aj~:~:: He addressed the
problems associated with la~8~:'~:id~'~.~,:that o~:~~ ;;:,~t;:::~b:e southe~:'end of the county and
elaborated on the reasons f~::~ thoS~roblems~.:?:~'~ ~,~"::::;~~?~Velopment should not be a
problem in the western hills provided~'~: apB~:~te en~j~;~i:ng measures are applied to
the project. ........ :~.~: ........
Robe~ We[ra~'~::;.::'~'~ ~S a home in t~ ~est.~::~ills in a City approved older four home
minor sub~,~i~:::'i~n an~::'~::~;~d geology expels were hired to access the
develop~:~ prior to c~'ruction of his ~';~'"~':" He stated no EIR was required for the
subdi~i~i~?:::;::::a:nd the Commi~iS;~":::::accepted the geologist repo~s. He briefly
addr~Sed~,;~bo~,,~,,~,~,=.,~,,,::~::;:.~,::; ........ concerns and noted his home has been in
existence for::~='~::~;;~afS and been no problems associated with the site. He
~tated the real P::~!em confronting the project is not the fact the public does not have faith
i~ ~:~:.~ecisions a~::~ ~lemeDting mitigated environmental documents, but that it does not
Al Beltra~:~i~:~kiah, st~::~ as an alternative approach, a corporation oould be formulated
to purchase ~rcels for those people not desiring western hill development or to allow the
City to purchase the development rights. He noted City staff has had sufficient time to
review the ~ject in detail and noted the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is the
: :~:~::~swer to ~::Perceived problems. He noted view shed, housing, and private prope~y are
~:~i~~a~::.~:~:~ements to be considered during the decision making process.
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page ]? of 3 ]
Ross Liberty, Ukiah, stated there is a correlation between disallowing subdivisions and an
increase in housing prices and rents elsewhere in the area, noting supply and demand
affect housing prices. Housing prices are high in this community and there exists a cause
and effect relationship between high local housing costs and an overly restrictive Planning
Commission.
Mayor Ashiku informed the audience they should focus on the environ~~l studies,
which is the focal point of the hearing.
Robert Clark, Ukiah, supported the merits of the project and recommended appr
the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Carrie Brown, Ukiah, recommended care and appropriate, i~i~ ~ exerciSed in terms
the agricultural constituents associated with the project; ~,iis~e recoghized the necessity for
affordable housing in this community, but at the sa~i~!~i~ con~ideration must be given to
preservation of valley land. There is not a Iot~'~:~6fi~i',~lat land ~ housing development
remaining and, therefore, hillside development i~ ~ ~propriat~ ~:~Proach.
Mark Edwards, Redwood Valley, stated he is a forest ~~!tant and prepared a repo~
along with the assistance of a licensed biologist and bot~==~:Pe~aining to the issue of
vegetation manipulation for fire ~ppression. The studY~h~lud~=~the proposed
subdivision is not likely to result)~ ~i~i~nt adverse impacts t~iidi~b="or the biological
resources evaluated. He pre~~?~=~'~;~ ~~==ation of desig~ ~~ards be applied to
the proposed homes in te~:~°f:~:~n-com~i~:~:~?~?~nd/or fire ~ventative se~ices in
conjunction with materials, C~nstru~i~n method~:~:~~ ~iY, appropriate access, and
other relevant issues. He also p~9sed:~:~::?~:~ipulat:i~ ~ifi'e vegetation immediately
surrounding the home and lots to redU::~?~h~ ~ance fo~ ~etation to become flammable.
He stated a vegetatNe :~anagement pl~ ~uld be impl~:mented as a condition of the Use
Permit
Nail Th:.~Son, [Ikia Is engineer ~:~?~:~ngineering geologist for the project,
spoke:?~ ~e Plannin, ' ' and ~:S testimony is specifically outlined in the
the concept of peer review and stated an
alternate al project presentation whereby the conclusions
were the same oveta!l. A peer review has been accomplished for the project in this area.
. ~ . . .
Cou ¢!!:~ember Lar~!~quired regarding the eng~neenng repoA conducted ~y BACE
GeoteC~:~i~l whether t~:~:~::~ecommended the project is connected to the City s sewer
system.
Mr. Thomp~ stated it was his understanding this was not the firm's conclusion and the
statemen[ iS ~ :.~roposal from another source. He noted there is no information in the City
~::.~r County~ ~ding code requiring a soils stabili~ analysis versus a quantitative analysis in
Q~i~tive impoAance to one another. He prefers to collect data by visiting the site
a~:~i~ating the soil, bedrock, and other associated issues prior to making a project
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page ]8 o~ 3 ]
recommendation. He stated the public should not be concerned about his studies, as it is
his responsibility to make the correct assessment.
Attorney Brigham drew attention to a geotechnical map and noted only ali portion °i ~'~'
the Hull/Piffero parcel actually exists in the Gibson Creek drainage area~,:~::'::~i~ project is
entirely within the Gibson Creek drainage area and a good portion of th~?~6ad alS6 exists in
the drainage area. This project has very little to do with Gibson ~:.~k issueS ~d/or
concerns and, therefore, public testimony was limited for this::~aring:~:~:~:~addresse~ ~
soils/geology matter referencing speakers Mr. Longstreth andi:,Mi~i;~ Bawco~ and elaborated
on their professional qualifications. He questioned the cred~i:~ii~ briMs. Bawcom making
a determination regarding the soils issues. He dr~,'?~ttenti~i~:to Mr. Thompson's
assessment of Ms. Bawcom's concerns and noted her;~Umen~tion contained errors and
he briefly elaborated on these misconceptions.,::~,':i;:::B~:, reaffirm~:~:.that opinions must be
supported by factual information and that argu~'~i ~@ecula!i~;~i 8nd unsubstantiated
opinions are not sufficient evidence for purp~;es °{::::::~¢i~i:ng :~'~hether there is the
possibility of a significant environmental impact. The?:~Oblems associated with Mr.
Longstreth and Ms. Bawcom's testimonies are that they
stated regarding peer reviews that:,~,:~:he applicants hired two
evaluate the project issues, wi opinion, is su
evidence presented in o ;s.
Dave Nelson, Ukiah, summarized~!'~,~t the
speculative nature. He
g firms to
has been no
e the City Council to
seriously consider the unanimous deSi~ion ol',it~ Planni~ ission for a focused EI R
whereby the issues not appropriatel¢!~,~:~,~ed in !~:~ ..... gated Negative Declaration
would be revie~e~,:i;:,~:.,::,:He expressed;:;~:i~cern relevant to implementing measures
appropriately,~ad~:~i~ ~ire protection~t ha~¢ not been adequately evaluated in the
Negative J~ation.
Willie~ ~nch, Ukiab~ ~tCd the headn~;~;::;:;i~::'::not about segregating viewpoints between
appli"~nt~:":'::~;;:¢ppQ.~~?~ ~ ~e~ of concerned citizens ensuring that a decision
be made ba~8 8;~?'{:he best ~:~:~;~:~evidence presented.
: addressed some the issues referenced at the hearing and
e~ensively with the City Fire Depa~ment including
Califord:i~?~pa~ment ~(::~stw (CDF) and noted the mitigated measures are intended to
address p ejects not ~:=Sidered standard. He addressed the access issue and stated
there are a~Oximately 10 different ways to exit the prope~y in connection with the fire
safety issue~ ........... Re stated there are fire trails demonstrated on the site map that can be
utilized for a~Sess purposes. He addressed the design elements set fo~h in the Codes,
::~;~ Covenants;,;,~d Restrictions (CC&R) and noted precautions have been implemented to
~;~.~:re deterrence. He advised fire hydrants would be present on site according to
The applicants intend to pave the road beginning from Standley Street
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page ]9 of 3]
to the sites encompassing an 18-foot minimum. It was further noted the grade would not
exceed 20 percent in any area of the road.
He stated when the project was initiated whereby the applicants were contemplating,,;:~9:. 20
acre parcels, there were no clear City guidelines and regulations relevant to
associated improvements. The Hillside Ordinance does not provide for ro~ ~i:deli~$
pursuant to the project and, therefore, the applicants worked with City ~::~~:~ establish'
appropriate road improvement guidelines. He addressed the cost assg~tbd~,'~i~i~an 18-
foot versus a 20-foot paved road. The applicants initially anticipat~ii'::i~y wo~i~' i:gQt be
responsible for such improvements as curb, gu~er, and sidewalk. It I~te~became a~~nt
that maintaining and improving two 20-acre parcels would be to~ costly:~6~:~be project ~
modified to the 5-parcel Subdivision and Use Permit.
Council member Baldwin drew a~ention to page 35~:9~:~:':~:~:Prop~d Mitigated Negative
Declaration, item No. 28 referencing the height of::[~?~{tructu:[~es in terms of the natural;
grade, and inquired whether a person on a slight.S~~' would ~:~ ~ble to build a multisto~
structure as the slopes ascends. ::::::::
Mr. Hull referred the aforementioned que~ to staff, but~: 9d, in his opinion, building
accommodations would begin from the location of the 20-fod~suremeg~, He stated the
intent would probably be to measu:[~::~:he 20 feet from the ,owe~i~:~i~t::::9~:~:~ grade-: :~:~:.:~::~:: :.~:~:~..::~::: in order
tO make the appropriate building:~:~,~g~tion.
Mayor Ashiku inquired regarding t~ ~ation~l~r .........
the ~9~?~ot road standard.
Planning Direct.~?~~p replied the ~~entioned r~ad standard was designed for flat
land develop~?~ ~llside Ordina~doe~::~not provide regulations for hillside road
standards.:::.';~:t~;?,~:as noteS~DF standards f~ ~~ is an 18-foot minimum to coincide with
Interi~ Fi~:~b::i:ef :~:~. .................. ~. applied the State Fire Safety Standards for the
project requi~i::~::.~?;;::~:?~ihimum of 1 and a sudace roadway, as there are no specific
roadway standa~d~?i9 the Hillside Ordinance. He stated the Fire Depa~ment would be able
: ::::~:~0 ~V::i:~e adequat~?~:~i;~:::~protection in the western hills based upon the proposed mitigation
measa~eS~: He referr~?~:~:.9,::~??'~n~t~al documentation relevant to fire safety in the western
hills an~?~::~ed the Firg...~~ment has a 5-minute response time anywhere in the City.
The Fire ~a~ment ~ld be unable to meet this response time for the w~stern hills.
However, t~ ~pplicants have successfully mitigated all the Fire Depa~ment s concerns
relevant to fiie protection measures in the western hills and he listed some of the
prevention ~asures implemented that are included in his repo~. He stated with an 18-
roadway together with a grade not exceeding 20 percent, fire
~ip~~:ehicles would be able to travel the road. In his project review, the fire trails
a:~?~:~:~:r access accommodations were not considered in the Fire Depa~ment's
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page 20 of 3 ]
recommendations. The State Fire Safety Standard does not address any mitigations for the
6,000 foot roadway, but it implies that any roadway in excess of the maximum allowed
length will connect with another approved paved, all surface roadway for fire equipment
access purposes ultimately allowing response out-of-the area possible. The Standard
states that the intent of an approved roadway system shall be to provide for safe ~::~:::of
emergency wildland fire equipment and civilian evacuation concurrently. This.iS ~'~:rea~
why multiple roadways must be provided in the area
Coucilmember Larson inquired regarding the Standard referenced~Ve an~::~hether
only wildland fire equipment could safely be taken on the road. ~::'~':'!':~:":'~"~' ':~ :'~:'~ :' ~
Chief Grebil replied with the 20 percent grade, wildland fi~e::~ipment::'~ld safely ~~
able to access the roadway. The fire equipment used in tb~?~:~:~:.hills wOuld not be the
same equipment utilized for the City's fire protection. T~:'~i'i~:'i::~it for::~¥i~e safety standards is
regulated to the build-up or the potential of the num~D~:':~f vehi~:!es or people exiting that
length of roadway as well as the amount of eme.:~g~Y equipment going into the site.
He noted the Standards assume the longer the ~::~! ~he more ~es.
Mayor Ashiku inquired should a wildland fire occur would~:~:~fire protection measures on-
site allow for a sufficient defensible zone to protect
::
:.i
Chief Grebil replied in the event,::~i~!~e~:~i,n the west hills, the would
immediately summon assista.n~~'::~ ~[e,:.~ighting agencies ~:in the area for a full
wildland response. The ca~ii~:i~ ~ a m~::i'~i:~~ ~esponse ~'~'ld be dependent upon
many factors and he expand~:d on t~e factor~,,~,~"iii~i~::~¢t response time. He briefly
elaborated on the tactic proposed f°~i ~otec~i:,~?':'~f Iowe~ !~i~:~~ homes in the area.
Councilmembe ' inquired reg~i::~g the availability of water after a prolonged dry
Mr. Hul! ~;enced the ~i~ting well and n~ ii~e static pressure for the water supply was
ested~:~S',ipast year to app~imately 250 feet pumping water in excess of
120 ~'ilon~'i:~r mencompasses a single-phase pump currently
pumping 25 ~:Water a m,n the top of the tank.
~:.. ~ilmember ,d regarding the well facility and the Planning Commission's
:'~ '::~'~::~:~i~hether the would drain water off the City's supply.
Mr. Sturnpli~ated the ~i~ning Commission expressed a concern that the well in extracting
water from :ii~ ~ource, could potentially impact the City's water supply and this issue was
discussed w~he Director of Public Utilities. It was determined the City's water supply is
derived primarily from the Russian River with little relationship between the City's water
',supply an~::,'~::is project.
Libby inquired whether it was standard procedure to provide for peer
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page 2:l of 3]
review of housing projects in terms of geotechnical studies.
Mr. Stump replied negatively, but noted this project is more complicated and encompasses
many technical issues.
Councilmember Baldwin questioned water rights issues and inquired wheth~?~ellS ~ :
not rely on Russian River water and that water comes from an aquifer fed ~r0~?~ater from
the hills.
Mayor Ashiku stated the Hull/Piffero water belongs to them and hy¢~:9~ically eval8ated
the amount of water necessary to accommodate the projected:five ne¢'~:h~m, es on thb: ~b
stating the amount would be insignificant.
Councilmember Baldwin drew attention to page 35 o~,,:~Mitigated': Negative Declaration
and inquired whether there could be any potential ~i~i~tbrpret~ti:on of the proposed one;:
story building height based upon a slope or the bg!!~]Dg of a t~ere~ structu e whereby such
a structure could never be more than 20 feet ~~:?:~::pa~ of~:::~ :::Slope.
Mr. Stump stated building height would be determined o:~::~w::the slope measurement is
calculated. The regulations would not allow a home to exce~:~:.~920-foot!~mit at any point
and would be measured at an angl~?n the downside of the slO~:~:::::.::~::~giD~ht is to limit the
building height of the proposed h~~/~b~eby the City Council ~:~:~;:~:Cide whether the
one-story measurement meets?;~:~:~r~ ~?~9f:~:~::~ single-sto~ hg~:~ :~et fo~h in the Visual
Quality Analysis, which is the ~u~ ~:::.the Mi~:i:~:: Negative DeCi~ation for this issue. He
suggested a specific heightlimit S~:~b as 20 ::~::?~ ~i~p!~ented should the Council
believe the one-sto~ height limit ma~ ~, e~~:'~d.
There was discu~ie~:~e arding the con t of "stepping back stories of homes" within the
terrain. ........................... ?/;:.:/:::
.... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Gounci!~mb~r Smith?~i~6~uired re~ardin.~6 methodology for calculatin~ the 20-foot
........ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .......
Mr. Stump ~}~ffi~m~:::the be based upon a parallel line to the slope
whereby a hom~?:~::~:]d not exceed 20 feet at any given point on the slope.
gou' '~]]~ember Sm~[~?!~q?ed regarding the soils issue whether the applicants would be
requirea~/~/~Submit soil::::::~:eering repo~s as pa~ of the Use Permit process for future
homes.
Mr. Stump r~lied affirmatively. He reposed the applicants have submiEed geotechnical
soils studie~?:::::~n all the proposed home sites including ve~ detailed work on the site
........ p~:oposed~:~evelopment as pa~ of this project. He reposed all home development would
~::~:~ubj~?~b the discretiona~ review process by the Planning Commission to include all of
t~::~~liance issues discussed above as an ongoing function.
.... ::: ..................
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page 22 of 3
Councilmember Larson inquired regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration section on
Growth Inducement and whether this portion was a mandate for an Initial Study.
Mr. Stump stated negatively, but noted Cumulative Impacts are mandated in a M~i~ed
Negative Declaration.
City Attorney Rapport noted Growth Inducement is a possible adw
effect from a project and, therefore, would have to be considered )n
made that the project would not be growth inducing or that there are ~i:gations to prevent
it from being growth inducing. It was his understanding the:[.e were'reStrictions i~(~e
proposed Tentative Map that would prohibit growth and that.G~h InduCement pertaine~
to roadway improvements to provide access to the area; :~ ~~ are restrictions on the
Tentative Map prohibiting any development other the~ :',~he five:lOts in the proposed.:
subdivision from having the right to use the access
addressed in the mitigated measures. The con~ ......................... Cumui~ive Impacts includes the
consideration for present, past, and .:~ ects,~,~;:::: ~~' ble future projects
pertain to those projects already in the permi:(: proce~:?iOr,,:.;:~se :~8reseeable projects
factually understood to be in the permit process at so~'~:.~i~t in the future, and CEQA
requires such projects be reviewed. There has been no"~i~ence presented that any
probable future projects exist for this particular project whereby the G h Inducement
issue is more relevant to an CU!:~,~,~,::~::~,~:=~:=:~,=: Analysis.
Councilmember Larson d~'?~htion 47 0f:~i~he Mitigated Negative
Declaration referencing the deed the road to the existing
residents and noted the following mi~i~al in, that any action to modify
the deed restriction language must b~i:;;.~,i~d and aP~bved by the City Council.
r. Stump no~ ~e"~[ement~oned m~tiigabon.~,~easure requirement of the City Council
was intend~ ~be incl~:~ in the Tentati~ $.u;~::bision Map to modify the deed restriction
the deed restriction could be considered
mitigation whi mitig sure could be rescinded by a future City Council.
~::~:Attorney Ra~~ stated the intent of the condition was to prevent the property
........ ~~§ ~om modifyi~:~ ::~d restriction measure whereby without City Council approval
the Cit~:'~ald have no ~°l over the ma~er.
Councilme:~;~r~:~:~:~.: Larson noted mitigations shouldn't be formulated with loopholes allowing
it to be later ~Ddified and/or rescinded without fu~her environmental review other than Ci~
Council appeal
Rappo~ stated the intent is to prevent any future subdivisions for other
~ to utilizo tho oxistin~ roadway. Ho statod tho abovo-roforoncod procoduro
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page 23 of 3]
would not get around the Cumulative Impact issue. The Cumulative Impact concept very
often creates pressure for decision makers to make changes permitting future growth even
if it is not permitted under existing rules or regulations. He stated Councilmember Larson's
point was valid. Hypothetically, if a particular area is zoned in a way not allowing ~ture
development but future improvements and/or infrastructures are proposed ::t~t:~t~ ....
permit additional development, then Growth Inducement Impacts must be con~idbred and.
pressure would be created on the decision making body to change the ~i~g laws tO
permit future development.
