Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-10-17 Packet CITY OF UKIAH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Regular Meeting CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 October 17, 2001 6:30 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL 2. PLEDGE OFALLEGIANCI= 7, 3. PRESENTATION/PROCLAMATION a. Presentation by Assemblywoman Virginia Strom-Martin's Office Regarding City- Owned Electric Utility b. Proclamation: October 14-20, 2001 as Ukiah Valley Association For Habilitation (UVAH) Week 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. Regular Meeting of September 5, 2001 5, 1 RIGHT TO APPEAL DECISION Persons who are dissatisfied with a decision of the City Council may have the right to a review of that decision by a court. The City has adopted Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, which generally limits to ninety days (90) the time within which the decision of the City Boards and Agencies may be judicially challenged. al c, dl e. CONSENT CALENDAR The following items listed are considered routine and will be enacted by a single motion and roll call vote by the City Council. Items may be removed from the Consent Calendar upon request of a Councilmember or a citizen in which event the item will be considered at the completion of all other items on the agenda. The motion by the City Council on the Consent Calendar will approve and make findings in accordance with Administrative Staff and/or Planning Commission recommendations. Approval of Disbursements for Month of September 2001 Authorization of One-Time Payment to Mendocino County Department of Transportation and Approval of Budget Amendment for the City's Share of the Cost to Rehabilitate Vichy Springs Road Report of Acquisition of Five Replacement Computer Systems From Premio Computer, Inc. in the Amount of $6,662.89 Rejection of Claim for Damages from William H. Parducci, and Referral to Joint Powers Authority, Redwood Empire Municipal Insurance Fund Report to Council Regarding Public Notification Regarding Vacancies on Traffic Engineering Committee AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEM~ The City Council welcomes input from the audience, if there is a matter of business On the agenda that you are interested in, you may address the Council when this matter is considered. If you wish to speak on a matter that is not on this agenda, you may do so at this time. In order for everyone to be heard, please limit your comments to three (3) minutes per person and not more than ten (-10) minutes per subject. The Brown Act regulations do not allow action to be taken on audience comments in which the subject is not listed on the agenda. 8. PUBLIC HEARING (7:00 P.M.) a. Public Hearing Regarding Notification of Award of Federal Law Enforcement Block Grant, Determination of Fund Allocation, and Approval of Budget Amendment b. **Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Temporary Use Permit No. 01-34: Ukiah Recycle, 1080 Cunningham Street **Quasi Judicial Matter: Each City Councilmember must visit the site of any project on the agenda requiring a quasi-judicial action, and failure to accomplish this task shall constitute grounds for recusal = NEW BUSINESS a. Discussion and Possible Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the HulI-Piffero Subdivision and Use Permit Project b. Approval of New Development Permit Coordinator Position and Salary Classification c. Award of Bid to Masterson Communications, Inc. in the Amount of $78,561 for the Installation of the Radio Communications Improvement Project, Approval of Budget Amendment, and Report to Council Regarding Emergency Purchase of Services Adoption of Resolutions Approving Applications for State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Grants for Various Park Improvement Projects Discussion of Cancellation of November 21,2001 City Council Meeting d, e, 10. COUNCIL REPORTS 11. CITY MANAGER/CITY CLERK/DIRECTOR REPORTS 12. CLOSED SESSION a. G.C..~54957.6 - Conference with Labor Negotiator Employee Negotiations: Fire Unit Labor Negotiator: Candace Horsley b, Conference with Legal Counsel- Anticipated Litiqation Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Government Code Section 54956.9 (1 case) 13. ADJOURNMENT The City of Ukiah complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities upon request. ITEM NO. 3a DATE: October 17, 2001 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: PRESENTATION BY ASSEMBLYWOMAN VIRGINIA STROM-MARTIN'S OFFICE REGARDING CITY-OWNED ELECTRIC UTILITY The California State Assembly recently passed a resolution in recognition of the nation's public owned utilities during this time of power shortages and October 7th-13th has been designated National Public Power Week. Assemblywoman Virginia Strom-Martin is proud to present the City of Ukiah with the Assembly Resolution in recognition of its electric utility owned since 1897. Kathy Kelly, representing Assemblywoman Strom-Martin's office, will make the presentation at the October 17, 2001 City Council meeting. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive Resolution from California State Assembly Presented by Assemblywoman Strom-Martin's Office. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Assemblywoman Virgini ~a Strom-Martin Marie Ulvila, City Clerk ~~,~_./r_~,£.