Mayor Ashiku inquired regarding the methodology and/or effectiveness of qu~i~ive
versus quantitative analysis pertinent to project experts in terms ~ ~ecuring fact~t
information for environmental review purposes
City Attorney Rapport reported the guidelines provid.e,~(;?:Shoul~?'~ere be disagreement
among experts whereby the expert opinion is bas~,:~:,:,~;~n fac~al evidence and there iS
conflict over whether an impact would be significa~tiii~ with idenfifi~tion of the impact then
an EIR would be required. The expert testim~?'~ ~his proje~f::?:~;.~Des not appear to be
conflicting over what the impacts would be. H°'~ver:;:?;~9::~;;;~::;:~e libensed engineers for
the applicants are stating that based upon the site work t~::8~:~?~ave done and/or quantitative
analysis derived, there would be no geological impact:f0~ the project while other
credentialed expels subjectively rCyiewing the project stated ~y:d0 ~ know whether
there would be adverse effects, ~8 ...................... ' not really any disagr:~~:~
Councilmember Baldwin i~::~ ~
R~o~ formulated by Mr.
Thompson referring to the project, E~?a school '~ ........ ical error.
Mr. Stump replied affirmatively and s{~?~ s origin~ ~:~ncern was whether the repo~
accurately reflected::::~he~ork pedorme~ ~?the prope~'~ or whether data was mixed with
other data from: ~?~;;;:~ects, which w~:~ hot the case.
Counci!~:~ber BaldWj~ Stated the o~se;?~issues on pages 32 and 33 of the Mitigated
N~ ~:~?;~ressed as in some respects the valley
neig hills. He stated the noise in the hills would
not affect th~ and new noises are not addressed in the mitigation
msasures.
replied :~ ;~St~S analysis considered all noises typical with residential
develo~~t of this ty~ ¢'~taff concluded there would be noise and there exists the
tendency'~6~ hear noi~;~;;~anating from the upper potions of the hills. The question is
whether thi~0ise is significant or whether any established threshold referenced in the
Noise Ordin~e/Ukiah Municipal Code would be violated. If staff determined there would
be no sign~nt impacts and no violations to the Noise Ordinance, then the issue
~becomes a ~bjective opinion similar to the Visual Quality Analysis and staff concluded
~ise im~s to be insignificant.
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page 24 of 3 ]
Councilmember Baldwin inquired how the subjective issues such as noise and visual
impacts would be legally dealt with in court. He further inquired if the noise and visual
impacts are subjective where does the expert opinion come into effect or does the concept
of an expert opinion exist?
Mr. Stump replied the Initial Study included significant criteria for each
establish thresholds to be utilized in evaluating the impacts. ~: ::',':~::~:':~i~ ?:
City Attorney Rapport stated the courts recognize an articulated stan~ of silkience
as staff referenced above.
Councilmember Baldwin noted a geological or engineeri~g':~, would:=:::'::'~:'~~t possess
understanding of a precedence se~ing nature on land
Mr. Stump replied affirmatively and noted the contr:i~h provided by the project enginee~
in terms of gro~h inducement was slope and ot:~(~::~!~ative lan:~f~:~ture evaluations prior
to deriving at a conclusion pe~inent to gro~h p~:fi~!?:He not~::~e~s have a tendency
to stick with their perspective specialties relativ~O ev~i:~?~.~:~tsi~e of the engineering,
slope, and geology realm ~::~:~?~:~??~?~?~::~:~?:~
Oouncilmember Baldwin noted ~ project photographs d:~~tr.~ ~at the slopes
throughout the entire western hi!:!~?~~:~a~ of the City were g~~:the same slopes
depicted and, therefore, ap~!i~~::~::~:'::~i~:.?~~s of Cumulati~ i~:Pacts and Gro~h
Inducement indicate it is t~ ~~::~o buii:~::~i secon :: :' if the roadway were
sealed off at the west end of i'he pro~y, them~:.~i~ ~:~::~ near Gibson Creek Canyon
that could be utilized for access to ~y of~?.::~ther pa~i~:':.~
Mr. Stump was ~: ~!i:ar with other a~s roads, but noted there is a roadway going up
Gibson Cree~?:~~ ?~?~::~ :?~;:~:::.::::~:::.
:; ~;:~::: ~; ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
.. dwi wheth considered the p eoedenoe that
this p may have a~ ~:tu.[~ projects
Mr. Stump r~i!~~i staff r~~~h project on its individual merits since eve~ site
has its own ra~:~ions and uniqueness. He stated, for example, a future subdivision
:~ ill conceiV~ ~d g~ologically unstable and, therefore, denied. Therefore, this
....... p~i~project wo~i~ ~t~bessarily be se~ing precedence for future projects.
Co,ncil~~er Bal~iih inquired whether it was required in the Negative Declaration for
the propos~i;~:~O be consistent with the Ukiah General Plan.
Mr. ~tump ~lied that Ukiah General Plan consistency is required by law and must be
~stablish~ior to approval. Before the City Council acts on the merits of the project, a
~:~hding~t be established demonstrating Ukiah General Plan consistency.
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page 25 o~ 3]
Councilmember Libby reiterated that an enormous amount of information has been
presented pertinent to this project and she commended staff, applicants, and the experts
for the collection and processing of this information. She referenced the Planning
Commission minutes of September 26,2001, and noted testimony was made that the!work
performed on the studies far exceeded what would be obtained in an EIR. She :S~~e~:
this concept and encouraged Council to review the evidence and/or substanti~! ~::~ts P'~i~i
hto making a decision. She recommended no EIR be required for t e~,p~ject as the
mitigated measures and the information supplied would be sufficient
Councilmember Larson also commended staff and the applicad~S?°r their eff~ in
bringing forth a well-organized project in terms of information. H:e stat~'~ ~uncil's job i~to
ensure that the mitigations appropriately address the identifie~ i~pacts.
earlier concern whereby he questioned whether the mitii~ti:~:';.:~urately address the
possibility for revocation of the deed restrictions allowin,gii:;,~itional access on the roadway.
He possessed serious concerns pertinent to fire p~'iOn especially since CDF did not
respond to the document. The issues of Growth In~ment anS:.Gu:mulative Impacts have
not been adequately addressed and/or mitigat~i~::;~i;~'~ stated th~::~ument, in terms of
Cumulative Impacts, refers primarily to the project ~i~: ~i ::~i~e ~ated testimony has
suggested the project could be precedence setting f°~:i'~'~i~ projects. He stated the
County possesses land in this area zoned for 40-acre mini~i~S and if the entire area is
rezoned by Use Permit to accommodate five-acre density, t:~:~ ~euntY ~buld be under
pressure to change its zoning:~:~:iii'~:? ~'~ii:~:~ted the mitigation m~:~~:'~have not been
adequately addressed or ap9~~':=i~i~ii~~ed::, regarding the p~i:~:'iial that this project
could set precedence for fut~:~:~'r~j~ts. H~:':"::'~i~ !'ike the opportunity to review the build-
out reports that would provid~: infor~on abo?:.~,~i~~:,e~ the entire western hillside
in terms of an overall build-out scheme, nQt~ii~::~ the d~i~':~ment demonstrated in the
Visual Impact Analysis, but a visual im:'::~t,?:~fi~e entire i~ to assist in the understanding
of the scope of e~D~i~:n. He stated t~i~ ~itigated measures do not adequately address
the above-re~e~~ii',iiii~e. He noted,::'~i~weve[, the Mitigated Negative Declaration, is
similar to ~ ~i~. He ~i~: examples of ~'~:~i;?:i:'=whereby approved Mitigated Negative
Declarati~:: failed to e~quately addre~???,::'~,~l'l the project issues. It is important to
unde~i~d,~hat pro. Iives are =~d~Ssed in an EIR but not in Mitigated Negative
Decl~ti°~i~i:~:~:/He pproval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration
without the a~:~[o~::~i~te mitig protection, the access issue, Growth Inducement
and Cumulativ~::"i?:'~i~:i~P~cts, and lack of project alternatives. He stated an EIR would
~!i~ent the m~~[alre~dY presented.
CounClii'~mber Smit~ ~'Plimented staff and the applicants for their excellent project
presentati~ and stat~i?'~e had some project concerns, but supported approval of the
Mitigated N~tive Declaration.
Councilme~ber Baldwin stated evaluation of project alternatives is important whereby a
::i~ackup pl;~ ~i§ imperative. He noted project denial could potentially encompass a lawsuit.
os~'~d project concerns and stated the Visual Impact Analysis was not creditable.
preparation of a focused EIR as the visual, noise, and fire safety
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page 2d of 3]
impacts, and hillside stability issues need to be further examined.
Mayor Ashiku stated no substantial evidence is present supporting a finding that there
was a dispute among experts relative to any significant impacts on the environment:! ~He
supported approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Councilmember Baldwin asked City Attorney Rapport to comment on:::~Y: potential
conflict of interest Mayor Ashiku may possess since he owns property i:D:,::~:~~:' e,rn hills.
Discussion followed relevant to the location of Mayor Ashiku s hom~:i
City Attorney Rapport commented he is not prepared te'?i:~ ~i~borate ~i:the questi~
proposed, but stated based upon the distance guidelines :~:~"":::~'~i ~Shiku s Property to the
subject property, there is little likelihood that this project?'~::::~ld ha~:'a financial impact on
Mr. Ashiku's property. He inquired as to what aspects 0fthe project would be precedence
setting. He stated the project is allowed releve~i ~ the zoning ramifications and the
applicants are subdividing the property in accQ~~,,::~ith the,:~::~isions outlined in the
Subdivision Ordinance. However, an exception woU:ld~:ii~e~e:,~b be :granted for the road
because it does not meet the 20-foot requirement. The P:~t :.use is already permitted in
conjunction with the location. He inquired whether the ::~a~n for the:: project to be
potentially precedence setting wa~.:the result of the request:'::~:~ ~ub~i~Jon Ordinance
exceptions ....
Mr, Stump briefly elaborate~ ~i~ ~onflict sue. Shb ~oted there are several
exceptions to the Subdivisi~~'~' Ordi~ce that unique and he identified
some of these exceptions. If the ex~:pl g be that the next project
may not have exception requests.
Councilmem~;~i~'?~:[eferenced th~ ~ecedence setting issue and stated the size of
the parcel :~i~:g create'~ ~iiOws for prece~:~ ~tting.
it as:~:~'is understanding regarding the standards for
the Hllls~de:"Qi~dtpan larger than they have to be to accommodate the
home ~n.
~.c:i,lmember ':~':~en noted the parcel size is smaller than the surrounding County
City Atto~::~ Rappo~ ~i~ted the project does not pertain to County zoning regulations.
There was a,!~:=~gthy discussion relative to build-out and precedence setting issues in terms
of density a~eage.
to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Hull/Piffero
and Use Permit based upon the analysis, findings, and conclusions contained
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page 27 of 3]
in the Initial Study, and the project as mitigated will not degrade the quality of the local and
regional environment, the project would not result in short term impacts that would create a
disadvantage to the long term environmental goals, the project will not result in impacts
that are individually limited but cumulative considerable, and not result in environmental
impacts that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either.~i~e~t~ O~
indirectly; carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Smi~;j ~i:;~by,
Mayor Ashiku. NOES: Councilmembers Larson and Baldwin. ABSENT: N~i ~BSTAIN:
None. ;; :' ~; :; ': i~: i;
Councilmember Baldwin emphasized the importance for project ai~atives an~ ~0ted
the project possesses conflicts that would later be exposed.
A~orney Rappo~ advised that the record should reflect.~::;'~::~ers we~:~submi~ed t°
include two leBers from the Thompson Consulting Eng!~rs, da~:~8~ October 15 and 16,
2001, and a le~er from BAOE Geotechnical, dated :~~er 15~2001.
Recessed: 11: 47 p, m,
Reconvened' 11:50 p.m :::::::::::::::::::::::
9. NEW BUSINESS ....
9c. Award of Bid to Masterso~=~..ommunications, Inc. in~ ~~t of $78,561 for
the Installation of the R~ unications Improvement ~oject, Approval
of Budget Amendmen~ ......... ~~=~==~Council Re~ardi:~?~mer~ency
M/S Smith/Libby awardin~' bid ~=~ the i~~ ~f;~.::?e radio communications
improvement project to Uasterson:??~mmU~tions,"~=i~=~?i~ the amount of
approving amendment to the dec~:i'ng expenditures in account
698.2101.800.008~?~y;:: ::$25,000, autho~i~i~' expenditu r~s in account 698.2101.800.002
(Radio Com~i~~ !~provement :~ject, Eire) of $25,000, Increasing revenue in
account 698~00.905:~ by $28,561, ~b~ing a transfer from the General Fund
(accous~:: ~.283.698) t~ ~e Equipment R ::e Fund (account 698.281.100) of $16,561,
and ~~:..rizing e) in accQu~?~?~98.2001.800.002 (Radio Communications
Impr~m~'~?~(oje ................. and Receive repo~ regarding the emergency
purchase of M; 3mmunications, Inc. in the amount of $5,723.43;
carried by the 'ng roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Larson, Smith, Libby,
~Wi~, and May~ ~hiku NOES' None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None
9d, Ad on of R~iutions ApDroving Applications for State of California
DeD~ent of Parks and Recreation Grants for Various Park Improvement
Pr0j
Councilme~:er Libby inquired as to the amount of money that the Skatepark CommiEee
~Seeds to ~i~ for construction of a Skatepark and how it could be guaranteed that the
:'~tepa~ ~:ommiEee would raise these funds.
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page 28 of 3]
Community Services Director DeKnoblough explained that it is unknown at this time
how much money the Skatepark Committee has raised for the project. He explained that
they don't have to raise $100,000 in cash only. It could be raised in contributions,
materials, and other ways to provide matching funds in value. They have indicate~q~im
that they have contributions and materials pledged for that value. One of the re~$~:~§':':~hy
staff is recommending the grant in this amount is to guarantee that the Com~~ ha~
match the funds.
Councilmember Libby explained that she viewed skateboarders jum~i~ off th~:~i~n and
on the benches in the Plaza at a recent skateboard event. Most of t~ Participant~at ~e
event were not wearing helmets. She expressed her concern that the~ ~pes of aC~i~S ~
would carry over into a skatepark
City Manager Horsley explained that the City require~i~ivers ~::~'~ that all pa~icipants:
wear protective gear. The pa~icipants are told th~t?~t~hey ng~d to comply with these
regulations. If they are not, they will not be allowe~::~:::~se City :~pe~y. Staff will need t°
supe~ise that event be~er.
Discussion followed concerning skateparks in other com~=8~ies and difficulties associated
with safety compliance. It was noted by staff that parks can~.;~..signs po=sted and fenced,
but once the park is staffed, there i~potential for e~reme liaS~i;~ ~c ~'~taff should be
supe~ising the operations. Sta~ ~l:;~iSg these issues to the ~~~rk CommiEee at
their ne~ meeting.
Councilmember Baldwin ~:ade a~:~:~ption th=:~ ~?~ ~ ]unds out of each of these
requests and use it for something?~lse ~::~:~ appli~i~: for something else. He
recommended reducing the Skatep~?~p~j~t by $5~0, Anton Stadium project by
$ 50,000, Clay S~:~:/~:.~[ope~y acqu~s~ti~:by $125,000, and the Uk~ah Softball Complex
by $50,000, ~ oppo~unity ~ ~pply:~Qr $375,000 for acquisition of land in the
Gibson Cr~?~anyon ~. Motion faile~ ~[~:~ of second.
Mr. ~~blough there is:.~?~:~:aximum of $500,000 per application and no
limit aS to can submit.
M/S Baldwin/L~n made a motion to also apply for $250,000 for acquisition of land in
~]~ Creek can~::
There :~ a~brief the resolution format for submiEal of applications.
Councilme~r Smith preferred not to deal with Councilmember Baldwin's proposal at
this meeting~:~d that Council be allowed more time to consider the maEer.
:~:. ~C.~uncilm~ber Libby requested additional information from Planning Director Stump
:: a oun own on me western
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page 29 of 3!
Mr. DeKnoblough explained that November 1, 2001 is the deadline for these grants,
however, there are other grant opportunities that are available at various times throughout
the year.
Councilmember Baldwin withdrew his motion and was agreeable to revisiting th~ ~er
at a later date.
.
Councilmember Larson inquired if Council is allowed to prioritize
Mr. Sangiacomo explained that they are each reviewed on their se'~rate merits.
M/S Larson/Smith approving projects as proposed and
through 2002-19, authorizing applications to the RZH
Grant programs for six projects. ..
Councilmember Libby stated that she could n( skatepark located in
back of the Sun House because it would cra; Sun House.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: :~Cilmembers Larson, Smith,
Libby, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashi, ku. NOES: None. ABSEN¥i NDne. ABS!AIN: None.
12:05 p.m.: Adjourned to Cio, '
·
a. G.C. {549567.6-
Employee Negotiations: Fir~
Labor Negotiator: Candace
No action taken ....
b. Con~!~ce
al Counsel
to litigation
Res°l~i, ons 2002-14
and Recreation
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page 30 of 3]
Reconvened:
9. BUSIN ??
9e. ~ ~'~llation of November 21,2001 City Council Meetin.q
M/S hiku to ~::Cel the November 21, 2001 City Council Meeting; carried by
unanimous ~oDsensus of Council.
10. C O U N Ci!~:: R E P O ET S
::: :~ None.
........... .
No a~i'on t~ken,
Litigation,
to subdivision (b) of Government Code
11. CITY MANAGER/CITY CLERK/DIRECTOR REPORTS
None.
13. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the City Council meeting was adjourned at 1
Marie Ulvila, City Clerk
Cathy Elawadly, Transcriptionist
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page 3 ] of 3 ]
MEMO
Agenda Item: 4_c
TO:
FROM:
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
City Clerk Marie Ulvila ~'~,'Et2--~_-i L-zf_;~'.~--~z,. z~.~-~__~.~
SUBJECT: City Council Meeting Minutes: November 7, 2001
DATE: November 30, 2001
Every attempt will be made to forward the Draft Minutes of the November 7, 2001 City
Council meeting to Council for review by Tuesday, December 3, 2001.
Memos: CC113001 - minutes
ITEM NO. -_
DATE: DECEMBER 5, 2001
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
SUBJECT:
REJECTION OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES RECEIVED FROM NORTH HAVEN
SCHOOL AND REFERRAL TO JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY, REDWOOD
EMPIRE MUNICIPAL INSURANCE FUND
The claim from North Haven School was received by the City of Ukiah on November 7,
2001 and alleges property damage due to a power outage on October 28, 2001 at 225 S.
Hope Street.
Pursuant to City policy, it is recommended the City Council reject the claim as stated
and refer it to the Redwood Empire Municipal Insurance Fund (REMIF).
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Reject Claim For Damages Received From North Haven School
And Refer It To The Joint Powers Authority, Redwood Empire
Municipal Insurance Fund.
ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS:
Alternative action not advised by the City's Risk Manager.
Citizen Advised:
Requested by:
Prepared by:
Coordinated with:
Attachments:
Yes
Michael F. Harris, Risk Manager/Budget Officer
Candace Horsley, City Manager
1. Claim of North Haven School, pages 1-5.
APPROVED{
Candace Horsloy, C~y Manager
CLAIM
N OTICE O'F CLAIM AGAINST '
THE iTY OF UKIAH, CALIFORNIA
This claim must be presented, as prescribed by Parts 3 and4 of Division 3.6, of
, . j
State of California, by the c~aimant orby a person acting on his/her behalf.
RETURN COMPLETED FORM TO:
,
CiTY OF UKIAH
Attn: City Cled~
300 Seminanj Avenue
Ukiah, California 95482
o
CLAIMANT'S NAME:
North Haven School
1
CLAIMANT'S ADDRESS:
225 S. Hope Street,
Number/Street and/or Post Office Box
Ukiah, CA, 95482
City State
(707~462-5272 School phone(.