~ Candace Horsley, City Manager None. APPROVED./ Candace Horsley, C~Manager ASR: Presentation 101701 WHEREAS, the goaI o/ the Ukiah VMle? Associan'on for Habilitan'on ~ V.A.H.), a non pro/it comm unitybasedorganizan'on,/ormedin 196I~ is to help people vWth disabffi~'es meet t~eir full potential as individual~ andproductive citizens in our comm unity byproviding a ~4de range o£ services~ a supporn've environment and by educan'ng andinvoIving the community in an effort to integrate people ~4th disabilin'es into community h'fe~, and VvrHHREA~ U. V.A.H. has operated in the greater Ugh'ah area/or the Past 40 years, originalIy serving retarded children, and most recen tlyproviding services and programs /or peopIe ~4th developmental disa~'~'m'es,, and WHHREA~ U. V.A.H. 's nvo major programs to achieve the objecn'ves o/assisn'ngpeople ~4th disabilities are the RundAdult Program, which provides training in self, are, domesn'c sldIIs, community awareness, recrean'on/leisure sldIls, and vocan'onal development, enabIing people to maximize their independence~ andMayacama Industries, a vocan'onaI trainingprogram providing work training~ job placement, and sopport ser~ces, enabh'ng indlvidua~ to ma~dm~ze their work skilIs, habim~ and earning in community-based employmenO and WHHREAS, U. V.A.H. continues to work toward deveIoping andimplemen tingprogressive training concepts aimed at heIping peopIe meet their fuil potenn'aI as productive citizens in our community. NO W, THEREFORE, I, PhHh'p Ashiku, Mayor o/the City of UHah, on behalf of m? fe#ow City Councilmembers, Phil ltald~4n, Kathy Libb% Roy Smith, and ~t~c Larson do herebyproclaim October 14620~ 2001 as UKIAH VALLEYASSOCIA TIONFOR H4B L T 4 7'ION (U. V.,4.H.) in recognin'on o/its 4~h anniversary, encourage parn'clpan'on in the Awar~ and Anniversary Dinner on October 14 and congratulate the U. V.A.H. Board o/Directors, Staf~ and volunteers/or their signi~'cant contribution to our community and a job well done over these Iast 40 years. Date: October 17, 2001 Philh'p Ashiku, Mayor 3b MEMO TO: FROM: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers City Clerk Marie Ulvila ~/,~__./__~ ~ SUBJECT: City Council Meeting Minutes: September 5, 2001 DATE: October 12, 2001 The draft minutes of the September 5, 2001 City Council meeting will be sent to you no later than Tuesday, October 16, 2001. Memos: CC101201 - Minutes MINUTES OF THE UKIAH CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting Wednesday, September 5, 2001 The Ukiah City Council met at a Regular Meeting on September 5, 2001 which had been legally noticed and posted, at 6:32 p.m. in the Civi~ Chambers, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. Roll was taken a~ Councilmembers were present: Larson, Smith, Libby, Baldwin, and present: Public Utilities Director Barnes, Community Services Di Assistant City Manager Fierro, Risk Manager/Budget Officer Harris, Associate Planner Keefer, Associate Planner Lohse, City ^ttor Works Director Seanor, Public Works Director/City Engin ~ele, Stump, and City Clerk Ulvila. Staff gh, ing Direcl 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Councilmember Smith led the Pledge of Allegi 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3a. Regular Meeting of May 16, 2001: Item 12e only Councilmember Libby advised that the City Clerk prepare~ of the May 16, 2001 City Council for clarification purp the Staff Report for item 8a, Un of the curren requested that Council use :oncerning the record rather than the :es of item 12e included in agenda. She May 16, 2001 for Mayor Ashiku consulted with the there is no problem with the request ~is matter and was advised f. Councilm~ that the ~ot inclu ~e motion in the ~d minutes presented under item 8a on limits and that the motion be included Di. term limits minutes, and and it was noted that the motion regarding oners is con d under agenda item 3a, page 24 of 26 of the draft included with the detailed minutes contained under agenda item ~ber ested a correction to the detailed minutes included under item 6, paragraph, the second, third, and fourth sentences should read should say that the completed application must be turned in to be ~q You have said before that you don't have to complete applications. I h the codebook and cannot find that anywhere." approving the minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 16, 2001, Item the detailed minutes, to include the motion regarding the term limits, as well as Regular Meeting September 5, 2001 Page 1 of 22 the amendment to page 4 as recommended by Councilmember Libby; carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Smith, Libby, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: Councilmember Larson. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3b. Re~ular Meeting of June 20, 2001 Councilmember Libby stated that she would have preferred that th~ minutes concerning the Planning Commission interviews contain received considerable news attention. She requested clarification c contained on page 5 regarding the installation of small regional She thought the motion had been changed that staff woul( elements and discuss insurance issues with REMIF. in tt Discussion followed concerning the matter. It was motion should read "M/S Baldwin/Ashiku directin, regional components in ,nsensl to' Park." of Council that the ate installin~ Councilmember Libby recommended a corr, 4 of 15, under Councilmember Libby's report, second paragraph, the ti ~d fourth sentences should read "They were contacted by Assemblywoman Strom. ~'s that she had nominated the City of Ukiah's Cultu and Recreation Center a $600,000 grant. They will be applying fc .rnia Endowment Gra amount of $2.5 million over a two-year perio~ M/S Baldwin/Libby approving the amended; carried by the following Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: Smith. ~utes of AYES: of June 20, 2001, as cilmembers Larson, Libby, ABSTAIN' Councilmember 3. APPRt 3c. R~ M/S sul Libby, OF Mil ourned of June a :he the Regular Meeting of June 20, 2001, as vote: AYES: Councilmembers Larson, Smith, ayor Ashik~ ES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 'ROVAL 0 ~1 2001 ~ber 9nded a correction on page 3, third paragraph, regarding of Mi~ Correll. The sentence should read' "M/RC Ashiku/Smith ~hael Correll to the Planning Commission." Libby stated that the nomination process for the Planning Commission followed concerning the matter and it was decided that the minutes concerning Regular Meeting September 5, 2001 Page :2 of 22 the nomination process would be reviewed by the City Clerk to determine where the error occurred and to advise Council accordingly. M/S Smith/Larson approving the minutes of the Special Meeting of July 5, amended; carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilm~ Lars Libby, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABI as 4. RIGHT TO APPEAL DECISION Mayor Ashiku read the appeal process. PRESENTATION Councilmember Larson, 123 Clara Avenue, addressed Senior Center to commend Police Chief Williams and Poli and security work during the recent Wild Game Feed. on bE the Uki~ their safety Hyoca Bells, new Executive Director of the Ukial Department for all their help and expressed h~ continue to work as partners. Lnked the Ukiah Police the Center could 5. CONSENT CALENDAR M/S Larson/Smith approving a. Adopted Resolution No. 21 Fiscal Year 2001-2002; b. Approved Budget c. Authorized the Mayor to Execul Club for the Use of the Liquid Hydro Project; d. Awarded Bi~ Golf and e. Ado Trar follows: itures for Ukiah Rod and Gun the Lake Mendocino rchase of Two Replacement Mowers for the et Amendment; Coast Railroad Authority and Designating the City as Grant Fiscal the Depa~ Awarded Bi, 0,587.50 Hayward Ford in the Amount of $54,162.33 for Truck Cab and Chassis to Harper Ford Country in the Amount rtment of Public Works. Motion d by the Baldwin, roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Larson, Smith, Libby, u. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 6. AUDIEN COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Laura Goli ato, Executive Director of the Ukiah Community Center, presented Cou lember with a decorative basket of vegetables from the Community Garden on Cleveland Lane. She thanked the City for supporting the project and the vegetables are shared with Plowshares. Regular Meeting September 5, 2001 Page 3 of 22 7. PUBLIC HEARING *7a. ADproval of Exception to Minimum Lot Width Standard to Accommodate Three Existing Homes and Facilitate a Subdivision of Land in the R-1 Residential) Zoning District for Alice Evans Minor Subdivision 01-26 Mayor Ashiku announced that this Public Hearing requires a quasi-judi~ ion and a poll of Council was taken which revealed each member had visited the Planning Director Stump advised that this matter concerns a ret City's Subdivision Ordinance. exceptio Associate Planner Keefer advised that Alice Evans Residential zone, located at the corner of Wabash an~ of a Minor Subdivision application to allow the divi: and an undeveloped remainder parcel, and an proposed lots to be established with a lot width, width of 52 feet instead of the 60 feet required Exception is requested to accommodate three existin~ established in accordance with a 50-foot minimum width the project and details of each of th minimum lot width, and the The four existing homes on lot width was the minimu~ Commission reviewed the Excepti supported the Exception to the lot w a R-l, Single Family The project con= acre parcel into four on to allow two of the established with a ~ws~on Ordinance. The structures that were He discussed setbacks, the applicant. e when the 50-foot ~=. The Planning 2001 and unanimously s Nos. 1-5. Public He~ 7:05 p.m. Dick Seal nt for tv for the report ~ng very tho h and com ~)n, complimented staff on their Pi Councilmemb~ ;sary to the soutl that co~ ~port an #1 and #~ not discussed Finding #1 for Parcel #2 that states that the Exception required minimum setbacks. He felt that since land is the parcel could be extended. He felt there is no finding on for Parcel #2. He was supportive of Exceptions to Parcels Discussion allowing the feet. regarding Parcel #2 and the issue of granting a special privilege by to be 50 feet in width, when actually the smallest parcel on that street is was also discussion as to how Parcel #2 could be developed. bought that Council could make a finding that there are existing homes on these Regular Meeting September 5, 2001 Page 4 of 22 parcels, except the remainder parcel, otherwise, if the property were vacant, they would need to comply with the 60-foot setback requirement. Discussion continued concerning the Findings and if they could be applied to all related to the project. els Planner Keefer advised that Finding #1 is a required finding for an Exc~ City Attorney Rapport