Home Phone Number
Work Phone Number
PERSON TO WHOM NOTICES REGARDING THIS CLAIM SHOULD BE SENT (if different from above):
Terry Hackler
Name
"Trinity . Ukiah 915 W, Church St,
Number/Street and/or Post Office Box
Ukiah ~ CA,
City State
4. DATE OF THE ACCIDENT OR OCCURRENCE: October 28, 2001
,
(707~46'2-8721
Telephone
95482
PLACE OF ACCIDENT OR oCCURRENCE:
225 'S. HoDe St,
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE ACCIDENT OR OCCURRENCE (Attach additional page(s), if more
space is needecO:
Power' outage causing surge frying wires'.'to .alarm
sys tern,
7~
NAME(S), if known, OF ANY PUBUC EMPLOYEE(S) ALLEGEDLY CAUSING THE INJURY OR Loss:
~/~
el
WITNESS(ES), ff known (optional):
"Name-- -- -.. ' -.-': ' :' · - ·
a, ,, Li..ndy. Dunaway
Address Telephone
736 Myron Place Ukiah 707.-,467-0891
9~
DOCTOR(S)/HOSPITAL(S), ff any, WHERJE CLAIMANT WAS TREATED:
Name Address
a. N~A
~. -----
Telephone
10.
11.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE INDEBTEDNESS, OBUGATION, INJURY, DAMAGE OR LOSS so far
as it may be known at the time of pmsenta.'.ion of the claim:
~STATE THE AMOUNT CLAIMED if it totals less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) as-of the date of
presentation of the claim, including the estimated amount of any prospective injury, damage orloss, insofaras
it may be known at the time of the presentation of the c/aim, together with the basis of computation of the
amount claimed (for compt~tion use #12 belowJ. However, ff the amount claimed exceeds ten thousand
dollars ($10, 000), no dollar amount shall be included in the c/aim. Howeve6 it shall indicate whetherthe claim
would be a limited civil case (CCP § $5,1."
Amount C/aimed $ 2 3 5. ~'6 ..... ' ....
· . .
·
or Applicable JuWsdicb'on
12.
THE BASIS OF COMPUTING THE TOTAL Afv;OUNT CLAIMED IS AS FOLLOWS:
a, Damages incurred to date:
Expenses for rnedical/hospifal care:
Loss of earnings:
Special damages for:.
General damages:
b. Est/mated Prospective damages as far as known:
Future expenses for medical and hospital care:
Future loss of earnings:
Other prospective special damages:
Prospective general damages:
$_ n/a
$_ n/a ,
$ n/a
$_ n/a
$ 235. oo
$_235.00.
$235.00
This claim must be signed by the claimant or by some per=on on h/s/her behalf. /~ claim relating to a cause of acUon
for death or for injury to the per=on orto personal property or growing crops shall be presented not laterthan six (6)
calendar months or 182 days after the accrual of the cause of action, whichever is longer. Claims relating to any
other causes of action shall be presented not later than one (1) year after accrual of the cause of action.
Dated: 10-31-2001
SIGNATURE OF CLAIMANT(S)
_Terry Ha,ckler
' I
Received in the Office of the City Clerk this ~ day of ~ 20 O / . ..
/ · .
NOTE*e rhi.,$ for~r~ of ~aim i,~ for your conver~ie~.~ce or~ly. A~y other ~e ~m ~e u~
of form ng ~ it
saUsfi~ ~e r~irem~ of ~e Govemment Code. ~e use of ~is fo~ is not intended in any ~y to a~se you of
your legal Hgh~ or to inte~ret any law. ff you are in doubt regar~ng your legal dgh~ or ~e int~retaEon of any law,
you should seek legal couns~ of your ~oice at your o~ e~e~e.
Rev. 2000
DOCTORf~HOSPlTAL(~), ff any, I,VI-I£1:~ CLAIMANT WAS ~ TED:
be
10.
11.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE INDF--BTEDNE$~ OBLIGATION, INJURY, DAMAGE OR LOSS so far
as it may be krlown at the #me of 'presentation of the claim'
STATE THE AMOUNT CLAIMED if it Jata~ I~.~.~ than ~en thoueand
~;en~ ~n. ~ t~ ~aJm, i~l~ t~ esE~d e~unt e/anypm;~ctive
~ ~y be known at ~ fi~ of the pm~~n of t~ claim, tog~her w~ ~e b~fs ef mmp~afion of fhe
do,am ($10,000), no d~lar=~unt zh;8 ~ indu~d ln t~e claim.
wo~d be a 8mited ~'~ ~ (ccP ~ ~j. '
12.
Amount Claimed $~ 3 5. O. O. at' App#cabfe Jurisdi;tion.
THE BASIS OF COMPUTING ?HE TOTAl. A#;OUNT CLAIMED IS AS FOLLOW~:
a. Damages it~eurred to date:
Expenses for medic, al/hospital care: $ n la
Loss of eeming~' $
Spec;al clamages for.
--
·
~enemi damages.. "' -
Estimated pmapeetive ~lemage~ as far as known:
Future expenses for nmdicaf and hospital ca~e:
Furore Ig~ of earnings:
Other pmspeu-#ve special damage&'
Proapectlve general damages:
$
,.t', nla .....
$,, z:~s;oo' '
$ 235. O0 _
'~hi~ cffeim m~sitm signed ~ the ~al~t Or by some ~~ On hi. er behe~f~ - A
~ de~ or ~r ~ju~ t~ the ~~ ~ te ~on~ ~~ ~ g~in~ ~ shall ~ p~entad not lair ~an ~ (6)
~e~ar ~~ or 182 ~y~ a~e~ the ac~el of ~e ~e of a~on,
e~er ~uaes of a~n shoe be ~nt~ not later ~an one (1)~of theJ~ ~ acEe~w~~~~ ~.ims mlafin~ to any
Ter~
.... - - . i .1111 - - i i
J - - i m
[Rec~ivecl in the Office of tile City Clerk thio
NOTE: This farm af ~ i~ for ),mar ~,mnience only. ~y o~ t~e ~ f~ may be ~ed ~ de~r~ ~ long ~ ~
~~ ~e r~~ of ~e g~ment Co~ ~e u~ of ~ fo~ ~ not inlMded ~ ~y ~y to a~, ~u of
~ l~al dg~ ~ m ~t~ ~ I~. Eyou are ~ ~bt mga~g y~ leg~ d~ or the ~te~flon ef~ylaw,
~ ~ou~ ~k ~ cauns~ or.ur ~tce ~ ~ur o~ ~e~e.
You, u~e =u,/ar,
STANOARD ALARM
· Whim - Office (l=,le~e sign,
m _£m mm ~
MONITORING C'~NTRAOT$ ~LL FOLLOW UPON
and return.) .Yellow - Cus~mar
OF THLS PROPOSAL
· PbW- File
Burglar Alarms · Fire Alarms · ¢.C.T,V · Mecllcal Alert
.... '.
· - 4 .~. ~ .-.~S7..
· .I~ '.
;%,t~,~'; :..
.....~ .....
~..~,,.'t, :"-~,~r-~ ~ .~,~, ~ ' ~' ~ · .-, .':. ~. i. i' '.:/. · ~ .~..., ..~
,..~. ,. ..... ~.,.?.:~.. /~ ...~ezA, o~o ~ ., .....
ST~ET.U~ · . .........
~ .-..:. To~ff Code
· . ~ O~ K ORDER
AC ' '
D~RECTZONS: X-ST CL~Y S~ '. ~ ' . · :"
..D~SC~Z,T[O~ o~ ,0~. - ~~~ ~'.'] ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ' ..," :-.." · ..-'~
~_2:'t' ~;b .,' ~ "., ,. . " :'"" '
. , . . ~~ . . ,..~ ~ ~_.. !1, . ' · .' ' ~. ,"..:.., ·
'. ,....;,~- - . .,. , ........... , .....
.: ....~ . ~: ..,. ,, ;"
[2 ,
MATERIAL t L~BOR · -
,'
.... _ _ , ~RRZVED
_, :: ..... · .
v
·
~: ..... - ..... _.=_ ON-5~T~ HOUR'S ' '~_ ~ATE~AL ~,,
· PREvZouS mALAN~:~ DuE $~Ye.oo
0;2/06/95
~CKNOWLEDGEMENT : . . ~,: .,.
· ·
Z acknowled(e the sat£s.fa~t6~y co~oletio~ of
the work as described above an~ receipt of an
Uork~qd7 R~a~r :flforma:ion Fo?re.
DATE
SOB-TOTAL
Sales Tax Rate:
000~,- ~ ~
'-
TOTAL DuE --__
[] CK~ / " [] CaSH
[Y] cHARGeS' fo? 'norm~l
SERVICE AGREEMENT
OFFICE USE) System [nCo:[ KEYPAD, EXT. BEL,~i INT. SIREN
charge exc~p~ any Repairs required due ~o Misuse. Abuse ~
AGENDA
SUMMARY
ITEM NO.
6b
DATE: December 5, 2001
REPORT
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION RESTORING 15 FEET OF ON-STREET
PARKING ALONG LESLIE STREET
SUMMARY: At the August 15, 2001 meeting, City Council adopted Resolution No. 2002-03
Disallowing Parking and Establishing a No Parking Zone along Leslie Street. The owners
(Timm and Cindy AIIred) of the property at the southeast corner of Perkins Street and Leslie
Street were notified on August 9, 2001 of the proposed no parking zone. However, after the
City Council adopted Resolution No. 2002-03, Timm AIIred notified staff that he objected to
the loss of parking adjacent to his property.
The Traffic Engineering Committee (TEC) reconsidered the no parking zone at its meeting on
October 16,2001. At that meeting Mr. Timm AIIred requested that the committee allow some
parking on the east side of Leslie Street adjacent to his property. Mr. AIIred requested the
parking space so that he can park and load a vehicle by accessing the back gate on his
property. After extensive discussion, the TEC agreed to request the City Council to restore
15 feet of parking at the south end of the previously approved no parking zone.
(continued on page 2)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution restoring 15 feet of on-street parking along
Leslie Street.
ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Do not adopt resolution and provide direction
to staff.
Citizen Advised:
Requested by:
Prepared by:
Coordinated with:
Attachments:
Those adjacent to the proposed parking restoration.
Diana Steele, Director of Public Works / City EngineerG~,,
Rick Seanor, Deputy Director of Public Works~d,~..~
Candace Horsley, City Manager
1. Resolution for Adoption
2. Map of Leslie Street at Perkins Street
A P P ROVE D ~' ~_,a n-'h'"~a ce Hors~-ey,-~t
~ ~-~,'i y Manager
RJS: Agn pLeslieAtPe rldns-2
Page 2
Adoption of Resolution Restoring 15 Feet of On-Street Parking along Leslie Street
December 5, 2001
PARKING IMPACTS: The net result of the proposed action will be to restore one parking
space along the Leslie Street frontage of the AIIred property. Since there is no curb and
gutter at this location, a vehicle will park on the shoulder of the street where a typical sidewalk
would normally be located.
PEDESTRIAN IMPACTS: Pedestrians walking North on the East side of Leslie Street will
have to walk on the edge of pavement around a car parked in the parking space proposed for
restoration. The TEC did not consider this situation a significant safety hazard.
CONCLUSION' The TEC recommends adoption of the resolution restoring 15 feet of on
street parking at the described location on Leslie Street.
~ T~/E
T
I~FT,
~ T'R EET'
2__
RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH
RESTORING 15 FEET OF ON-STREET PARKING ALONG LESLIE STREET
WHEREAS, the City Council may by resolution designate portions of streets upon which the
standing, parking, or stopping of vehicles is prohibited or restricted pursuant to Article 11, Chapter 1,
Division 8 of the Ukiah City Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council previously authorized, by Resolution No. 2002-03, a no parking zone
on Leslie Street; and
WHEREAS, the Traffic Engineering Committee (Traffic Engineer) considered a request to restore
15 feet of on-street parking within the City of Ukiah; and
WHEREAS, the Traffic Engineer recommends the request to restore 15 feet of parking;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Ukiah does
restore 15 feet of parking on the east side of Leslie Street, beginning at a location 110 feet South of the
crosswalk located at the intersection with Perkins Street and extending 15 feet South.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of December, 2001 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Phillip Ashiku, Mayor
Marie Ulvila, City Clerk
Resolution No. 2002-
Page 1 of 1
ITEM NO. 6c
DATE: December 5, 2001
AGENDA SU
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION AND APPROV~
COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT AND AUTH
OF RESPONSE
The City of Ukiah has received a request from
Grand Jury that the City's response to the 2(:
consistent with the formatting required by Calif~
response's format accordingly and is now subn
No changes have been made to the content of
of the revisions and authorization of the Mayo
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve and at
Report by the Grand Jury regarding Parking Lc
ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS:
1. Determine response requires further revisic
2. Determine approval of response is inappro
Citizen Advised:
Requested by:
Prepared by:
Coordinated with:
Attachments:
N/A
Grand Jury Response Cor
Larry W. DeKnoblough, CI
Candace Horsley, City Ma
1. Revised Letter of Response
2. Original Letter of Response
3. Excerpt from the Grand Jury Report
APPROVED×..~. ~ q.~~.._
~andace Horsley, Cit~anager
LD/ZIP1
GrandJury2.asr t
MMARY REPORT
~,L OF REVISED RESPONSE TO THE MENDOCINO
ORIZATION OF THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE LETTER
the Response Committee of the Mendocino County
~00/2001 Grand Jury Report be revised to be more
)rnia Penal Code Section 933.5. Staff has revised the
~itting the revised version to the Council for approval.
he original response. Staff is recommending approval
to execute the response.
~thorize Mayor to sign revised letter of response to
)t C.
,n and approve with additional modifications.
)riate at this time and do not approve.
qmittee
)mmunity Services Director
wager
300 SEblI~¥AVE., UKIAH, CA 95482-5400
· ADMIN. 707/463-6200 · PUBLIC SAFETY 463-6242/6274
· FAX # 707/463-6204 · EMAIL: ukiahcty@jps.net ·
December 28, 2001
Eric Labowitz
Presiding Judge
Mendocino County
P.O. Box 996
Ukiah, CA 95482
Dear Honorable Judge Labowitz:
The City of Ukiah is in receipt of your letter of September 19, 2001 requesting a revised
response to the Mendocino County Grand Jury Report 2000-2001. Please note that some
of the Report's findings and recommendations are directed towards agencies other than
the City of Ukiah. In these cases our response is reflected by "n/a", not applicable, and a
note as to the appropriate agency for referral.
Municipal Parking Lot C
Findings:
.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Concur with Finding
Concur with Finding
Concur with Finding
n/a, refer to County of Mendocino Administration
Concur with Finding
Concur with Finding
Concur with Finding
Recommendations
A. The City of Ukiah will continue our current practice of periodic reviews already
in place of the parking lot's usage and forward that information to County
Administration. County and City staff have agreed to jointly review the data compiled
during the periodic reviews and discuss methodologies to increase employee use of the
permitted spaces in the Lot.
'We Are Here To Serve"
E. Finding No. 7 is correct in stating that only nine public accessible, metered spaces
are available within Parking Lot C. However, there are an additional 52 on-street spaces
around the perimeter of the lot, 31 of which are on Standley Street adjacent to the
Library. Fourteen of the total 52 spaces are metered but the remaining 38 spaces are 2 to
5 hour time zones with no charge. It has also been City staff's observation that the
parking resources along Smith and the metered spaces on the Smith Street side of Lot C
are grossly underutilized and available at virtually all hours of the Library's operation
and within approximately 200 feet of the Library. Based on these resources and their
availability, the City of Ukiah does not believe the conversion of additional spaces within
Parking Lot C is necessary.
In response to the Grand Jury's recommendation, City staff will initiate meetings with the
Mendocino County Library and Administration staff to determine library parking needs
and identify locations and/or methods by which the City may assist the Library to meet
its parking needs. The City will also provide public parking location information to
Library staff for distribution to Library patrons. In addition, last year the City dedicated
funds and received a grant to complete significant pedestrian improvements to Parking
Lot C and the perimeter streets. This project commenced in July 2001 and will greatly
enhance pedestrian safety in and around the Lot, thereby encouraging parking along
Smith Street.
Sincerely,
Phillip Ashiku
Mayor, City of Ukiah
LD/Zip 1
GandJury2.1tr
300 UKIAH, CA 95482-5400
· ADMIN. 707/463-6200 · PUBLIC SAFETY 463-6242/6274
· FAX # 707/463-6204 · EMAIL: ukiahcty~jps.net -
July 31,2001
Presiding Judge Eric Labowitz
P.O. Box 996
Ukiah CA 95482
Re: Response to Grand Jury Report Regarding Parking Lot C North of Mendocino
County Library, Ukiah Branch
Dear Judge Labowitz:
The following is the City of Ukiah's response to Recommendations A and E of the Grand
Jury Report regarding Parking Lot C, located north of the Mendocino County Library and
bounded by Main, Standley, Mason, and Smith Streets.
Recommendation A.
The City of Ukiah does agree with the Grand Jury's finding that Parking Lot C is
periodically underutilized and that, in context of the agreement between the City and the
County, many County employees are not utilizing spaces reserved for them by the
County. However, as Finding No.3 indicates County Employee parking is intermittent,
which is due in large part to the geographic dispersion of County offices. City staff has
had on-going discussions of this issue with County employees and County
Administration. Those discussions have evidenced that a certain number of spaces are
always going to appear vacant at various times of the day, as many County employees are
required to visit or deliver items to other offices outside the downtown area. Other
employees may also split the workweek between the downtown and other offices, which
would leave their downtown space empty on intermittent days.
Excluding those situations, many County employees still select to park in on-street spaces
closer to their particular place of employment, at least part of the time. To minimize this
issue, the City of Ukiah will continue the periodic reviews already in place of the parking
lot's usage and forward that information to County Administration. County and City
staff have agreed to jointly review the data compiled during the periodic reviews and
discuss methodologies to increase employee use of the permitted spaces in the Lot.
~(/e Are Here To Serve'
Recommendation E.
Finding No. 7 is correct in stating that only nine public accessible, metered spaces are
available within Parking Lot C. However, there are an additional 52 on-street spaces
around the perimeter of the lot, 31 of which are on Standley Street adjacent to the
Library. Fourteen of the total 52 spaces are metered but the remaining 38 spaces are 2 to
5 hour time zones with no charge. It has also been City staff's observation that the
parking resources along Smith and the metered spaces on the Smith Street side of Lot C
are grossly underutilized and available at virtually all hours of the Library's operation
and are within approximately 200 feet of the Library.
In response to the Grand Jury's recommendation City staff will initiate meetings with the
Mendocino County Library and Administration staff to determine library parking needs
and identify locations and/or methods by which the City may assist the Library to meet
their parking needs. In addition, last year the City dedicated funds and received a grant to
complete significant pedestrian improvements to Parking Lot C and the perimeter streets.
This project shall commence in July of 2001 and will greatly enhance pedestrian safety in
and around the Lot, thereby encouraging parking along Smith Street.
Sincerely,
Phillip Ashiku
Mayor, City of Ukiah
LD/Zip
GandJury. itr
Parking Lot C
North of Mendocino County Library, Ukiah
While there are an inadequate number of parking spaces available for
Mendocino County Library (Library) patrons, itis apparent that the parlcing lot
north of the Library (Lot C) is underused. In addition, the County-of Mendocino
(County) pays for a number of unused spaces for use'by its employees. The City
of Ukiah (City) and County need to closely review and adjust the Lot C
allocations.