explained that, according to the City Code, certain findings related to the project and discussed what those fin~ are. ake Further discussion followed relative to the location of the setbacks, and issues related to the Exemption. to th, perty M/S Libby/Smith adopting the necessary Exemption to the minimum lot width stan( Application No. 01-26. !proving the ns Minor Subdivision M/S Baldwin/Larson amending motion to exclude Pa~ Exemption. and Finding #1 from the Discussion was had concernln( intent to bring the property ~nd the owner's Motion concerning the amendme AYES: Councilmembers Larson, Councilmember Libby. ABSENT: No~ N( the following roll call vote: Mayor Ashiku. NOES: Motion corn Councilm~ Libby. by the following roll call vote: AYES: ~or Ashiku. NOES: Councilmember 1 Public U1 interconne~ Code. St customers ilowatts Ado Photow ~nd Authc lishing a Residential D-PM Electric Rate for Interconnection With the City of Ukiah's Electrical System of Public Utilities to Execute Interconnection will be adjusted annually to account for changes in generation costs. s al Customers ,Requesting to Interconnect Sl with the City of Ukiah's Electrical System advised that the proposed Rate Schedule D-PM and the agreement is required to comply with Section 2827 of the Public Utilities 2827 requires that electric utilities offer net metering to residential install and operate solar electric generating facilities of less than 10 to their residences. He explained that the Net Energy Charge of $0.15321 ier II energy rate for residential customers under the current residential rate. He Regular Meeting September 5, 2001 Page 5 of 22 explained that staff is requesting approval of Rate Schedule D-PM setting net energy charges and authorizing a $3.00 per watt rebate to be funded as a Public Benefits Program. In addition, staff is requesting that Council authorize the Director of Public Utilities to execute the interconnection agreement with Bruni Kobbe and th be authorized to execute all other interconnection agreements relative to the p system. He further explained that staff is anticipating that they would use ti from the Public Benefits Fund that is anticipated to be accumulated over 0 years. Considerable discussion followed concerning the proposal and Public Benefit Fund if there were an abundant of applications for this also some concern expressed regarding the size of the and being connected. ram. Th~ the sy~ the Councilmember Baldwin expressed concern that were approved, they could conceivably use up supportive of the program, however, he noted hi 9se projects (20-40 ic Benefits Fund. He s~ze of the rebate. Director Barnes explained that if the Public Be~ the City would either not pay the rebate or the funds Utilities Reserve funds. There is no mandate by the state w rebate. He explained that 9r Investor Owned Utilities, monies, customers under the In Utilities are able installed back. He eted towa~ this time. :1 for this program, ave to come out of Public amount of the ies and 29x $5.50 per Kw dential use only at Mayor Ashiku shared Councilmemi comes from the Public Benefits Fun~ place. This pro of the legi new )portive of th much this Public Bent Publ conc~ capping the amount that we don' the program currently in re's intent of fulfilling the need for developing but expressed a need to look at how Bruni Kobb~ California Publi, ;sibility that funds may be available through the Commission to supplement the City's funds. advised that in 1985 she installed a passive solar hot 9 because it was a tax rebate and it has reduced her P. G. & raged Council to move forward in this direction. Closed: 7:31 p.m. Larson was of the opinion that the program may be beneficial, however, concern with the Public Benefits Fund, and attempting to maintain Iow rates ture, as well as maintaining a fund to provide assistance to Iow-income people. Regular Meeting September 5, 2001 Page 6 of 22 This is an investment in energy production for the City. Mayor Ashiku raised questions about the interconnection agreement and recommended staff investigate safety hazards in case the system failed. He questioned happen if power is lost and if there would be liability issues the applicant ne aware of. Director Barnes explained that liability issues could be incorporated He fielded a question from Councilmember Libby concerning the n~ $0.15.3 being used instead of $0.12.4 and explained that $0.15. Residential Rate. Upon questioning by Councilmember Bal( Mr. the state legislation was passed about two years ago and first interconnection agreement request received by the e of Discussion followed pertaining to liability issues contains certain provisions that limit the City's lia rates. There was also discussion regarding this program. Some discussion was also had amount of the rebate. It was suggested that a cost analy,, the rebate would affect the Public Benefits Fund. Council separate action on the ag ~nd the rebate. Further concerning information on the C.A.R.E.S. program. ~ng or overcharging of Fund for rebates to ~ce requirements and the ecessary to determine how idering taking requested he Public Benefits FL the status of the City Manager Horsley ex indicated there is an annual incom currently about $1.2 in reserves, and the and the C.A.R.E.S. program Barnes noted there is ~nt on the C.A.R.E.S. program. Further concerning there to pres~ :n update of ti Council :1 have an ity to rebate and it was noted by staff that i'.E.S, program at the next meeting and ~ation at that time. rebate beca[ ogram. itical for ti that Council should wait before establishing a ~dgets. The rebate is the key component to the liku was that the $3 rebate is workable and would not have a on ram. He felt it would be unfair to future applicants or Ms. an amount at this time, and then amended at a later date. He ~e matter related to the Public Benefits Fund be continued to the September and that further information concerning the rebate is brought back to time for discussion. 