Method of Investigation
The Grand jury inspected and observed Lot C, examined maps, the permit fee
schedule for City parking lots, the County-Cityparking contract, and the City of
Ukiah Parking Lot C Audit Results. The Grand Jury interviewed the City
Assistant Redevelopment Director, the City Customer Service Supervisor, and
the Assistant County Administrative Officer.-
B ckground
Library patrons noticed the empty parking spaces in Lot C and the lack of
public parking available for Library patrons. Lot C has 126 parking spaces.
Nine spaces are metered; the remaining spaces require a parking permit. Each
permit costs $7.50 per month~ The County contracts with the City for
approximately 60 assigned spaces and pays the monthly fee for the County
employees who receive the permits. The City makes the remaining spaces
available to the public on a first-come, first-serve basis at the same fee.
Findings
1. Each Cgunty employee with a permit for Lot C has a specific, assigned,
numbered space. When the assigned person does not use the space, the space
remains vacant and is unav~i!able for use by anyone else.
2. According to the City of Ukiah Parking Lot C Audit Results dated 11/13/00,
which covered weekdays between 8/7/00 and 10/4/00, Lot C was underUsed.
With approximately 60 County employees holding parking permits, the
average usage for those permit holders in Lot C was 26 spaces per day.
3. Most County employee parking usage is intermittent.
4. The County paid $7.50 per month per space for all 60 spaces. The County
paid for at least 22 spaces which were not used during the time period of the
report. At this rate, the County is wasting approximately $2,000 per year.
5. The Grand Jury has observed no apparent change in the usage since the
11/13/00 report.
6. Two street parking spaces are dedicated for Library patrons. No spaces in
Lot C are dedicated for Library patrons.
2000-2001 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
63
7. The City has posted a sign on Perkins Street indicating public parking north,
apparently to Lot C, but only nine public metered spaces are available.
Recommendations
A. The City continue a periodic review of County parlring lot usage and supply
the County with usage information. (Findings 1 - 5)
B. At a cost of $7.50 per space, per month, the County re-examine the need for
so many County employee parking spaces, which results in the money being
spent for non-use. (Findings 2 - 5)
C. The County look for resources to provide Library parking, such as
consolidating County employee parking in a spec'.rfic block of spaces within
Lot C, but not with individual employee spaces. Each employee COuld display
a.permit and park anywhere within that block of spaces. (Findings 2 - 6)
D. The County confer with its Library staff and the Friends Of the Library to
determine patron-parking needs and set aside an appropriate number of
non-metered, time-limit spaces for Library patron use only. These spaces
should be situated on the Library side of LOt C. (Finding 6)
E. The City make additional public metered or time limit parking available in
LOt C..(Finding 7)
Response Required
Mendocino County Board of Supervisors (Recommendations 2, 3, 4)
Ukiah City Council (Recommendations 1, 5)
2000-2001 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
64
AGENDA
SUMMARY
ITEM NO. 6d
DATE: DECEMBER 5, 2001
REPORT
SUBJECT:
NOTIFICATION TO COUNCIL REGARDING ACQUISITION OF
ENTRANCE DIRECTORY SIGNS FROM PARAMOUNT SIGNS
AMOUNT OF $9,654.45
AIRPORT
IN THE
Pursuant to Ukiah City Code Section 1522 A3, this notice is provided to the City Council
regarding acquisition of products or services between $5,000 and $10,000.
The recent completion of the landscaping at the entrance to the Airport has dramatically
improved the public image of the Airport. In an effort to continue the enhancement of the
entrance and create a more favorable and professional impression to the public, as well as
provide an easier method to locate the various services at the airport, Staff issued a Request
for Proposals (RFP) to four local sign companies for Airport directory signs. The only company
to respond to the RFP was Paramount Signs of Redwood Valley. Its proposed design is
impressive and will compliment the entrance and improve the overall appearance of the Airport
The cost of the lighted entrance sign and window and post-mounted directory signs,
including installation and sales tax, is $9,654.45. Project funding is included in the adopted
2001/02 budget. Staff has also applied for the annual $10,000 grant from the California
Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Division which can be used to supplement the
signage program.
RECOMMENDED
ACTION:
Receive Report Regarding Acquisition Of Airport Entrance
Directory Signs From Paramount Signs In The Amount Of
$9,654.45
ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Direct Staff to seek additional proposals.
2. Determine project is not feasible and direct Staff to discontinue project.
Citizen Advised:
Requested by:
Prepared by:
Coordinated with:
Attachments:
Airport Commission
N/A
Don Bua, Airport Manager
Albert Fierro, Assistant City Manager and Candace Horsley, City Manager
1. Proposal from Paramount Signs.
2. Request for Proposals.
APPROVED!.
Candace Horsley, Cit~
mfh:asrcc01
AirportEntrySigns
Manager
!i
Purchase Agreement
Date: lO/18jO !_
C/~mt
Albert T Fierro
Assistant City Manager
City Of Uk~h
300 Seminary Ave.
Ukiah, CA 95482
The following scope of work is proposed for Uldah Regional Airport:
Project
Ukiah Regiona~ ,irpo~
1411 South State Street
Contact: Don Bua / A/rport Manager
Qtye
Illuminated Monument DireCtory Sign
Unit Z0% Unit
Price Sales Tax Installation
Window Graphic ~rmac ~ for ~ North & South Temin~)
Freestanding Post & Panel Directional Signs ('~mmc oaena~l for ~oth
North & South Terminals)
Terminal Building Wall Directory Signs (Oaen~l ~owar& the parl~g
areas)
1,380.00 96.60 95.00
Taxable
Sales Tax
Non-Taxable
Grand Tote_/
$7,635.00
534.45
1,485.00
Clariflc~
Tenant Graphics(Logos) are not included. Blanks will be provided.
~Th~_fo_ll_o~w~_,~.._ ~c~.~ _ges.h. av, .been ,made to_the, scol:~. _of work. we have previously submitted: Adding the north .nninal
gnage. ~.~eung me smpe or graphics at the mpot the south terminal windows and deleting the tenant logos from the
entrance window. Also changed the quantity of building signs oriented to the parking area to be one sign per building,
Freestanding Post & Panel Directional Sign locations are to be determined. We recommend having them at the top of the
stairs form tarmac level to avoid obstruction by vehicles. We recommend budgeting for additional planning & design
development to include tenant needs and encompassing the entire facility in the scope of a Master Sign Program.
Items Not Included
Electrical service to sign location. A dedicated 6Amp / 120 Volt circ~t per N.E.C. with photocell Or ~ime dock controllov_
Permits and the cost to procure will be added to your invoice. The cost to procure permits can include en~g fees,
special drawings and staff time charges necessary to procure the permits.
Page 1 of 2
2701 Road I, Redwood Valley, CA 95470
800.075.3343 Iv]
707.485.7555
7o7.485.5o81[fj
paramou~er, net
Page I of 2
Riehts of Title
litie to all materials and property covered by th/s contract shall remain in Paramount Sign Contractors and shall not be
deemed to constitute a part of the malty to which it may be attached until the purchase price is paid in full Paramount Sign
Contractors is given a express security interest in said material and property both erected and not erected notwithstanding
the manner in which such personal property shall be annexed or attached to the realty. In the event of default by Client,
included, but not limited to, payment of any amounts due and payable, Paramount Sign Contractors may at once take
possession of and remove, as and when it sees fit and wherever found, all materials used or intended for use in this
construction of said equipment and any and all property called for in this Agreement without being deemed guilty of
trespass.
Rights of Cance~tion
Assuming just cause, each party reserves the fight to terminate this Agreement giving 10 days written notice to the other
Paramount Sign Contractors shallbe paid the resonable value of all work completed and all materials purchasedwhile
performing its obligations under this Agreement prior to receipt of such notice, and sba;; concurrently with such payment, or
within a resonable period thereafter, deliver to Client all work completed and material purchased.
Conditions c~ Sale
__
All obligations to be performed by Paramount Sign Contractors shall be subject to delay or failure resulting from war, fire,
unforeseen commerdal delays, acts of God, regulations or restrictions of the Government or public authorities, or other
accidents, forces, conditions or circumstances beyond its control.
50% Initial payment due upon approval of Agreement. Balance to be due upon completion & received within 30 days of date
of invoice. In the event payment is not made as agreed, Client agrees to pay a service dmrge of 1 ~% per month on past due
amounts from the originating invoice date.
Comoletion Date
Approximately 90 days from acceptance;items requiring permits / engineering may be delayed by these processes.
This Purchase Agreement is valid, as proposed, for 30 days from date of issuance.
Submitted By: Date:
Accepted BF (Authorized Agent) Date:
Please Print Title:
PROPOSAL FOR:
Ukiah Regional Airport $ignage Contract
PRESENTED TO:
Albert T. Fierro
Assistant City Manager
City Of Ukiah
300 Seminary Ave.
Ukiah, CA 95482
PRESENTED BY:
Butch Bainbridge
Paramount Sign Contractors
2701 Road l
Redwood Valley, CA 95470
November 7, 2001
SIGN CONTRACTORS
Cofllractors Uc. #~3~83 C-45
800.675.3343 707.485.7555
Fax 707.485.5081
~701 Road I Redwood Valley, CA 95470
paramount~l~abecnet
Project Experience & References
Fetzer Vineyards
Joel Clark 707.744.7106
P.O. Box 611
Hopland, CA
Saint Mary of the Angels Catholic Church
Mary Thomas 707.462.1431
RO. Box 611
Hopland, CA
Jepson Vineyards
Scott Jepson 707.468.8936
10300 $. Hwy. 101
Ukiah, CA 95482
SIGN CONTRACTORS
Cee'e'acte~ Lk. ~3&883 £--45
800.675.3343 707.485.7555
Fu 707.485.5081
2701 Road I Redwood Valley, CA 95470
paramount~asaber, net
CITY OF UKIAH
Request for Proposals (RFP) for Signs at
Ukiah Regional Airport
1. Background
The City of Ukiah and IJkiah Regional Airport are hereby requesting bids from qualified
Sign Service vendors to submit a sealed bid for signage at the airport. The Ukiah Regional
Airport is located at 1411 South State Street in Ukiah, California.
2. Project Setting
Ukiah is a General Law, full service city located approximately 62 miles north of Santa Rosa.
The City encompasses approximately 4.2 square miles, has approximately 15,000 residents,
and is the hub of government, retail and airport services for Mendocino County.
The Uldah Regional Airport is located at the south end of the City Of Ukiah, and offers
complete services to the aviation community. The airport encompasses approximately 160
acres and there are approximately 95-based aircraft on the field. The airport is a California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection air attack base with two tankers, and one
coordinator airera~ base during the fire season. The airport is currently in an expansion and
development cycle. There is a substantial need for a hiring a professional sign contractor.
3. Project Description
The project will consist of developing signage for the north and south terminal, an
illuminated monument directory at the entrance of the airport, a decal sign on the from
entrance of the south terminal (tarmac level) and signage on the building of the north
terminal (walking from tarmac level). For a site tour contact:
Mr. Don Bua, Airport Manager
Ukiah Regional Airport
1411 South State Street
Ukiah, CA 95482
(707) 467-2855
300 SEMINARY AVENUE UKIAH, CA 95482-5400
I:'hone~ 707/463-6200 Faxg 707/463-6204 Web Address: www. cityofukiah.com
a. Verification of Insurance
Each bidder is required to show proof of general liability and workers' compensation
insurance. The winning bidder shall also be required to name the City of Ukiah as an
additional insured on the noted insurance policies.
b. Prevailing Wages
This project will require that all vendors factor into their bids compliance with all
applicable prevailing wage laws under Federal and State regulations.
®
a.
b.
Proposal Requirements
Project Title: Ukiah Regional Airport Signage Contract
List of Similar Projects and References- Each bidder is to file a written bid that
includes a list of three similar projects and three client references. References should
include the names, addresses and phone numbers of client contacts.
Proposal Form and Delivery- All bids should be in a written form noting equipment
costs, materials and labor. All proposals must be delivered in a sealed envelope with the
project title, and the firm's name clearly visible on the envelope.
5. RFP Timetable and Contract
Bidders shall submit one (1) copy of the proposal to the City of Ukiah for consideration. Ail
proposals responding to the RFP must be submitted to the City of Ukiah by 5:00 PM on
November 9, 2001. Postmarks will be accepted. Selection of the winning bid will consist of
the firm that submits the most reasonable bid, based upon materials and qualifications of the
company.
We appreciate your interest in the City Of Ukiah and the Ukiah Regional Airport signage
project. All proposals must be mailed or hand delivered to:
'Albert T. Fierro,
Assistant City Manager
City Of Uldah
300 Seminary Ave
Ukiah, CA 95482
If you have any questions regarding this bid process you should contact Mr. Fierro at (707)
463-6269 or e-mail him at albertf(~_,eityofukiah.com
List of Sign Vendors
who were mailed RFP
FAX
FAX
FAX
Berry Sign Co
(707) 485-7004
(707) 485-7004
Shelton Signs
(707) 263-1413
(707) 468-1371 --'
Paramount Signs
(707) 485-7555
(707) 485-5081
Crawford's Signs
1128 South State Street Ukiah, CA 95482
(707) 468-1371
(707) 468-3887
ITEM NO: 8a
DATE: December 5, 2001
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF APPLICATION TO DEMOLISH THREE STRUCTURES OVER 50
YEARS OLD LOCATED AT 509 LOW GAP ROAD
SUMMARY: The owner of the property located at 509 Low Gap Road has applied for a Demolition
Permit to demolish three structures on the site. Demolition of the structures is necessary as the first step
in developing the site with an apartment complex conditionally approved by the City Council in 1999.
The buildings include a single-family residence, small guesthouse, and garage. All three structures are
over 50 years old, and therefore, according to the Ukiah Municipal Code (UMC), the City Council must
conduct a public hearing to review and consider the historical and architectural significance of the
structures.
On November 7, 2001, the City Demolition Permit Review Committee considered the application and
Historical Profile prepared by Judy Pruden, and unanimously found that none of the criteria in UMC
Section 3016(E) (attachment 4) applied, and therefore the structures are not historically or architecturally
significant. Accordingly, Staff is recommending approval of the Demolition Permit.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the Demolition Permit for the three structures located at 509 Low
Gap Road based on the findings that none of the structures have historical or architectural significance.
ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: Do not approve the Demolition Permit, and provide
processing direction to staff as to the structure's future disposition.
Citizen Advised: Noticed according to the requirements of the Ukiah Municipal Code
Requested by: Andrew and Chandra Marks
Prepared by: Charley Stump, Director of Planning and Community Development
Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager
Attachments:
1. Demolition Permit Application
2. Historical Profile (Pruden)
3. Demolition Permit Review Committee Minutes, Dated November 7, 2001
4. Section 3016 of the Ukiah Municipal Code
5. CEQA Exemption
APPROVED:
Can-~'ce Horsley, City '~anager
PRESS HARD--YOU ARE MAKING 4 COPIES--PLEASE USE BALL POINT PEN
PRESS HARD--YOU ARE MAKING 4 COPIES--PLEASE USE BALL POINT PEN
,,
__
O
,,, ,~, '~O u ," O
· Z)
0,-4. "'
L .'= u~, , --
,-e Oi
,' ~
O0
~:~Zz :~6 ~ u
O~z~:
z~z<z '
o~ ~< o~ ~O -
. Zz
oz
~ _ og
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
FRANK
ZEEK
SCHOOL
VlNE'WOOD
PARK
:IPAL
',SE
LOCATION MAP
509 LOW GAP ROAD
M.E.M.O.R.A.N.D.U.M
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
November 1, 2001
Charley Stump, Director of Planning
Judy Prudent, Chairman
Demolition Permit Review Committee
509 LOW GAP ROAD
For the Committee's information we have processed 51 structural demolition applications
since 1984 to date. The last demolition request was October 25, 1999, for a barn on Brush
Street. The demolition was approved, and the structure was destroyed by the City of Ukiah
Fire Department as a practice burn.
509 Low Gap Road
There are three structures at this address. The tax documents indicate a1935 building
date, and an inspection confirms the architectural style is consistent with this date. In 1995
a demolition application was processed for another structure at this address and the area's
history was documented at that time. Briefly, the area was annexed into the City in 1951,
but the parcel had been subdivided in the 1920's from an old ranch. Numerous small
homes were built in the 1920's to 1940's. These homes were very modest and most were
rentals. It is believed that most of the people living in the area worked at the County
Hospital across the street.
Sidney Churchill, a previous owner, had been a janitor for 25 years at the Hospital and
lived on the property, and rented out the duplex, which is part of this demolition application.
The remaining structures are in disrepair, with limited salvage value. They have little or no
architectural fixtures worth retention. The history of the area, although interesting, is not
significant.
There appears to be no reason to prohibit demolition.
R:I~LANNING
MSTUMP
DEMOLITION PERMIT REVIEW
COMMITTEE MEETING
November 7, 2001
MEMBERS PRESENT
Diana Steele
Charley Stump
Brian Keefer
Judy Pruden
Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
MEMBERS ABSENT
Carl Tuliback
OTHERS PRESENT
Mike Behler
The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Demolition Review was called to order
by Chairman Pruden at 10'00 a.m. in the Conference Room 1, 300 Seminary
Avenue, Ukiah, California. Roll was taken with the results listed above.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: N/A
4. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
No one from the audience came forward.
5. APPEAL PROCESS
Chairman Pruden read the appeal process to the audience. For matters heard at
this meeting, the final date for appeal is November 19, 2001.
6. DEMOLITION PERMIT REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Aa
509 Low Gap Road (Assessor Parcel Number 001-430-29 & 30)
Andrew and Chandra Marks.
Chairman Pruden drew attention to her Memorandum, dated November 1,
2001, in the above-referenced project. She reported there are three structures
for the proposed demolition to include a barn, small guest cottage containing no
plumbing, and a duplex. It appears that the structures are 50 or more years old.
Tax documents indicate a construction date of 1935 and the architectural style is
consistent with this date. The subject parcel was subdivided in the 1920s from
an old ranch and there were numerous small homes built in the 1920s and
1940s. The homes were modest in appearance and were mainly utilized as
rentals. The remaining structures are in disrepair incorporating little or no salvage
value. The history of the area is interesting, but not considered significant.
Ms. Pruden noted all buildings 50 years old or older are carefully reviewed
relevant to historical value and significance prior to a demolition
Demolition Permit Review
November 7, 2001
Page
recommendation. She advised the Demolition Permit Review Committee makes
a recommendation to the City Council and Council is the decision-making body
approving or denying a particular project. She advised should the Commission
unanimously recommend demolition, the project would be heard as a Consent
item by the City Council. The second demonstration request for this parcel was
in 1995 for a small home. The existing structures requested for demolition are in
poor condition and there appears to be no architectural significance and no
reason to prohibit demolition.
^ brief discussion followed regarding salvageable materials and the benefits
associated with this opportunity. It was noted asbestos and/or asbestos related
materials have been located on the site whereby appropriate abatement
measures must be taken prior to a demolition.
Planning Director Stump stated the Memorandum is self-explanatory and
supports the recommendation for demolition. The project does not fulfill the
criteria provided for in Section 3126(e) of the Municipal Code.
ON A MOTION by Member Stump, seconded by Member Keefer, it was carried
by an all AYE voice vote of the members present to recommend demolition of the
structures located at 509 Low Gap Road, and that the criteria outlined in Section
3126(e) of the Ukiah Municipal Code do not apply to the project, as provided in
the Memorandum dated November 1, 2001, and as discussed above.
7. NEW BUSINESS
None.
8. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 10:22 a.m.