'in/Ashiku Adopting Resolution 2002-07, Establishing a Residential System D-PM Electric Rate in the City of Ukiah, authorizing the Director of Regular Meeting September 5, 2001 Page 7 of 22 Public Utilities to execute interconnection agreements with residential customers requesting to interconnect photovoltaic systems with the City of Ukiah's electrical system, establishing the electric rate for the interconnection agreement, and that the matter of the rebate related to the Public Benefits Fund and the Public Hearing be contif to September 19, 2001. There was some discussion concerning the content of the motion. Director Barnes explained that Council could authorize the interc~ without authorizing the rate for it. lent Councilmember Baldwin explained that he is very torn on as very positive for the community and expressed con~ .~r original intent of the Public Benefits Fund and assure the fund over the next 10 years to help the poor a with regard to energy conservation. 'ect be he sees can relate this to the ,e money left over in ~e time do the right th Motion carried by the following roll call vote: Libby, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABS Larson, Smith, ABSTAIN: None 9. NEW BUSINESS 9e. Discussion of FI. City Manager Horsley Veterans' Flag Project, Council discussion as there was cz and when they can be placed in the by Councilmember Baldwin in a lettE Project. There h indications th the exact be flown an~ through a :roachrr The permit he flags for Iron Car ,or Ashiku) r has asked t discussion of the last ,ber, be agendized for regarding the flags was also some discussion ng the s approval of part of the Flag ~e Councilmembers would prefer to delineate ,commending that this be accomplished have contacted the City regarding a event to be held at the end of September. M and he felt it was approved. Council to a great deal of controversy regarding this item t's intention at the time the Veteran's Flag Project to the on their b~ 700 Club advised that Operation Flags did not give permission ,e flags and that Rick Hanson was going to apply for a permit Jerry Erick discussed t e state~ 630 Ellen Lane, Redwood Valley, speaking on behalf of the Veterans, Flags project that was supported in part by a grant from the City. they received a positive response from the community. He discussed ~e flags from Flag Day through the Fourth of July and how the project was He revealed the results of a survey they conducted that asked specific Regular Meeting September 5, 2001 Page 8 of 22 questions related to when the flags should be displayed on State and School Streets. In summary, many wanted to have the flags displayed more often. He provided Council with a copy of the results of the survey and submitted completed survey sheets for the record. He stated that the Veterans would like to see Operation Flags continue to disp! ;ir symbol of peace and freedom and we are proud to be Americans. Morrey McCloud, Snuffin Street, discussed the City's display of the fla~ Chambers and flown outside City Hall. Counci Mary Lindley, 700 E. Gobbi Street, voiced her support for Councilmember Baldwin's statements in letter in the newspa are owes the community an apology. FI; It ~le and th Albert Krauss, Ukiah, provided written information designating certain days to display the American fla. to support the unique way in which the VE guidelines as to which days the flag can be di~ gard to options for ed Council to contin e flag and to provide School Streets. City Manager Horsley explained the process for through the Public Works Department, Engineering City's right-of-way. She Iling of holes on the si~ needed to be taken into obstructing the an Encroachment Permit lat's within the ~ns that Councilmember Baldwin taxpayers dollars should be used o advertising purposes or to promote days during the year is more powerful period of time. ~mended Cou~ be flown on ~s, and limi' Luther Kin Memo Veteran~ July 4th ~, Day. :g ~at were funded with applied and not used for I:elt that flying the flags nine ~gs over a consecutive 20 day the application, which says flags are to Permit to Labor Day, Martin Birthday, Washington's Birthday, Baldwin to th Council, and th~ and that opinion that the letter by Councilmember per clearly impression that he was speaking for the entire ~ot true. She didn't think that an Encroachment Permit was even uired to specify the days in which the flags could be City Atto to use the were design plained that an Encroachment Permit is required if you are going ic right-of-way, and would be needed to display the flags in the holes that them. Libby referred to individuals standing on street corners with signs and ,ey need an Encroachment Permit. Regular Meeting September 5, 2001 Page 9 of 22 City Attorney Rapport advised that they do not need an