Judy Pruden, Chairman
Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
Demolition Permit Review
November 7, 2001
Page 2
3015: EXCLUSION:
The provisions of this Chapter shall not apply to any project under the control and jurisdiction of
the Public Works Department of the City of Ukiah, the County of Mendocino, the State of
California or the United States unless, and to the extent, the contract or specifications for a
particular project specifies compliance with this Chapter or any of the model codes adopted
herein. (Ord. 838, § 1, adopted 1984)
~a~l~ 3016: MODIFICATIONS TO THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE:
A. The section of the Uniform Building Code, relating to applications for building permits is
modified to require in an application to demolish a building, the date when the building was
first constructed, if known.
Bo
The section of the Uniform Building Code, relating to permit issuance, is modified to require
that, as to buildings constructed fifty (50) years or more prior to the date of application, the
Director of Planning or his/her designee shall determine whether:
1. The building is an accessory building such as, but not limited to, a garage, storage shed, or
carport, whether attached or detached to a main building; except that certain accessory
buildings, such as carriage houses, which are presumed to have historic or architectural
significance shall be subject to further review as provided in subsection D of this Section,
unless the building is subject to demolition under subsection B2 of this Section.
2. Immediate demolition of the building is necessary to protect the public health or safety
and the failure to immediately demolish the building would constitute a serious threat to the
public health or safety.
Co
If subsection B 1 or B2 of this Section applies to the building, no further review shall be
required under this Section and the permit shall be issued in accordance with the provisions
of the Uniform Building Code.
Do
If the Planning Director finds that neither of the exceptions in subsection B 1 or B2 of this
Section applies to the building, the demolition permit shall be subject to further review in
accordance with this Section. The Planning Director shall transmit the proposal to the
Demolition Permit Review Committee, or other official reviewing body established by the
City Council, for review, comment, and a recommendation to the City Council. Once the
mo
F.
Go
Demolition Permit Review Committee formulates a recommendation conceming the
disposition of the proposed demolition permit, the Planning Director shall schedule and duly
notice the matter for a public hearing and decision by the City Council. The public noticing
shall indicate the day, time, place, and purpose of the public hearing, and how additional
information about the subject matter can be obtained. The public noticing shall be
accomplished in the following manner:
1. Publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least ten (10) days prior to
the hearing.
2. Mailing or delivery at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing to the owner(s) of the subject
property, or his/her agent, and to the project applicant, if the applicant is not the owner.
3. First class mail notice to all owners (as shown on the latest available Mendocino County
Tax Assessor's equalized assessment roll) of property within three hundred feet (300') of the
subject property.
In reviewing proposed demolition permits, and formulating recommendations to the City
Council, the Demolition Permit Review Committee shall consider any information provided
during the meeting, and shall use the following criteria. The structure:
1. Has a special or particular quality such as oldest, best example, largest, or last surviving
example of its kind; or
2. Exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City's cultural, social, economic, political,
aesthetic, or architectural history; or
3. Is strongly identified with persons or events significant in local, State, or national history.
If the Demolition Permit Review Committee finds that any of the criteria listed in subsection
E of this Section apply to the building proposed for demolition, it shall recommend denial of
the demolition permit to the City.
1. The City Council shall conduct a public hearing pursuant to subsection D of this Section
to consider the recommendation of the Demolition Permit Review Committee, and to
determine if any of the criteria listed in subsection E of this Section apply to the building
proposed for demolition. If the City Council determines that any one of the criteria apply, it
shall make a corresponding finding to that effect.
2. At the hearing, the applicant shall have the opportunity to present evidence that a viable
market does not exist for the building, taking into account the condition of the building, the
probable cost to put the building into marketable condition, and the uses of the property
allowed under existing or probable future zoning regulations. The City Council shall
consider such evidence offered by the applicant and any other information presented at the
meeting by any interested party or by staff, to determine whether or not a viable market
exists. "Viable market" means that it is reasonably likely that the building could be sold
within a commercially reasonable period of time for more than the seller would be required
to invest in the purchase of the property and preparing the property for sale, or that the
property could produce a reasonable return on the amount of money it would take to
purchase the property and prepare the building for income producing purposes. "Reasonable
return" means the average rate of return on real estate investments in the Ukiah Valley.
3. If the City Council determines that a viable market exists:
a. It shall so notify the Building Official who shall not issue the demolition permit. The
City Council shall determine whether a viable market exists based on substantial
evidence presented at the hearing, or, it may assume that a viable market exists, if the
applicant fails to present substantial evidence that a viable market does not exist;
b. Not more than once within any twelve (12) month period, the applicant may submit a
new application for a demolition permit and the City Council may reconsider whether a
viable market exists:
(1) Upon a showing by the applicant that market conditions have changed; or
(2) Based upon new information that in the exercise of reasonable diligence the
applicant could not have produced at the first hearing.
4. If the City Council determines, based on substantial evidence, that a viable market does
not exist, the issuance of the demolition permit shall be stayed for a period of ninety (90)
days.
a. During that ninety (90) day period, the City shall do the following:
(1) Determine whether other alternatives to demolition exist, which are acceptable to
the applicant, that would preserve the historic, architectural or cultural significance of
the building;
(2) Determine whether funds are available from any private source for the acquisition
and preservation of the building through a negotiated purchase on terms acceptable to
the applicant; or
(3) If sufficient funds are available from any private source and a negotiated purchase
is not possible, determine whether to acquire the building through eminent domain.
b. If within the ninety (90) days, the City does not reach agreement with the applicant or
commence acquisition of the building, the Building Official may issue the permit in
accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Building Code.
c. If within the ninety (90) day period, the City either: 1) reaches agreement with the
applicant or 2) commences acquisition of the building, the Building Official shall not
issue the demolition permit.
d. However, the Building Official shall continue to process the application for a
demolition permit in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, if the City and the
applicant terminate their agreement or the City fails to diligently pursue or abandons
acquisition of the building.
e. The City Manager or his/her designee shall inform the Building Official whenever the
City and the applicant terminate their agreement or the City fails to diligently pursue or
abandons acquisition of the building.
f. If the Building Official has issued a demolition permit under this subsection and the
permittee applies to extend the permit an additional one hundred eighty (180) days in
accordance with the applicable provisions of the Uniform Building Code then in effect,
the Building Official shall refer the application to the City Manager for an initial
determination as to whether market conditions have changed. The City Manager shall
make the determination within ten (10) days after the application is referred by the
Building Official. If the City Manager determines that market conditions may have
changed and that a viable market may exist for the property, he or she shall schedule the
matter for a hearing before the City Council to be noticed and conducted in accordance
with subsections D and G of this Section. However, at the hearing the City shall have the
burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that market conditions have
changed and a viable market exists. If the City Manager determines that market
conditions have not changed, he or she shall so notify the Building Official and the
applicant. Upon such notification, the Building Official shall further process the
application to extend the term of the demolition permit in accordance with the
requirements of the Uniform Building Code then in effect. If the City Council conducts a
hearing upon referral by the City Manager, the City Clerk shall provide written
notification to the Building Official and the applicant of the City Council decision. If the
City Council decides that a viable market exists, the Building Official shall not issue the
permit, but the provisions of subsection G3b of this Section shall apply. If the City
Council decides that a viable market does not exist, the Building Official immediately
shall proceed to further process the application in accordance with the applicable
provisions of the Uniform Building Code then in effect.
Ho
5. "Diligently pursue acquisition" means taking all steps within the time required by law to
acquire the building by eminent domain.
6. References to "applicant" herein shall include the building owner.
The Planning Director shall provide a written notice of the City Council determination to the
applicant. The written notification shall be mailed or hand delivered within five (5) days
from the date of the City Council's decision. The notice shall include the finding(s) and
decision made by the City Council and a copy of this Section.
The applicant for a demolition permit for a building determined to have historic,
architectural or cultural significance shall salvage the building materials for reuse to the
maximum extent feasible, and shall ensure that upon completion of the demolition, the site is
left in a safe, presentable, and clutter free condition.
J. Reconsideration Of Decisions:
1. Grounds For Reconsideration: The City Council may reconsider a decision under this
Section within sixty (60) calendar days from the date the decision was made, if information
that may have materially affected the decision was: a) misrepresented by the applicant, or b)
not disclosed by the applicant, if the applicant knew or should have known that the
information may have affected the City Council decision. "Information" as used herein
means matters of fact or law.
A decision may not be reconsidered, if all three (3) of the following have occurred. The
demolition permit: a) has been issued, b) did not at the time it was issued violate any
provision of the Uniform Building Code, as adopted by the City, or any other City ordinance
or State or Federal law, and c) the permittee has commenced demolition in good faith
reliance on the permit.
2. Procedure On Reconsideration: Reconsideration of a decision under this Section may be
placed on the agenda for a regular City Council meeting by any member of the City Council
who voted in favor of the original decision. Notice of any meeting where reconsideration is
on the agenda shall be provided in accordance with subsection D of this Section. If already
issued, the permit shall be suspended from the date that an eligible City Council member
requests that the matter be placed on the agenda and until the City Council makes a final
decision upon reconsideration. The Building Official shall notify the applicant in writing of
the permit suspension. At the meeting, the City Council shall determine, based on evidence
provided to the City prior to or during the meeting, whether reconsideration is permitted
under subsection J1 of this Section. Any motion to reconsider the decision shall contain
findings supported by substantial evidence. If upon reconsideration the City Council makes
a different decision, the City Clerk shall provide notice of that decision to the Building
Official and the applicant/permittee within five (5) working days after the decision is made.
If, upon reconsideration, the City Council determines that a building has historic,
architectural, or cultural significance, and the Building Official has issued a demolition
permit based on the previous decision, the Building Official shall revoke the permit. If the
previously issued permit has expired, the Building Official shall deny an application for a
new permit, unless the permit is issued in accordance with subsection G4 of this Section.
(Ord. 838, §1, adopted 1984; Ord. 927, §1, adopted 1992; Ord. 1014, §1, adopted 1998)
3030: UNIFORM BUILDING CODE SECTION 3313 IS AMENDED AS
FOLLOWS:
TO:
Office of Planning and Research
1400 Tenth Street, Room 121
Sacramento, CA 95814
County Clerk
County of Mendocino
Courthouse
Ukiah, CA 95482
FROM:
City of Ukiah
300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
PROJECT TITLE: Marks / Behler Demolition Permit
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The project involves the demolition of three structures (single family residence,
cjarac~e, and small cjuest house) over 50 years old with no historical or architectural significance.
LOCATION OF PROJECT: 509 Low Gap Road, Ukiah, CA (APN 001-430-29 & 30)
PUBLIC AGENCY APPROVING PROJECT: City of Ukiah
NAME OF PROJECT APPLICANT: Behler Construction / Andrew and Chandra Marks
CEQA EXEMPTION STATUS:
'.J Ministerial
'/ ~~J~eclared Emergency
'..VI~ Categorical Exemption Section 15301, Class 1(I)
'/ Statutory Exemption Section
REASONS WHY PROJECT IS EXEMPT: The structures possess no historical or architectural sicjnificance,
and otherwise comply with the CEQA exemption criteria in terms of number and location of demolitions.
LEAD AGENCY CONTAC'I ~ON: C~I: _~~ump
TITLE: //~PPlan I~n~ Direc~r ~nnv~t~ ~ordinator
DA TE ~~~_~ /
AGENDA
SUMMARY
ITEM NO. 8c.
DATE: December 5, 2001
REPORT
SUBJECT:
ACCEPTANCE OF FINAL REPORT AND CLOSE OUT OF THE CITY OF UKIAH'S
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT PLANNING/TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROJECT: PALACE HOTEL
RE-USE STUDY, GRANT #00-EDBG-727
The City of Ukiah received $35,000 in economic development grant monies (#00-EDBG-727) from the
State of California Department of Housing and Community Development, Community Development Block
Grant Program, to conduct a re-use study of the historic Palace Hotel. This study was conducted by
Applied Development Economics (ADE), a consulting firm from Sacramento. CDBG Program
requirements specify that a public hearing be held to consider the final report and close out the grant.
AD£ will present the study and be available for your input and questions on December 5th.
The report concludes the Palace Hotel can be upgraded into modern building compliance with significant
structural improvements, and fire code enhancements. By having a massive structural improvement the
building will be able to meet the requirements of Americans with Disabilities Act. Retrofit costs will be
high, but may not be prohibitive. For approximately $4.5 million the entire building can be developed into
a combination of revenue-generating uses including, a destination restaurant with a full bar, 25 room
boutique hotel, ground floor retail shops and/or offices, and up to 34 residential units. The seismic and
structural retrofits are calculated at approximately $1.5 million. Under the best possible scenario, even
taking maximum advantage of historic tax credits, the initial investment will be significant with a long-term
payback of over 15 years. The economic benefits to the City of having a viable renovated hotel would be
a major boost our downtown revitalization efforts.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct Public Hearing, Accept final report and presentation by
Applied Development Economics and formally close out CDBG grant
#00-EDBG-727.
ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS:
1. Not accept report as meeting the requirements of the CDBG grant guidelines and
provide direction to staff.
Citizen Advised:
Requested by:
Prepared by:
Coordinated with:
Attachments:
Public hearing noticed in the Ukiah Daily Journal on November 18, 2001
N/A
Albert T. Fierro, Assistant City Manager
Candace Horsley, City Manager
1. Final Palace Hotel Re-Use Study (report is enclosed in the Council binder).
Candace Horsley, Ci~ Manager
mfh:ASRCityCouncil
2001:727
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
III
UKIAH'S PALACE HOTEL
REUSE STUDY
FINAL REPORT
November 2001
Prepared For
City of Ukiah
This Study was Funded by
Economic Development Block Grant Funds
Grant #00.EDBG-727
Prepared By
Applied Development Economics
2029 University Avenue' Berkeley, CA 94704 · (510) 548-5912
1029 J Street, Suite 310' Sacramento, CA 95814' (916) 441-0323
www. adeusa.com
--
in Association with
Mogavero Notestine Associates
2012 K Street · Sacramento, CA 95814 · (916) 443-1033
AGENDA
SUMMARY
ITEM NO. 8b.
DATE: December 5, 2001
REPORT
SUBJECT:
ACCEPTANCE OF FINAL REPORT AND CLOSEOUT OF THE CITY OF UKIAH'S
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT PLANNING/TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROJECT: FEASIBILITY
STUDY FOR REVOLVING LOAN FUND AND AIRPORT BUSINESS PLAN, GRANT #99-
EDBG-658
The City of Ukiah was a awarded a grant for $35,000 (#99-EDBG-658) from the State of California
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program to conduct a study to research Ukiah's business
climate given the recent decline of the timber industry. The study has been completed by Applied
Development Economics (ADE), a consulting firm from Sacramento, and the grant is in order for close
out. CDBG Program requirements stipulate that a public hearing be held to consider the final report and
close out the grant. ADE will present the study and be available for your input and questions on
December 5.
This report identifies Ukiah's business and retail mix, creates an industrial marketing strategy, and
assesses the costs and feasibility of developing the industrial land located southeast of the Ukiah
Regional Airport (Langley property). In addition, this report studies the need for expanding the City's
existing small business revolving loan fund (RLF).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct Public Hearing, Accept Feasibility Study For Revolving Loan
Program And Airport Business Plan Study As Authored By Applied
Development Economics, And Formally Close Out CDBG Grant #99-
EDBG-658.
ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS:
1. Elect not to accept the report as drafted or as meeting the requirements of the
CDBG grant guidelines and provide direction to staff.
Citizen Advised:
Requested by:
Prepared by:
Coordinated with:
Attachments:
Public hearing noticed in the Ukiah Daily Journal on November 18, 2001
N/A
Albert T. Fierro, Assistant City Manager
Candace Horsley, City Manager
1. Final Feasibility Study (report is enclosed in the Council binder).
APPROVED~(~,, '~~r-~ I"~---"x
O~h'~ace Horsley, City, Manager
mfh:ASRCityCouncil
2001:658
FEASIBILITY FOP, A
REVOLVING LOAN FUND
AND AIRPORT BUSINESS PLAN
FINAL REPORT
November 2001
Prepared For
The City of Ukiah
This Study was funded by
Economic Development Block Grant Funds
Grant ~9-EDBG-658
Prepared By
Applied Development Economics
2029 University Avenue. Berkeley, CA 94704. (510) 548-5912
1029 J Street, Suite 310, Sacramento, CA 95814. (916) 441-0323
www.adeusa.com
,-
In Association with
Andrew Leahy
Leahy Engineering
562 Sixteenth Avenue
San Francisco, Ca 94118
AGENDA
SUMMARY
ITEM NO. 8d
DATE: December 5, 2001
REPORT
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SCHEDULE OF FEES AND RATES
FOR GARBAGE AND RECYCLING COLLECTION SERVICE AND APPROVAL OF 0% CPI
INCREASE FOR THE 2001/2002 FISCAL YEAR
The provisions of the City's franchise agreement with Solid Wastes Systems, Inc., for the collection,
transportation and disposal of garbage and the recycling ofrecyclable materials within the City limits of
Ukiah requires that an annual adjustment be made to the garbage and recycling collection rates. In two
of every three years, this adjustment is made by applying a rate factor equal to 75% of the change in the
U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Statistics, Consumer Price Index (CPI), U. S. City Average,
March to March (Contract CPI), unless the City Council should determine otherwise at any rate hearing
conducted pursuant to the Ukiah City Code (UCC) Sections 3950-3957.
Every third year, the City Council is to conduct a rate hearing pursuant to UCC Sections 3950-3957 to
determine what, if any, adjustment should be made to the garbage collection and recycling rates, taking
into consideration the annual audits of the contractor's operations and all other factors deemed relevant
by the City Council. Earlier this fiscal year (2001/2002), the Refuse Collection and Recycling Franchise
Agreement was modified to include a new term of 15 years and to require the implementation of single-
stream recycling. Implementation of this new recycling system requires specific containers designed for
use with a mechanical arm on the collection truck. The fee schedule must be revised to accommodate
these standardized containers.
The previous fee schedule contained fees for various combinations of containers. The proposed fee
schedule modifies this approach and utilizes the gallons per week approach to determine the fee. The
cost per gallon technique provides a simple method for computing a customer's cost. The size of the
(continued on page 2
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Resolution establishing the schedule of fees and rates for garbage and recycling collection
services for the 2001/2002 fiscal year.
ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: Provide staff with alternative direction.
Citizen Advised:
Requested by:
Prepared by:
Coordinated with:
Attachments:
Public Hearing noticed in Ukiah Daily Journal on November 25, 2001
Solid Wastes Systems, Inc.
Gordon Elton, Finance Director
Candace Horsley, City Manager
1. Resolution including Attachment "A" - Proposed Rates
2. Attachment "B", City Manager's Report, with rate comparisons
APPROVED:
Ch--ndac e ft~)rsley~'Cit~Manager
container(s) multiplied by the number of containers multiplied by the number of pickups per week equals
the number of "gallons per week". This "total gallons per week" times the rate per gallon for the
calculated quantity equals the monthly fee. Container sizes are: 10 gallons, 20 gallons, 32 gallons, 68
gallons, and 95 gallons. Customers will be allocated one of these size containers, based on their
previous usage. Multiple containers will be allowed for customers needing more than 95 gallons per
pickup. Under special circumstances, customers requiting multiple smaller containers will be allowed.
The basic concept of promoting conservation by reducing the cost for customers who dispose of less
garbage, is retained in the proposed fee schedule. The proposed fees are developed from the existing fee
schedule. The only impact on customers will come from a change in the size of the container they use.
The three smallest sizes remain at the same cost, even though the customers previously using a 30-gallon
container will increase their capacity by 2 gallons (from 30 to 32). Customers previously using a 45-
gallon container will either increase to 68 gallons or reduce to 32 gallons. Depending on which
container they utilize their cost will either increase by $10.63 or decrease by $6.63.