Encroachment Permit because it is a public forum area and they have the right of free speech. Operation Flags is a use that was sponsored by the City and the facilities were purchased and installed with the aid of the City in the public right-of-way pursuant to an Encroachment Permit. He conti to discuss the differences between the two situations. Councilmember Libby stated that she did not have a problem with the those that put the flags out and is supportive of the program. She was there is no need to specify the days for displaying the flags in the t used bl that 'mit. City Manager Horsley explained that the current En~ specific days but allowed them to have the holes installed She provided Council with a history of flags that were right-of-way. P does n( ~t the fi in the h( ~played in the public M/S Smith/Ashiku to allow display of the flags c Memorial Day, Presidents Day, Labor Day, Labor Day, July 4th, and during the period of FI~ annual renewal of an Encroachment Permit based upo~ lays: New Years Day, Luther King Jr. Day, gh July 4th, with an roof of insurance. Winifred Dunn, 628 Ellen Lynn R to fly the flag. She only flies her the American Revolution wood Valley, discussed th ~g to the days design and the and how he Daughters of flown every day. Darryl McKevin, 4500 Lakeridge at that time the flags were displayeC insurance were required Richard Charvi flying the flat Drive, · 4 through ts, did not understand why there is an issue of it is a display of patriotism. Counci Lil uired that if th~ thos~ survey, roachment Permit limited the holidays to that acceptable. Jerry that they survey. ""like to display the flag on the days listed in their L; his observations of the flags and felt the display was owever, h not supportive of the continuous display of the flags for two ~ring that period of time, not all businesses participated in the essened the effect of the project. ~r Baldwin discussed his family's participation in the armed services. He n amendment to the Motion to limit the display of the flag to 10 holidays per Regular Meeting September 5, 2001 Page 10 of 22 Mayor Ashiku advised that he was a bit overwhelmed by the second week into the flag display and felt it was loosing its affect. However, a number of people have expressed to him that it was suitable. In the spirit of fulfilling his commitment to the wishes of the public, he is supportive of the motion. Councilmember Smith called for the question. Mayor Ashiku was of the opinion that if a person wants to fly a flag in ht-of- way, they need to obtain an Encroachment Permit. It is inappropriat ing flags that the City purchased. He felt there should be some discretio nc it organization wants to use those flags with the issuance of !ncroa( Permit Councilmember Baldwin stated that he is very suppo fund this program based on an application that said holidays, however, he was not supportive of three with its action to be flown on national as proposed. Councilmember Libby explained that she is also comfortable with the days specified. since the group is Councilmember Larson requested he be allowed to Councilmember Smith advise( motion calls for the question understanding he maker of the Councilmember Baldwin disagre~ .0 City Attorney Rapport explained th that cuts off deb 'ecolh ~at if you call for the question, Mayor As inquireC maker of th~ eak on the and Coun~ yield to Councilmember Larson's Smith did. offense to th( ive of the fl Mayor be voting "no" on the motion and means no s org established this project, and that he is making a He supports their efforts to display the flags, however, he is not isplayed continuously over a three-week period of time. ~uncil for considering this matter and the public for their by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Smith, Libby, and ~IOES: Councilmembers Larson and Baldwin. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: 8:50 p.m. Regular Meeting September 5, 2001 Page !] of 22 Mayor Ashiku left the Meeting at 9:05 p.m. Reconvened by Vice-Mayor Baldwin: 9:06 p.m. 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 8a. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Commission A City Manager Horsley advised that when the City Council adopted a the appointment process, there was a question thereafter applicants had to be interviewed. The discrepancy involves a stat, July 5, 2001 City Clerk's Agenda Summary Report (ASR in paragraph 2. The sentence states, "However, incumbents additional term are exempt from the interview applicants will participate in a personal interview if ti interviews for the position, but it does not state that the interview requirements. Upon review of tht appears that the Council passed a motion t; participate or not in the interview process, si concerning the motion approved by Council that pers required. Whether this motion was for incumbents only or in either case, is not included in he Resolution. Staff determination on this item for ~sions to the Resoluti~ requesting Council's ap missions that r~ can be included in the Re: the ~ss~ons on this item it whether to ~ 6, 2001 minutes were no longer is unclear and s final litionally, Staff is interviews so they Mayor Ashiku returned to the meeti .m. Discussion folh ing Coun~ approval of the Reso R~ at the June 6, 2001 meeting regarding ~liminating section "1 b." of the proposed City revi~ meeting exa( ,ion Rappo~ that wants th; Id prepare a revised Resolution for Council to to specifically state in the minutes of this ular section of the Resolution to be worded. Ihe minute is omitted w the error on the Resolution may have occurred. It was Council's actions, however, the section regarding the Resolution. advised that there is a request by Councilmember Libby to reexamine the took at the June 6th meeting. Libby referred to page 7 of the Draft Minutes of the June 6, 2001 a statement was made by the City Manager that "the City Clerk will previous application to the City Council." This was supposed to be included in Regular Meeting September 5, 2001 Page 12 of 22 the Resolution under heading "2. Exceptions". She stated that she submitted a letter to the Councilmembers expressing her thoughts on the matter and felt Council contradicted itself in the Resolution when they were Io, at what committees would be interviewed and that interviews would be optional. asked for a consistency in the policy of applications, she was referring should have a completed application and that we not be selective of wh, uncompleted one and who can't. She felt Council contradicted itself in the Resolution and what was discussed. She felt the last nominati chaotic and asked that Council take another look at this because used a uniform procedure that ensured a fair and consistent also asked that Council look at the term limits again. She the public wants. City Attorney Rapport explained that if Council should direct staff to bring an amended ordinan~ subsequent meeting. for consideration at a Councilmember Baldwin explained that the current is flawed. He discussed the current process and felt that thi majority authority to deny the representation on our commls~ Council politics is that any planning, urban limit lines, will fail to gain the three votes n ed for Councilmember Libby's views on th( the power of special money interests, process of each each commi~ ten .d perspectives of votir his opinion that declares ~eral Pla commission appointment three person ~'ies in Ukiah of the current pport for rigorous Open Space element He discussed ~d his o :ion to the need to eliminate rn the citizens. He supported the the courtesy of appointing one person to Counci isn't C~ candidate an that person's Counci Mayor Ash it was his o application a( Libby that by havinc limits it makes it so that the same person year and ha~"good old boy" system. She noted that !rm limits. She was of the opinion that when a Ihe questic he application, it provides Council with insight into La! Counci that it seems absurd that there are no term limits for ied term limits to all the commissioners. the current policy for nominating individuals to a commission and that the most qualified person should have preference. An incomplete failure to be interviewed speaks for itself and Council can make a decision only confusing issue was whether or not sitting commissioners were interviewed. He was of the opinion that the process that the Council fair, however, there is a need to be consistent in following the procedure as Regular Meeting September 5, 2001 Page 13 of 22 adopted by Council. Councilmember Smith stated that he is not supportive of term limits; however, he was one of the "no" votes on removing item "1 b" from the Resolution, because he felt he applicants should participate in the interview process. He recalled that the issue of a sitting commissioner who is being considered for reappointme~ viable candidate if they submitted a memo indicating their desire to be the City Clerk would attach their previous application. New applicants sign the application and would be asked to complete it if at all applications be filled out in entirety. ~ted, and · ~ired to Ihat Councilmember Larson agreed with Councilmember intent during discussion. Something should have been c( that wanted to be reappointed that they had the option before Council. He continued to discuss the issue knowing each commissioner's views and voting prepare amendments to the Resolution that like to see a. clearer policy with regard to reappo~r discretion of requiring an interview of a sitting Commiss~, feel should be dealt with in open session. uncil He of Council commissioners ~nt or appearin, the responsibility )rted directing Staff to decision and would should have the they have questions they Discussion continued regardin! seeking reappointment, it action that was taken of nl commissions that Council would ire In terms of intervi~ Council that t mbents who are ;solution reflect the and that the three in the Resolution. Councilmember Libby inquired if the for all commissi( to Planning Commissioners or City Atte Rappo that comm~ Section was amende, separate section that dealt with all iminate term limits. M/S boards and Councilmembt an Ordinance reinstating the term limits for all ;ions, faih carry by the following roll call vote: AYES: and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: Councilmembers Larson, Smith, and :None. Mary interview r, Ukiah, her support for term limits, completed applications, and the Some discu~ followed concerning the previous motion. Lars directing staff to prepare an amendment to Resolution 2001-61, as :he minutes, and to strike section 1 b of the Resolution, and to add the words Clerk will submit the previous application to the City Council" under the first full Regular Meeting September 5, 2001 Page 14 