The charges for basic service levels are:
Weekly Service
No service-minimum fee
1 O-gallon container
20-gallon container
30 to 32 gallon container
45 to 68 gallon container
3-30 to 1-95 gallon container
1 yard bin
2 yard bin
Current Proposed Change
$ 3.35 $ 3.35 $ -0-
3.35 3.35 -0-
7.05 7.05 -0-
12.66 12.66 -0-
19.29 29.92 10.63
39.92 42.18 2.26
72.66 72.66 -0-
114.48 114.48 -0-
There is no increase to the residential rate being proposed. It is estimated that 3,628 (86.5%) residential
customers will experience no change in cost, while 524 (12.5%) of the 4,193 residential customers will
choose to increase their garbage disposal capacity and, as a result, see a cost increase. The remaining 41
(1%) residential customers are expected to downsize and experience a cost reduction. On the
commercial side, it is estimated that 553 (78%) commercial customers will experience no change in cost,
while 137 (19.3%) commercial customers will increase their garbage disposal capacity and see a cost
increase. The remaining 19 (2.7%) commercial customers are expected to downsize and experience a
cost reduction. All customers experiencing a cost increase have the potential for reducing their cost if
they recycle more and reduce the size of the container they require for garbage disposal.
This proposal was developed as a result of discussions Staffheld with Solid Waste Systems, Inc. and the
Council's Solid Waste sub-committee of Mayor Ashiku and Councilmember Libby. It has the support of
Solid Waste Systems, Inc.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Refuse Collection and Recycling Franchise Agreement, staff
recommends adoption of the attached resolution that restructures the garbage collection and recycling
fees to a per gallon per week basis.
GE: Garbage Rates 2001 .agn
Page 2
RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ESTABLISHING
SCHEDULE OF FEES AND RATES FOR GARBAGE AND RECYCLING COLLECTION
SERVICES FOR THE 2001/2002 FISCAL YEAR
WHEREAS, the City Council, under terms of its franchise agreement with Solid Wastes
Systems, Inc., must adjust garbage and recycling collection fees and charges for the
2001/2002 fiscal year using Solid Wastes Systems, Inc.'s financial statements and other
information the Council deems appropriate; and
WHEREAS, Solid Wastes Systems, Inc. has agreed to implement automated pickup
and a single-stream recycling system; and
WHEREAS, available container sizes will change to meet the requirements of the
automated system; and
WHEREAS, Solid Wastes Systems, Inc. has agreed to offer the new 32 gallon container
service at the same rate as the existing rate for a 30 gallon container; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered financial information relevant to the
garbage and recycling collection service; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing regarding these rates was held by the City Council on
December 5, 2001 and public comment was heard and considered.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Ukiah
hereby adopts the rate structure set forth in Attachment "A" attached hereto and made part of
this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the rate schedule adopted by this Resolution shall be
effective immediately or at that future date when the automated collection and single-stream
recycling systems are implemented by Solid Wastes Systems, Inc. All prior rate schedules in
conflict herewith are repealed upon the effective date of the new schedule. All other contract
conditions for service remain unaltered and in full effect and the City Clerk shall cause the
publication of this resolution in the Ukiah Daily Journal within 10 days following Council action
pursuant to the provisions of Section 3957 of the Ukiah Municipal Code.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of December 2001 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Philip Ashiku, Mayor
ATTEST:
Marie Ulvila, City Clerk
Resolution No. 2002-
Page 1 of 1
PROPOSED RATES FOR GARBAGE COLLECTION SERVICES
Fiscal Year 2001/2002
Size/Volume
Lookup Per Week Rate per Add-on
Code From To gallon Fee
Exhibit "A"
Resolution #2002-
December 5, 2001
Size/Volume Per Rate per
Lookup Week Cubic
Code From To Yard
Curb Service ratesforcontainers
(measured in gallons)- GC
GC10 0 10 $ .3350 $ 0
GC20 11 20 $ .3530 $ 0
GC32 21 32 $ .3960 $ 0
GC68 33 68 $ .4400 $ 0
GC95 69 95 $ .4440 $ 0
GC136 96 136 $ .4890 $ 0
GC190 137 190 $ .4930 $ 0
GC+ 191 + $ .5000 $ 0
Pack-out Service rates forcontainers
(measured in gallons)-GY
GY10 0 10 $ .5170 $ 0
GY20 11 20 $ .4430 $ 0
GY32 21 32 $ .4840 $ 0
'GY68 33 68 ~$ .5360 $ 0
GY95 69 95 $ .5540 $ 0
GY136 96 136 $ .5540 $ 0
GY190 137 190 $ .5720 $ 0
GY+ 191 + $ .6000 $ 0
Remote Area Service rates for
containers (measured in gallons) - GR
GR10 0 10 $ .5170+ $ 5.17
GR20 11 20 $ .4430 + $ 5.17
GR32 21 32 $ .4840 + $ 5.17
GR68 33 68 $ .5360 + $ 5.17
GR95 69 95 $ .5540 + $ 5.17
GR136 96 136 $ .5540+ $ 5.17
GR190 137 190 $ .5720+ $ 5.17
GR+ 191 + $ .6000 + $ 5.17
Examples: Previous New
No service- minimum fee* $ 3.35 $ 3.35
10 gallon container $ 3.35 $ 3.35
20 gallon container $ 7.05 $ 7.05
30 gallon container $ 12.66 NA
32 gallon container NA $ 12.66
68 gallon container NA $ 29.92
95 gallon container NA $ 42.18
1 yard bin $ 72.66 $ 72.66
1.5yard bin $ 85.86 $ 85.86
2 yard bin $ 114.48 $114.48
rRates for Bins (in cubic yards)
y+ 11.5 +
72.66J
57.241
Rates for Debris Boxes - 7 day rental (excluding
tipping fee)
B10 10 10 150.00
B15 15 15 150.00
B20 20 20 150.00
B30 30 30 150.00
B40 40 40 150.00
Additional $10.00 fee per day for retaining drop box more
than 7 days.
Miscellaneous & Special Services
MI 3 yard box per dump (3 day rental) $ 102.40
M2 Appliances $ 16.60
M3 Tires (up to 4 automobile or $ 3.50
motorcycle sized tires on regular
garbage collection route)
M4 Tires (5 or more automobile $ 16.60
or motorcycle sized tires,
special trip)
M5 Large truck sized tires $ 16.60
(special trip)
M6 Furniture and Other Items $ 16.60
(special trip)
M7 Locking bin $ 22.20
* Per City of Ukiah Municipal Code Section 4443
Garbage Rates 2001
Page 1
Attachment "A"
Rate
Code Service Description
RESIDENTIAL
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
SCHEDULE OF FEES AND RATES
FOR GARBAGE AND RECYCLING COLLECTION SERVICES
FOR THE 2001/2002 FISCAL YEAR
COMPARED TO PRIOR YEAR
Current New New
Customer Monthly Service Monthly Change
Count Rate Description Rate In Rate
Basic Rate (Municipal Code section 4443) $ 3.35
$ 3.35
Curb Service
GA1 1-10gal 444 $ 3.35 1-10gal
GA10 1-20gal 437 7.05 1-20gal
GA2 1-30gal 2,597 12.66 1-32gal
GA11 2-20gal 10 17.14 1-32gal
GA3 2-30gal 365 26.41 1-68gal
GA4 3-30gal 23 39.92 1-95gal
GA8 4-30gal 3 58.69 1-95gal
GA21 1-45gal 108 19.29 1-68gal
GA22 2-45gal 11 39.92 1-95gal
GA24 3-45gal 1 59.21 2-68gal
Pack-out Service
GA20 1-10gal 9 $ 5.17 1-10gal
GA14 1-20gal 24 8.86 1-20gal
GA5 1-30gal 100 15.49 1-32gal
GA6 2-30gal 10 32.16 1-68gal
GA9 4-30gal 1 68.66 2-68gal
GA23 1-45gal 1 23.19 1-68gal
Remote Area Service (BGR
- small truck service)
GA74 1-10gal 1 $ 10.34 1-10gal
GA75 1-20gal 1 14.03 1-20gal
GA70 1-30gal 15 20.66 1-32gal
GA71 2-30gal 4 37.33 1-68gal
Miscellaneous Service
GA30 1-105gal 28 $ 50.59 1-95gal
Total 4,193
$
$
·
$
$
$
3.35
7.05
12.66
12.66
29.92
42.18
42.18
29.92
42.18
66.50
5.17
8.86
15.49
36.45
75.34
36.45
10.34
14.03
20.66
41.62
46.46
(4.48)
3.51
2.26
(16.51)
1 O.63
2.26
7.29
4.29
6.68
13.26
4.29
(4.13)
COMMERCIAL
Commercial can or totter service shall be charged at residential rates shown above.
l-lyd $ 72.66 l-lyd
All other sizes:
Rate peryard perweek $ 57.24 various
72.66
57.24
EXAMPLES OF COMMERCIAL RATE:
1 yard bin - picked up 1 time per week = 1 yard @ $71.40 = $71.40 per month
Attachment "B"
December 5, 2001
Percent
Change
In Rate
ATTACHMENT
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
-26.14%
13.29%
5.66%
-28.13%
55.11%
5.66%
12.31%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
13.34%
9.73%
57.18%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
11.49%
-8.16%
O.OO%
0.00%
Garbage Rates 2001 Page 1
2001 Manager Report
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
SCHEDULE OF FEES AND RATES
FOR GARBAGE AND RECYCLING COLLECTION SERVICES
FOR THE 2001/2002 FISCAL YEAR
COMPARED TO PRIOR YEAR
Current New New
Rate Customer Monthly Service Monthly
Code Service Description Count Rate Description Rate
2 yard bin - picked up 4 times per week = 8 yards @ $56.25 - $450.00 per month
Change
In Rate
Attachment "B"
December 5, 2001
Percent
Change
In Rate
Commercial rate by use code
1 1-30gal (GA2) 109 $ 12.66 1-32gal $ 12.66
2 2-30gal (GA3) 38 26.41 1-68gal $ 29.92 3.51
3 3-30gal (GA4) 10 39.92 1-95gal $ 42.18 2.26
4 4-30gal (GA8) 3 58.69 1-95gal $ 42.18 (16.51)
5 5-30gal 2 71.36 1-95, 1-68gal $ 80.36 9.00
6 6-30gal 1 85.10 2-95gal $ 93.67 8.57
8 8-30gal 2 117.39 2-95, 1-68gal $ 129.00 11.61
10 10-30gal 1 143.78 3-95gal $ 142.50 (1.28)
12 4-30gal yard po (GA9) 4 68.66 2-68gal po $ 75.34 6.68
14 1-20gal (GA10) 5 7.05 1-20gal $ 7.05 -
15 1-10gal (GA1) 3 3.35 1-10gal $ 3.35 -
17 2-30gal yard po (GA6) 7 32.16 1-68gal po $ 36.45 4.29
18 3-30gal yard po (GA7) 4 49.82 1-95gal po $ 52.63 2.81
20 2-20gal po (GA15) 1 21.48 1-32gal po $ 15.49 (5.99)
23 2-30gal 2W 1 52.82 1-68gal 2W $ 66.50 13.68
26 1-30gal 3W 1 37.98 1-32gal 3W $ 46.94 8.96
33 1-30gal po (GA5) 10 15.49 1-32gal po $ 15.49 -
35 1-45gal (GA21) 5 19.29 1-68gal $ 29.92 10.63
36 2-45gal (GA22) 5 39.92 1-95gal $ 42.18 2.26
37 1-10gal po 1 5.17 1-10gal po $ 5.17 -
101 l-yd 27 72.66 l-yd $ 72.66 -
102 1.5-yd 117 85.86 1.5-yd $ 85.86
103 2-yd 93 114.48 2-yd $ 114.48
107 3-yd 65 171.72 3-yd $ 171.72
118 4-yd 24 228.96 4-yd $ 228.96
108 6-yd 5 343.44 6-yd $ 343.44
202 1.5-yd 2W 4 171.72 1.5-yd 2W $ 171.72
203 2-yd 2W 22 228.96 2-yd 2W $ 228.96
204 3-yd 2W 25 343.44 3-yd 2W $ 343.44
205 4-yd 2W 16 457.92 4-yd 2W $ 457.92
206 6-yd 2W 1 686.88 6-yd 2W $ 686.88
303 2-yd 3W 3 343.44 2-yd 3W $ 343.44 -
305 3-yd 3W 9 515.16 3 yd 3W $ 515.16 -
307 4-yd 3W 6 686.88 4-yd 3W $ 686.88 -
402 1.5-yd 4W 1 343.44 1.5-yd 4W $ 343.44 -
413 3yd6W 1 1,030.32 3yd6W $ 1,030.32 -
502 1.5-yd 5W 1 429.30 1.5-yd 5W $ 429.30 -
504 3-yd 5W 2 858.60 3-yd 5W $ 858.60 -
523 4-yd 5W 1 1,144.80 4-yd5W $ 1,144.80 -
606 4-yd6W 1 1,373.76 4-yd6W $ 1,373.76 -
901 6yd 3W 1 1,030.32 6yd 3W $ 1,030.32 -
950 105gal toter (GA30) 56 50.59 95gal toter $ 52.63 2.04
960 2-105gal toter 12 101.18 2-95gal toter $ 93.67 (7.51)
965 1-105gal toter 3W 1 151.77 1-95gal toter 3W $ 142.50 (9.27)
970 1-105gal 2W I 101.18 1-95gal 2W $ 93.67 (7.51)
977 1-105gal po 1 62.17 1-95gal po $ 52.63 (9.54)
Total Commercial 709
New combinations of containers or new sizes wiil
Total All Customers 4,902
0.00%
13.29%
5.66%
-28.13%
12.61%
10.07%
9.89%
-0.89%
9.73%
0.00%
0.00%
13.34%
5.64%
-27.89%
25.90%
23.59%
0.00%
55.11%
5.66%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
4.03%
-7.42%
-6.11%
-7.42%
-15.35%
~ be established by staff based on comparable sizes or quantities.
Garbage Rates 2001 Page 2
2001 Manager Report
Rate Customer
Code Service Description Count
Extraordinary rates and Special Services
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
SCHEDULE OF FEES AND RATES
FOR GARBAGE AND RECYCLING COLLECTION SERVICES
FOR THE 2001/2002 FISCAL YEAR
COMPARED TO PRIOR YEAR
Current New New
Monthly Service Monthly Change
Rate Description Rate In Rate
DROP BOXES
Special 3-day rental
3 yard box per dump
$ 102.40 Same $ 102.40
Weekly - 7-day rental
All sizes - per dump
$ 149.90 Same $ 150.00
Additional $10.00 fee per day for retaining drop box more than 7 days.
Compactors, per dump
$ 128.70 Same
Special Services - Call-in pickup and disposal
Appliances $ 16.50
Tires (up to 4 automobile or $ 3.40
motorcycle sized tires on
regular garbage collection
route)
Tires (5 or more automobile
or motorcycle sized tires,
special trip)
Same
$ 129.00
$ 16.50
$ 3.50
$ 16.50 Same $ 16.50
Large truck sized tires $ 16.50 Same $ 16,50
(special trip)
Furniture and Other Items $ 16.50 Same $ 16.50
(special trip)
Locking bin $ 22.10 Same $ 22.10
Attachment "B"
December 5, 2001
Percent
Change
In Rate
0.00% includes tipping
fee
Special service rates may be established based on the current disposal charge plus equipment and
labor cost. Such rates shall be approved by the City Manager with ratification by the City Council.
0.10 0.07% Plus tipping fee
0.30 0.23% Plus tipping fee
0.10
0.00% Plus tipping fee
2.94% each
0.00% Plus tipping fee
0.00% Plus tipping fee
0.00% Plus tipping fee
0.00% one-time setup
charge
Garbage Rates 2001 Page 3
2001 Manager Report
ITEM NO. 9a
DATE: DP. cP. mh~.r 5, 213~1
_A_GI=N_DA SUMMA_RY RI=PORT
SUBJECT: Adoption of Ukiah Utilities Demand-side Energy Management Program Proposal
REPORT: The City Council recently approved using a 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. The attached report summarizes
funding for renewable energy sources and presents a proposal for a Ukiah Utilities Customer Rebate
Program to encourage energy efficiency, a component of demand-side energy management. The
rebate program would offer rebates on appliances and weatherization supplies to utility customers.
The program is designed to maximize energy efficiency by providing rebates on high-energy use and
peak load appliances. The amounts of rebates provided are based on income level, with lower
income residents eligible for higher rebates.
The program includes personnel to develop, market, implement and administer the project
and will rely on the administrative support and financial departments for processing and maintenance
issues. As shown in Table 1 of the proposal, the Public Benefits Charge Fund will be sufficient to
support all approved expenditures through 2012, the current expiration date of the Public Benefits
Charge under state legislation AB 995 and SB 1194. Staff believes the proposal is comprehensive
and meets the objectives of the City Council. We recommend adoption of the program.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Ukiah Utilities Demand-side Energy Management Program.
ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Do not accept proposal and direct staff as to
alternatives.
Citizen Advised: N/A
Requested by: Darryl L. Barnes, Public Utilities Director
Prepared by: Ann Burck, Administrative Analyst
Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager
Attachments: 1. Ukiah Utilities Demand-side Management Program Proposal
Candace Horsley,'Cit~Manager
City of Ukiah
Ukiah Utilities
Demand-side Energy Management
Program Proposal
December 5, 2001
Demand-side Energy Management Program Proposal
The Public Benefits Charge created under AB 1890, which would have expired January 1,2002, has
been extended to January 1,2012 under AB 995 and SB 1194. Public benefit funds collected by
publicly owned utilities are to be used to fund investments in any or all of the following:
1. Cost-effective demand-side management services to promote energy-efficiency and energy
conservation
2. New investment in renewable energy sources and technologies
3. Research, development and demonstration programs for the public interest to advance
science or technology
4. Services provided for Iow-income electricity customer, including but not limited to, targeted
energy efficiency service and rate discounts
Since the initiation of the Public Benefits Charge, the only program funded has been Ukiah
C.A.R.E.S., rate discount services for Iow-income electricity customers. For fiscal year 2001-2002,
programs funded by the Public Benefits Charge have been expanded. New programs include
electric vehicle technology demonstration, investments in renewable energy technologies and
demand-side management services. Tables1 and 2 attached at the end of this report detail the new
programs for the Public Benefits Charge fund. This report summarizes Ukiah's renewable energy
program and presents a proposal for demand-side management services.
Renewable Energy Sources and Technologies
One of the intended uses of the Public Benefits Charge is to fund new investments in renewable
energy sources and technologies. Renewable resource technologies approved for funding under the
Public Benefits Charge include: biomass, solar thermal, photovoltaic, wind, geothermal, small
hydropower of 30 megawatts or less, waste tire, digester gas, landfill gas, and municipal solid waste
generation technologies. The City Council has approved using $118,000 annually from Public
Benefits funds to support photovoltaics and $950,000 for geothermal technology.
Phntnvnltnin ~'PV3 RHvdnwn Prnnrnm~
Photovoltaics (PV) is a technology that converts sunlight into direct-current (DC) electricity.
Usually installed on the roof of homes or businesses, solar panels are modular and easily
expandable. They operate using sunlight and they create no noise or pollution. PV systems
offset electric energy use with emission-free renewable generation. Funds from the Public
Benefits Charge will be used to offset part of the cost of residential and commercial PV systems.
,
Residential PV Buydown Program
A new photovoltaic electric rate schedule, D-PM for Domestic Photovoltaic Metering has been
approved. Included in the rate schedule is a buydown program which reimburses residential
customers $3.00 per watt for each kilowatt installed of a PV generation system, to a maximum
of 10 kilowatts. The amount of annual funding available for the residential PV buydown
program is $18,000.
2. Commercial PV Buydown Program
A commercial PV buydown program has also been approved by the City Council. The
commercial program is similar to the residential, but with no maximum size limit on the PV
system. The amount of annual funding available for the commercial PV buydown program is
$100,000.
B. RnHthnn.~t ~ny.~nr.~ ~.nth~.rmnl Prn?nt
In September 1997, the Southeast Geysers effluent pipeline began operating, each day
delivering 8 million gallons of treated wastewater and lake water to facilities at the Geysers for
injection to increase steam production. The NCPA geothermal generation plant is now capable
of producing about 22 megawatts more electricity than would otherwise be possible. An updated
reservoir engineering analysis indicates that even greater benefits can result if additional water
becomes available for injection, adding at least 2.9 million MWh of electricity through 2027.
The City Council has approved using $950,000 of Public Benefits funds to pay Ukiah's sham of
pipeline construction costs. Ukiah's investment for construction of the original pipeline was
$515,138 with $192,227 of this amount reimbursable from the Public Benefits Fund. Ukiah's
sham for upgrading the existing pipeline to increase its capacity is estimated to be $500,000 to
$92O,00O.
Demand-side Management Services
Demand-side management (DSM) focuses on decreasing the demand for energy through programs
that promote efficiency, conservation, or load management. Efficiency means getting more from
each unit of energy consumed. Consumer financial incentives, such as rebates, are one of the most
effective ways of encouraging people to invest in energy efficiency improvements in their homes.
Refrigerators, clothes dryers, freezers, ranges/ovens and dishwashers account for 28% of summer
peak load statewide. Funds from the Public Benefits Charge will be used to provide financial
incentives or rebates to residential customers to encourage installation of high-efficiency appliances
and removal of inefficient appliances.
As a point of reference, the City of Lodi offers a residential appliance rebate program for
refrigerators, freezers, clothes washers, single room air conditioners and dishwashers. Their
program requirements are:
1. Rebates are offered until funds are depleted.
2. Program is only open to City of Lodi Electric Utility customers.
3. Total possible rebate per customer service address is $500.
4. Appliances must be purchased from an approved dealer.
5. Appliance must either display the Energy Star® label or meet certain high-efficiency
specifications.
A. Existina State and Federal Low-Income DSM Proarams
North Coast Energy Services in Ukiah currently administers two Iow-income DSM programs,
LIHEAP and CAL LIHEAP for Lake, Mendocino, Solano, and Yolo counties. The Low Income
Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) Block Grant is federally funded. Eligible Iow-
income persons can receive free weatherization services including attic insulation, weather-
stripping, minor housing repairs, and related energy conservation measures. The program also
provides financial assistance to offset heating and cooling costs and provides payments for
weather-related or energy-related emergencies.
The California Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (CAL LIHEAP) is a state funded
program created by state Senate Bill 5X. CAL LIHEAP although similar to LIHEAP, is designed
to supplement existing energy assistance programs with additional energy conservation
measures, and to allow more Iow-income residents to qualify under expanded eligibility
guidelines. CAL LIHEAP Weatherization Program provides free energy efficient refrigerators,
electric water heaters, microwave ovens, and compact fluorescent lighting. Additional
weatherization services include attic insulation, weather-stripping, minor housing repairs and
related energy conservation services. CAL LIHEAP also provides financial assistance to offset
heating and cooling costs and cash assistance for gas and electric utility services for weather-
related or energy related emergencies.
The Executive Director of North Coast Energy Services reports that since they began
administering the CAL LIHEAP program in June 2001,310 refrigerators, 500 microwave ovens,
and 50 water heaters have been provided to Lake and Mendocino county Iow-income residents
free of charge. In addition, compact fluorescent lights have been installed in 500 homes.
LIHEAP eligibility for a family of 4 is a yearly income of $33,125 or less. CAL LIHEAP eligibility
for a family of 4 is a yearly income of $44,125 or less. The complete income eligibility guidelines
for LIHEAP and CAL LIHEAP for 2001are attached at the end of this report. Information on North
Coast Energy Services programs and a copy of their energy services questionnaire are also
attached at the end of this report.
B. Hkiah lltiliti~..~ I')RM Prnnmm Prnnn.Ral
The City Council has allocated $50,000 annually from the Public Benefits Charge to fund a Ukiah
Utilities customer rebate program. Annual program expenses are estimated to be $25,000 and
are itemized in the following section. The total amount of funds available for rebates after
expenses are deducted is $25,000.
Rather than duplicate the existing LIHEAP and CAL LIHEAP programs provided to Iow-income
residents, the DSM program for Ukiah Utilities would augment those programs. Low-income
rebates would be provided on appliances nnt already provided free of charge by CAL LIHEAP.
The maximum rebate amount available per customer service address would be $600. Rebates
are taxable and if the rebates were greater than $600, the city would be required to send an IRS
Form 1099 to each customer receiving the rebate. This would increase administration costs and
decrease the amount of funds available for rebates.
The proposed program would provide two levels of rebates:
1. Low-income Ukiah Electric Utility Customers (based on CAL LIHEAP Guidelines for 2001)
a. Maximum rebate per appliance type - $200.00
b. Total possible rebate per customer service address - $600.00
c. Eligible Energy Star® labeled appliances:
i. Manual defrost freezer
ii. Dish washer
iii. Clothes washer
iv. Stoves / ovens
v. Air conditioning window units with 9.0 Seasonal Energy Efficiency Rating
(SEER) or better.
vi. Evaporative coolers
2. All Ukiah Electric Utility Customers
a. Maximum rebate per appliance type- $100.00
b. Total possible rebate per customer service address - $300.00
c. Eligible Energy Star® labeled appliances:
i. Refrigerators
ii. All appliances listed in Iow-income rebate program
d. Electric water heaters with an Energy Factor (EF) of 0.91 or greater
e. Rebates on weatherization supplies:
i. Weather stripping
ii. Caulking
iii. Outlet seals
iv. Insulation
C. Enerav F_fficiencv Proaram Exnense~
v ·
Program expense estimates are based on information obtained from other NCPA municipal
utilities, the Ukiah C.A.R.E.S. Program and North Coast Energy Services.
Estimated expenses are:
1. Program manager to develop, market, implement
and administer the program
AnnHnl ~n.~t
$12,000
2. Marketing materials and program advertisements $ 2,000
a. Brochures
b. Advertisements in Ukiah Activity & Recreation Guide
c. Newspaper advertisements
d. Radio announcements
3. Support Services from the Clerical and Finance Departments $ 6,000
will be needed to process rebate checks and assist with
program maintenance issues.
4. Annual contract with North Coast Energy Services to
provide income verification services for Iow-income rebates.
$ 5,000
Total $ 25,000
D. Fn~-roy Fffininnny Prnornm ~.idnlin~..~
The following rebate application guidelines are proposed for Ukiah Utilities Energy Efficiency
Program:
1. To qualify for Iow-income rebates, proof of income in addition to a copy of the appliance
receipt and the latest Ukiah Utilities bill must be provided to North Coast Energy Services.
2. Rebates will only be offered until funds are depleted.
3. Applicant must be a Ukiah Utilities customer with an active residential utility account. Any
delinquent utility charges must be paid before rebates will be issued. Low-income
residents may qualify for financial assistance from (::;AL LIHEAP to pay utility bills.
4. Appliances must be purchased new at retail price from an approved dealer.
5. Appliances must be installed in a residential dwelling (i.e., house, condominium,
townhouse, apartment, duplex, or mobile home).
6. The City of Ukiah reserves the right to verify both the appliance sale and installation before
a rebate is issued.
7. Rebates cannot exceed the purchase price of the appliance.
Table 1 - Public Benefit Charge Fund
Beginning Fund Balance
Annual Fund Income
1.2.7% of Elec. Rev.
2.4% interest
Annual Expenses
1. Demand-side Mqmt. Services
a. Energy Efficiency
1. Rebate program
2. Renewable Enerqy Investments
a. Residential PV Buydowns
b. Commercial PV Buydowns
c. Geothermal Pipeline Expansion
3. RD&D Proqrams
a. Electric vehicles
4. Low-income Elec. Customer Services
a. Ukiah C.A.R.E.S.
b. Energy Efficiency
1. Rebate program
Ending Fund Balance
FY '01-'02 FY '02-'03 FY '11 -'12 FY '12-'13
$ 1,203,249 $ 274,164
$ 372,000 $ 372,000
$ 10,967
$ 25,000 $ 25,625
$ 18,000 $ 18,000 $
$ 100,000 $ 100,000 $
$ 95O,OOO $ - $
$ 7,740 $ 6,740
$ 175,345 $ 177,269 $
$ 25,000 $ 25,625
$ 274,164 $ 303,872
$ 451,499
$ 372,000
$ 18,060
$ 32,861
18,000 $
100,000 $
- $
$ 7,077 $
194,590 $
$ 32,861 $
$ 456,16915
$ 456,169
$ 186,000
$ 18,247
$ 16,940
9,000
50,0OO
3,539
98,268
16,940
465,730
I~ I~ I~ 000000001.0
000000000000
000000000 C) C) 0
0
0
000000000000
000000000000
000000000000
0
00000000000
Sixty Percent of State Median Income for 2001 L/HEAP
Size of Family Unit or Federal percentage of Monthly Income Yearly Income
,,,Number in Household Base ($33,125.00)
1 52% $1,435.41 $17,225
2 68% $1,877.08 $22,525
3 84% $2,318.75 $27,825
4 100% $2,760.41 $33,125
5 116% $3,202.08 $38,425
6 132% $3,643.75 $43,725
7 135% $3,726.58 $~.~,719
8 138% $3,809.41 $45,713
9 141% $3,892.16 $46,706
10 144 % $3,975.00 $47,700
11 147% $4,057.83 $48,694
12 150% $4,140.66 $49,688
13 153 % $4,223.41 $50,681
14 156% $4,306.25 $51,675
15 159% $4,389.08 $52,669
Annual income amounts for family sizes greater than six persons were determined based on the
following calculation: Add 3% to 132% for each additional family member; multiply the new
percentage by the yearly dollar amount ($33,125.00) for a four-person family. Example:
Household size ofT: 132% + 3% = 135% x $33,125.00 = $44,719 (rounded) / 12 = $3,726.58 per
month.
Two Hundred and Fifty Percent (250%) Poverty Guidelines for the 2001
California - LIH_AP Program
Size of Family Unit or Number
!n Household 'Monthly Income · Yearly Income
1 $1,789.58 $21,475.00
2 $2,418.75 '1 $29,025.00
3 $3,047.91 $36,575.00
4 $3,677.08 ~H.,125.00
5 $4,306.25 $51,675.00
..... 6 $4,935.41 $59~;)~5.00
7 $5,564.58 $66,775.00
... 8 $6,193.75 $74,325. O0
9 $6,822.91 $81,875.00
10 $7,452.08 $89,425.00
11 $8,081.25 $96,975.00
12 $8,710.41 $104,525.00
13 $9,339.58 $112,075.00
... 14 $9,968.75 $119,625.00
. 15 $10,597.91 $127,175.00
For family units with more than 15 members, add $7,550 for each additional member.
NORTH COAST ENERGY SERVICES, INC.
North Coast Energy Services has been involved with the delivery of low-income energy
assistance and weatherization services continuously since the inception of such programs
in 1977. During this period the agency has developed a high level of skill, efficiency,
and expertise in all aspects of providing these services and administering the various
grants and contracts which fund fhem. NCES was incorporated in 1981 as a subsidiary of
the local Community Action Agency, North Coast Opportunities, and has had an
independent corporate existence since 1983.
NCES has, over the years, increased its' service area for weatherization to four California
counties: Lake, Mendocino, Solano and Yolo. The agency has provided over 9 million
'dollars of LiHEAP and Department of Energy funds for home weatherization and
rehabilitation in the four county service area. In addition, it has provid6d utility
sponsored weatherization programs to the service area, adding more than 3.5 million
dollars to energy saving improvements. For the past eight years the agency has been very
proud of its involvement with the Housing Preservation program of Rural Development,
U.S.D.A. (formerly Farmers Home Administration), providing approximately 1.5 million
dollars for major housing rehabilitation to Iow-income rural residents. This program not
only provides energy reduction measures, but also provides a work method that prevents
further erosion of the local housing stock.
NCES customers and clients both receive an educational presentation covering general
conservation issues, an explanation of the measures installed in the residence or building,
including future care and maintenance, an analysis of their energy usage, and
recommendations for other measures. North Coast Energy Services is a non-profit
501 (c)(3) economic development corporation whose staff and Board reflect the area, its
varied population and interests. Seniors, racial and cultural minority members, and
women hold active and responsible positions within the organization. Housing and
energy conservationists have maintained involvement since the start, realizing that the
establishment of a viable, well-run business organization would bolster the effectiveness
of the programs. As a non-profit agency, NCES has been dedicated to the goals of Equal
Employment Opportunity and has offered employment to individuals who might find
difficulty in the private sector because of age, training, sex or handicap, including
individuals who choose to work in non-traditional roles.
In order to facilitate its professional capabilities the agency holds a California State
General Building Contracts License (B1), as well as an Insulation (C2) and Glazing (C17)
licenses.
North Coast Energy Services, Inc./P.O. Box 413, Ukiah, CA 95482
(707) 463.0303/J707) 463-0637 Fax/J800) 233-4480 HEAP Line
Subject: Energy Conservation Programs
Dear Customer,
Please complete the enclosed application for services and return it to the above address.
Please attach a copy of all the documents listed below:
Income verification for all adults in the home. (i.e. Check stub, bank statement, letter
from Social Security for January 2001, AFDC rrANF) statement from Social Services).
These documents must be dated within 6 weeks from the date we receive your
application.
Copy of PG&E bill. Provide a copy of the boflom half of the first page. This must be
dated Within 6 weeks from the date we receive your application.
Copy of other utility bills. (i.e. City of Ukiah bill, propane/oil/kerosbne bill and/or wood)
dated within 6 weeks from the date we receive Your application.
Depending upon your eligibility, you may be approved for one or all of the following energy
conservation programs. Please check all programs that you are applying for:
NOTE: Weatherization services are mandatory before receiving any other services o,
appliances. '
J~J PG&E Bill J~J'Wood
J~J City Of Ukiah Bill J~Joil Bill
[~J Weatherization
I~1 Heater Replacement
Program *
J~J Storm Windows *** J~JEvaporative Cooler
Program
Solar Screens
J~J Electric Hot Water
Heater Replacement
J~J Propane Bill
J~J Kerosene Bill
J~J Refrigerator
Replacement Program **
J~J Microwave
Replacement
J~JLights
* Heater Replacement Program. Customer must be the homeowner to receive a new heater.
** Refrigerator Replacement. Refrigerator stays with the home and must not be removed if the
customer does not own the refrigerator that is being replaced.
*** Storm Windows. Some types of existing windows may not qualify for storm windows.
..YOUR APPLICATION WILL NOT BE PROCESS_F_n WITHOUT THE ITEMS LISTED ABOVE RETURNED WITH
YOUR APPLICATION. DO NO___._[T call our office to request a status of your application. This will result
in your application, as well as others, being delayed in processing. You will receive a letter Jn the
mail stating if your application has been approved or denied.
YOUR SIGNATURE BELOW CERTIFIES THAT YOU HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THE CONTENTS OF
THIS LETTER.
Signature:
Date:
ol
'
oi
8i o~ ~i § o~ o 8J o~ i
'"'i '* ~
~§ ~8~~8
00ooooooo
ooooooooo
o~88888°8
~~ooooo8o
oo~888°°°°
0000
0ooooooooo
ITEM NO. lOa
DATE: December 5, 2001
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF OBSERVATORY PARK CONCEPTUAL DESIGN AND
AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED WITH BID REQUESTS
One of the primary budget goals of the Community Services Department for fiscal year 2001/02 is to
complete the improvements to Observatory Park and open the park to the public. Previously, Council
had authorized staff to proceed with creating a conceptual design (Attachment #2) based upon input
from the original community and neighborhood meetings. Staff has also received recent requests,
which have not previously been discussed by Council, from various groups desiring the inclusion of
additional park elements such as a walking labyrinth, memorial benches, and an international peace
pole. In adopting the current budget, the Council designated $20,000 of Park Development Funds for
construction of park improvements. In order to proceed with improvements in time for the spring
season, staff is returning the item to the Council for approval of the conceptual design as well as
direction regarding the inclusion of the recently requested elements, which have not been previously
discussed.
(Continued on Paqe 2)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve conceptual design of Observatory Park improvements and
authorize staff to proceed with Request for Bids.
ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS:
1. Determine conceptual design requires revision and approve as revised.
2. Determine approval of conceptual design is inappropriate at this time and do not move to approve.
Citizen Advised: Yes
Requested by: N/A
Prepared by: Larry W. DeKnoblough, Community Services Director
Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager and
Sage Sangiacomo, Community Services Supervisor
Attachments:
1. Conceptual design
2. Peace Pole photographs
3. Labyrinth information
APPROVED:
Candace Horsley, City IVl~ager
LD/ZIP1
Observatory.asr
Back~round and Future Buildin~ Restoration Pro~ects
The Observatory property is approximately three acres with frontages facing Luce Street and
Observatory Ave. The property is both historic and special in that only five such International Latitude
Observatory sites exist around the world. The other four sites are located in Maryland, Italy, Japan,
and Russia. Ukiah's original Observatory was built on this site in 1899 with the current buildings
constructed in 1948. The historical residence and three small outbuildings, comprising approximately
one acre, are concentrated on the south side facing Observatory Ave. The remaining property
extends north to Luce and is marked by a large specimen Oak tree with substantial open space
extending back to the structures. The Department of Interior has maintained sight easements on this
portion of the property, which requires the City to maintain it in open space and the attached
conceptual design reflects this condition. The property's extensive size and concentration of the
existing buildings on its south side, provides an excellent opportunity to create an expansive
greenspace for passive uses, separated and uninterrupted from the residence area, which could be
utilized for more active community uses.
While no specific plans have yet been developed for the area of the park around the buildings, the
City recently applied for a Park Bond Grant for the purpose of restoring the buildings and surrounding
park area. Several conceptual ideas for use of the buildings, which were discussed in the grant
application, include developing a museum style historical exhibit, small recreation classes, or possibly
a day care center. Staff has also been approached by several citizens who have expressed interest
in assisting the City, through volunteer or committee work, to develop plans for this area and create a
historical exhibit. State Parks and Recreation representatives have indicated that grant application
results would be announced in the next few months. Should the City receive the Park Bond grant,
staff will return the item to the Council with recommendations at that time.
Proposed Improvements
The conceptual plan presented with this report is limited to the northern open space area and does
not include any recommendations to the south side area containing the structures. The attached plan
has focused on the passive use of the open space and its perimeter by creating an expansive open
turf area anchored by the large oak near Luce Street. Surrounding the turf area is a six-foot wide,
oval, perimeter walk path. The landscaping between the path and the park boundaries includes Iow
profile shrubs and small trees, which will maintain visibility while providing a protective border
between park activity and the rear fence line of adjacent properties. Representatives of the
Mendocino County Agricultural Department and Mendocino College have expressed interest in
designing and maintaining interactive elements to the landscaping such as plant identification
placards etc.
Recent Public Requests for Additions to the Desiqn
Staff has also received several recent requests from groups desiring to include elements, which the
Council had not previously discussed. Staff has included these items in the staff report for the
Council's discussion as possible inclusions in the park design, however these elements have not
been included in the attached conceptual design. Should the Council approve any or all of the
requests, staff will amend the design prior to issuing the Request for Bids.
Several of the adjacent property owners have expressed concern regarding a loss of privacy once the
park is completed. A perimeter fence was discussed at the previous community meetings and a
neighboring property owner has recently requested that the City consider constructing a six-foot
2
privacy fence along west and east boundaries. However, several neighbors have indicated they
would prefer to preserve their view of the Park. Staff believes an appropriate solution will be to repair
the existing three-foot chain link fence and include in the landscape design a perimeter living fence,
which will provide some privacy but still allow for limited visibility of the park.
An additional improvement which staff has received input is a walking labyrinth consisting of a small
hedge or grass row in various possible mazelike configurations within which people walk. Should the
labyrinth be included in the design, staff believes the appropriate place is at the south end of the
walkway directly opposite of the Oak tree.
Staff has also received requests from two groups wishing to place memorial benches, through the
City's Memorial Park Bench and Tree Program. Park benches are identified on the plan and the
memorial benches would be placed in an area so designated. The memorial benches also include
small brass placards, mounted to the back of the bench, expressing a dedication to the party or family
to whom the bench is for. One of the groups requesting the memorial bench has also requested an
international peace pole be placed in an area near its memorial bench. The requested pole is
proposed to be a single 4"x 4" x 6' post mounted in a base with the word "Peace", written vertically on
the four sides of the post in the four languages of the four countries which host the other observatory
sites. A similar peace pole, of which staff has provided photographs in Attachment #2, is located at
the campus entrance to Ukiah High School. These improvements would be funded through donations
to the Memorial Park Bench and Tree Program.
Conclusion and Recommendation
Staff is presenting this item to Council in order to receive input regarding the conceptual design and
receive direction on the various additional public requests prior to seeking formal bids. Should
Council determine to add any of the requested elements, staff will revise the plan as directed. Staff is
recommending approval of the design and is seeking authorization to proceed with issuing the
Request for Bids.
.0.
-,..
·
. - ..
-.
.o
EARTH MAZES
Alex Champion introduces you to mazes and labyrinths with a
brief history of labyrinths as symbols and their relation to earth
mysteries and dowsing. How the author came to make earth
mazes, how to walk a maze, walking a maze and vestibular stimu-
lation, observations and impressions of walking the Cretan (Clas-
sical) design are discussed. The second half of the book is a tour
through 9 labyrinths and mazes made by the author. Seven were
made as earthworks, his favorite medium. 46 pages with 18 draw-
ings & 18 photos, 11 in color. Self published in 1990.
#EM $8.00
EARTH & OTHER MAZES
Pictorial description of mazes and labyrinths made by the author as
earthworks (21 examples), with rock (3), or painted on the ground
(14) in the United States from 1987 to mid 1996, 24 page booklet.
Bound booklet includes 37 B/W photos and 33 design drawings,
with a brief description for each installation.
#E & OM $14.00
~a~tlt ~r Othtr ~Ia~z~
THE HANDS-ON MARVELOUS BALL BOOK
A creation story for 6 years old, s. to adults, 48 pages, full color, and
in verse. Bradford Hansen-Smith teaches sacred geometry to school
kids, starting from the point of view of wholeness, represented by
the sphere. Using only paper plates, bobby pins and masking tape,
you can learn to make tetrahedra, cubes, octahedra, helices, the torus
and more. This is a fascinating book that allows you to teach your
children about sacred geometry or learn yourself.
#BKTBBBH-S $16.95
THE CHARTRES LABYRINTH
The Chartres design is extremely intricate. How it can be drawn
easily with a compass and straight edge has been a great mystery
until recently Robert Ferre' of St. Louis solved the problem. In this
book Robert discusses eloquently in great detail how to lay out the
Chartres design using the metaphorical tools of creation. He shows
what is needed at each step and ends with a discussion of the
painting, care and use of the design.
#BKTCLRF $25.00
SEVEN LABYRINTH JOURNEY
Nischa Roman (aka Nancy Riddle) of Santa Cruz, CAwas "called" to
write this book during one of her meditations. You are guided by
"the Spirit of the Labryinth" through seven visualizations used
with the Cretan or Classical design. This is a valuable tool that aids
the seekers' use of the labyrinth in spiritual work.
#BK7LJNR $7.00
a Joan D Champion
CATALOG
Winter/Spring 1999
CHOWCHOW IMAMOTO
THE RADIANCE OF SELF HEALING
ChowChow Imamoto wrote this book to
share with you self healing procedures,
which are simple yet effective. These
techniques allow you to help balance the
radiant healing energies of your body,
mind and spirit.
#BKCI1 $15.00
ANCIENT LABYRINTHS
OF THE WORLD
Jeff Saward the editor of
CAERDROIA, The Journal of
Mazes and Labyrinths, writes about
labyrinths and mazes over 250 years
old. Thirty six pages with over a
hundred illustrations. 1st edition
1997.
#BKJSl $10.00
Pin It On!
::$~:~:~:~:~:~:~:::: z..- :::::~,.~:~
CRETAN
OR
CHARTRES
Wear a little piece of the labyrinth spirit
where ever you go. The green & gold
cloisonne Cretan pin is 1.25 inches and the
p~ple & gold cloiso~e Cha~res pin is 1.5
inches.
~J4Cretan Pin $6.00
~J4Cha~res Pin $9.00
artic&s of rt ere t
A LABYRINTH IS A TYPE OF MAZE
The relation between the words labyrinth and maze is discussed,
THE MYSTERY OF THE LABYRINTH.
DOWSING STUDIES AND INTERESTING EXPERIENCES
WHILE MAKING EARTH SYMBOLS
Why should walking a complex geometric pattern result in
unexpected interesting experiences? The author used dowsing to
in light of the concept of the labyrinth, and the author's dowsing study subtle energy in labyrinths. Water and solar energy lines,
research on symbols. The labyrinth is seen as a complex geo~ ................. no~er...sl~ots, a low-key neutral energ3$ mound energy; are
symbol made of simple symbols derived from..:.::!hei~iT~ !!iiiiii?~'.ii!::!?~iiii ii~ii~e in energy was seen in going from no pattern,
pa,ems of Nature. This divine orde.r...~:.::~?~:~i iii~i~i¥~:~::::~i:4~::~:...~:~::~::~:~:~:~!i~i~~!i!~:?~::~Ibe ground, to a three dimensional
confusing elements that one enco~::!~f~ii~alI~g it. A st?~ ................ ~ork. Most"~ i~periences recorded or remembered
for the Cretan (Classical) lab~i~?ii~::Presen~::~:::~g~i~:~iiiii:ii~]~!:::.?!i!ii?~il i?~i~war, ds or aff~:::~i~:i:i~work had been made, when
, ============================================ .... .:::::.:::.:.::.: .::.... :..
design. Published in
:::;i?i:i::~' C ~:~C~ ii! iiii!i!iiiJi?~ ............. spot energ~:'::F~i ili~..r, spdf:.::: :..is tr ative with a
leads to::~i~erald~sion~i~g s~ii~me~.~!~i~?;i:iiiii'iii~ii~i~!~:i!~i~:~::::~ey, n~i~rgy ~Ji&om fh~:~irituai~rld is
a symb~li:':and t°i~i:une~~ cluei:~ii~?~tow t~?!~i:~'8~ign describ~aSii:~6~iii~rgy i~'::'~;i::~y ~i~ent ~:i,~?,second',:~e of
based~Sacre~ii~mme~ii~ht h~::~n
in ~d~'oia 2~iili~51 (!~9~8J. ..i::'!':? :;~::iiiiiii:iii!:~?i~i:i?':'' ...?::~?~ii:i~iiiiii?:iii:iiiiii:i:.i?ii,ii:iiiiii!iiii:!~il , and~'i!~!i!::~ rin~iiii~:_..~....~ber ~/:. ~ de~ M~le
:.. :' .. :::;:
or ~l~Ces like..-
on the
p~
th~::!;i~st p~
tion w:
$17.00
$19.00
$10.00
$12.00
"Meet me at the Cretan" POST CARD
Original photography by Cindy A. Pavlinac. The Cretan Labyrinth
as an earthwork built by A. Champion in Mendocino County, CA.
#PCCAP1
#PCCAP6
each $.75
6/pkg @
$4.20
ITEM NO. 10b
MEETING DATE: December 5, 2001
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
SUBJECT:
CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION CALLING ON THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA TO TAKE CERTAIN ACTIONS TO EFFECTIVELY
REDUCE LITTER ON HIGHWAY 101 AND THROUGHOUT THE STATE
HIGHWAY SYSTEM (COUNCILMEMBER BALDWIN)
Attached is a letter and draft Resolution, which was submitted by Councilmember
Baldwin for the City Council's consideration and possible adoption regarding highway
litter removal.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council consider possible Adoption of Resolution Calling
on the State of California to Take Certain Actions to Effectively Reduce Litter on
Highway 101 and Throughout the State Highway System
ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS:
1. Determine revisions are necessary to Resolution prior to adoption.
2. Determine adoption of Resolution is not appropriate at this time.
Citizens Advised:
Requested by:
Prepared by:
Coordinated with:
Attachment:
Councilmember Phil Baldwin
Candace Horsley, City Manager
Letter from Councilmember Baldwin, dated 11/25/01, with attached
Resolution
4:Can:^SRLitter.01 Candace Horsley, Cit~Manager
-u,~o ~no aq al aJ!dmH poo~pa~I atll u! ~q$~ jo qoloas ls~olO oql lu~ ,snm a~ 'uogo~
mo~s~s oaDoojjo um~ o~ 19u~ 'II~ o~anfl m oap~ OUpOpuo~ mO~3 ~OI I0I oq~ ~dop~ oI~U~Om q~ jo
XllD oql lOl 'oao~og al s~oX o~ Ill~ ~ojoJ qons sv 'suogo]pspn[ gupoqqg~ou pu~ sI~pUjo alms
al ~s~ads[p ~oj suo[lnI~o~ poqo~lu o~1 oql jo ouo jo uo[ldopg oql ~op[suoo osuold 'suosuos osoql II~ ~o~
· omoooq sgq l~ ssom oql sop~oo I0I Xu~q$~ s
s~l oagq al pJoj~ louu~o '~lsnpu~ lspnol ls~oo q~ou oql u~l!~ loodsm ~oj $ulapls 'q~fl lBql Oz]lgO~ lsnm
o~ 'ssoJpp~ KIOA[IOojjo ~o alms oql X~o l~ql ouo ~l~gm~d si molqo~d pogumd-o~l oql poo~gg s! 1[
sXg~qg~ ano doo~ al onUOAOJ luologjns olmouog plno~ Xg~ooIj aql ~ou soJols qons lu ~& SaleS leAOmOH
Io11[~ lUOO Jlgq u '~lsnpu[ o~ols oouomoauoo pug '~m sg$ 'pooj ls~J oql mosj olsg~ si molqosd oql jo
SV 'ooJj Joll[I sXu~ooJj Jno doo~ al Xl[Hq[suodsa~ oql oao~l~ sumllUD Jo 'V'd'~ ol~S lgql osuos so~m 1I
· sXB~pgoJ amoos po~ollllun olu?o~ddu oq~ sug~oJ~IgD jo Xlpo[gm oql ~oj u!gg~uq p~q ~oa u uooq suq 'IOI
Xg~qg~ ua Ki~oK sKup g9~ sogoI PO~OlOO-¢Inm os[~oapu al sossou[snq olua~d gu[~oI~ 'mmgmd
· s~olmlo&od oql qs~und uoql qoluo al uuld luomoo~o~o p~ oaua~olop
~ ~ louuo al Slg[O~jo ol~S ~su al omi1 s~ ~I 'sls~olom qs~IoS p~ p~uonpoun o~om ~oao gU[alOaU
puoa s~l ozmgooos al Xl[D oql ~oj om[l si ~I 'puoXoq luomuo~[auo *ql jo ~ignb oql uuql lu~m~ osom s~
s~o s~oql jo ssou~olO oql 'Xl~n~oo moJj pol~uo~i~ os o J, ~oa~p gunoX 'XlgU[SUOSoui '~oaa uuql ~o]ssom
o~ u[moj[igD lnoqgno~l sX~qg[H 'XmnoD oupopuo~ p~ qg[~ puo~oq soog puoa s~l ossnoo JO
· qg~ u[ ~Jo~ pug omoq ~ou oo[lou o~ sXu~ ~oqlo jo Xlo~ga ~ u[ polsoj[~m ~ou ou[ioap u '~so~noo
jo lp~ds gu~o oql u~ ou~ioop g solmlsuomop 1I 'opq,j IUpOS snom ~,ol ~ofum u jo uoguo]pu~ osom ouo sx
sXg~qg~ aha jo gu~oll~I poluopooo~dun oq& 'uo~s~ o~g onss[ luuo~g[su[ uu si s~l m[ulo oq~ osoq&
· polmo~olop X~o suq uo[lgnl[s oql 'uoql oou~s 'Xlp s~l al ooumlua alms quoN oql 1~ pug ~op~oo
I0I Xu~qg[H s,~B gUOlg ~U~Oll[l omo~lxo o~1 sop[suoo lpunoD s[~ ~gq~ po~sg I og~ sqluom ImOaoS
:s~aqmaIAI l!oUnOD ~aOlla:t
I00i[ 'gi~ JaqmoAoN
s.rql O~l&dO0¥ OM¥
· l.vxa ,~g,,aooa3 ,~tre 3o looJ 0ag ut,qlt,ta POl~ooI so,ms
oouomo^uoo pug '~gtu sg$ 'pooj ls~j llg !g saI~S out,Iosg$ uou ua xg£ Ig^OtUa~I ~allt,'-I luoo jI~q g gu.tqs!iqmso
Kq o^t,l~.mt, st,ql punj al Sl~t,o~Jo alms ua sIIgO lpunoD s.tql l~ql (I~IA~IOS211t lt2[H&~Ifl~l &I 2111
pu~ '.s,~q~.N .~no ua ~ollt,I jo a~nlop s.rql jo s~olmlodaod aql qs.mnd uotll 'qol~o al u~Id
luotuoo.tojuo pm~ aouoJaalop [~.ul ~ lo~ua al pu}~ '.s,~,v,q~.tq .taqlo ptm s~e~aooaj .mo ua .tollt,I oonpoJ ,~IOat.loojjo
al Xlt,It,qt,suodsoJ alms aql :raj a^o.ula:t al pu~ mm~oJd XuA~q~.qq-v-ldopv pozt. l~^.ud aql aleut,tmal al
};t,mojt,l~D jo alms oql ua Sll~O ipunoD ,ht,D q~.r'4Fl aql luql (I~IA~IOS~I &I 211t '21~IOeI2lll2lH& 'MOM
'.pao.rlomd Xlluo~no se o~ni.mJ e UOAOId sl~q X~A~q~t.H-V-ldopv pozt,ll~'A.Ud aql S¥~tli~HAli
puc '.Ltlsnput, o.tols
aouoma^uoo ptm '~em se~ 'pooj lsmj oql moij alseax st. Jallt,I ,(eaxqSt.q poseo~out, st.ql jo %08
puu '.Xl.mnmmoo
ptm ,v,~1 .raj loadsa:~ ut. oUt,lOOp snouos u pu~ o.uquj lUt,oos oql ut. ~uol u slooUa.t molqo~d st,ql SV2Ill21HA~
pu~ '..tollt,I jo o~nlap lunbo uu ~moua.uodxo
'llO~a se 'o.m XlunoD oupopuoIAI puoXaq ~t,mojt,lUD moql.tou lnoq~no.tql s,(e~aq~t,q alms S¥~[}I~I-IAIi
puu '.,~tuouooo 1~OOl Jno al lum.todmt, s.tolt.$t.A soSmnoost,p
ptm ,h.mntmuoo s.ao ua .~IOAt,ll~'gOU sloo[JoJ sl.mlt. I Xlt,D qu.P4Fl u.ntl?a -tolll. l ,~uA~qg.tI-I alms s.lql SV~}I~tHM
pu~ '.~u.uallt,I jo
IOAOI poluopaoa~dun u~ ~u.uajjns st. qu.P4fl jo Xlt,D aql q~no.rql ~umum I0I X~q~.tH alms
BIll&SAS AVA~IDIH ~IJ;V&S ~tI-I& JAIOHDflOIIII&
OMV I0I AVMHDIH MO }I~IJ;&YI ~IDfl(I~I A~I~tAI&D~AA~I O& SMOI&DV
NIIVJ;ll~ID ~75IV& OJ; VIMllOAYIVD Aa ~I&V&S ~l-I& MO DMITIVD HVDIfl
~IO A&ID ~l-I& Aa ~IIDMflOD A~LID ~II-IJ; Aa MOIJATIOS~I
'OM MOIMYIOST~I
s.rql (l~l£dO(IV (IMV (I~ISSVd
q!xo ,~axoos3 ,~tre,io 10o3 00g u!ql!~ pole~oI so.to~s oouomoAUOO p~
'l. mtU s~Ig 'poo3 lS~.I Il~ ~ SOl~S ou.qoseg uou uo x~£ l~^OtUOZI ~olLrI moo .~ovgnb
s.rq~ gu!pun3 ~op!suoo ol sI~t.o~jo ale;S uo Sll~O It. ounoD s.,O leq~ (I2iA~iOS2iIt li2IH~LRfI~I ~LI
'.poo!lomd ~lluo~no s~ OAgOOjjou! UOAosd s~q/q~q~.tH-V-ldopv oql SV~I~IHM
pue '.~lsnpu! oJols
OouomoAuoo p~ '~etU Se~ 'pooj lseJ oql tuosj ols~ s! iol;!I AeA~q§.rq poseolou! s.rq; jo %08 SVR~IRHA~
pu~ '.,~Lmmmuoo
P~ ~I ao3 loodsoa u! aU!lOOp snouos e puu o.uq~3 l~!oos oql u! a~ol ~ slOOLIOa ruolqoad s!q~ SVR~I~IHM
pug '.~oll!I 3o ognlop genbo tre gmououodxa
'llO~ s~ 'o~g ~mnoD ou?opuolN puo~oq e!u~o~!geD tuoq~iou moqgnocq; s/~g~q~.rq o;~qS SVR}I~-IM
pu~ '.Ktuouooo geooI ano o; lur,~odua! ssol!s!^ so~.moost, p ,~qo.~oql
ptm Kl!untu~oo s.rql uo KloAl. lggou slOOljO~ sl.n~!|/~l!~) tlg.Pdf'l u.Rll!m .~oll!l/~BA~qg.q-I alms s.rql SV,';I}I~I-IA~
pu~ '.gu.uolV. l
lO,XoI poluopooo~dun ug gu.uo.ljns s.t qg.Pdfl Jo ,(V.D oql qgno.rql gutuun~ [0[ ,(g~qg.q-I oI~S SV21}I~HM
IfiI~KLSXS AVMHDIH ~I,I,V~LS ~-IJ, ,LflOHDflO/H-I,L
(IMV I0I AVMHDIH MO H~LL~LI"I 5IDfI(IR~I A~IRAI,LD~c[A~I OL SMOI,LDV
NIIV,LH,~ID 5OIV£ O~L VIlq~OeIYIVD ~IO ~LLV,LS ~IH£ MO DMITIVD HVDIfl
~IO AJ~ID R~LL AO qIDMflOD A~LID RH,L ~IO MOIMI'IOSR~I
'OM MOIMYIOS~I}I