of 22 paragraph after #6 on page 2 of the Resolution, plus adding reference to the Airport Commission, Planning Commission, and the Parks, Recreation, and Golf Commission as requiring interviews of applicants; carried by the following roll call vote: .AYES: Councilmembers Larson, Smith, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: Coun~ Libby. She stated for the record that she does not support the ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Mayor Ashiku noted a point of order that in the future when a roll conducted, Councilmembers should state their objections and so as to avoid a debate. being 8. NEW BUSINESS 8b. Discussion of Ukiah High School Tennis Director of Community Services DeKnoblough tennis courts were built through a grant gh Department in 1980 and made possible through School District (District) to allow for the con: grounds by the City. That agreement included the District. Since the courts were constructed there ha: courts, mainly with ground water intrusion. Ukiah High Parks and Recre~ 9nt with Ukiah Unified on the school s to the courts by various problems with the Rosalind Petersen, Redwood working together on this projE and the City does have m; provided Council from the State Pa~ is ultimately responsible if the Distri( as to when the trenching project wou .'hool District are ~ the School District ~r, the letter she informed the City that it Iheir contract. She inquired Director D, that still n{ co ~ation from would in ,er to do the wI like to do the trenching in October. He maintenance division that their crews MS. application efforts. ed six to ei the tennis courts and the need for the s in advance. She thanked Council for their skateb ;mber Ba off the t~ ,uired if the District is doing a good job of keeping COUrtS. Ms. Peters, skateboard{ ldvised that the District has worked very hard in the past few years to keep the court has reduced the damage to less than 5%. ity Horsley advised that Staff would continue to discuss the matter with the ict and report to Council. Regular Meeting September 5, 2001 Page 15 of 22 ! NEW BUSINESS Adoption of Resolution Requesting Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control & Water Conservation Improvement District ("District") to Suspend Action on Interim Water Supply Agreements and to Institute Partici Process and Motion Authorizing City's Water Rights Attorney to Concerns to District City Attorney Rapport advised that there is communication that Gary We; Council to have before voting on the Resolution under item 9g. It Council to take public testimony at this time, before considering Session. wanted ate for sed Mayor Ashiku recommended that Council receive audienc, time. 9g at t~ City Attorney Rapport advised that the City has a~ been used over the years to represent the City recently had a chance to review the letter that Flood Control and Water Conservation Improvement the proposed application and interim agreement to con water that is managed by the District. He has a number of the interim application, wording of agreement purports to create including the City's water rigl to be able to evaluate what documents. He wants to be able t( represents the District about their si him and other affected agencies to this can be don~ proposed re: with it on ~ssues interim agreement, the ~mmuni~ 31 District to provide mc that all of that information th should ry Weatherford, that :ers. Mr. Weatherford Icino Russian River n July 23, 2001, and a portion of the project Ihe wording of the interim on the City, ~ for the City ropriately fill out those behalf to the lawyer who rns there to be more time for c( x issues. He doesn't feel that iadline that the District has established. The and give the City a chance to interact ,r that to occur. B the Rus., iver Flood Control District, requested that the be entered into the record for tonight's minutes. Rosalind Pete~ noted th, ard to ! uested her letter regarding this item be entered into the record. conflict of interest situation between the District and the attorneys handling different forms of representation be .'oncern that City Attorney Rapport prepared the document on advised that there is a Closed Session item related to whether or litigation concerning this matter. He clarified that he prepared the Agenda ~ort for this item but Mr. Weatherford wrote the Resolution. The Agenda was prepared as a convenience based on his review of the materials that ~erford provided and discussions with him because he did not have time to Regular Meeting September 5, 2001 Page 16 of 22 prepare it. Jean Harmon, 3990 Burke Hill Road, Ukiah, representing herself and the public, advised that at the last District meeting many of the Water Districts asked for this extensil in order to make their determination. Tom Waters, KUKI radio noted that with respect to the media, there ha~ information and requested more information be provided to the matter. a lack of ,g this Rosalind Peterson, quoted from Brown Act that "The attorne~ s action not yet taken is not appropriate for a Closed Session to know what this advise is in order to evaluate the possibility that a body's action might be ch~ ged threat that would justify discussing the proposed in rationale would justify a litigation session on an~ ~r." o a prop( the is entitl, :he body. The mere suffice as a defined Session since th, City Attorney Rapport explained that the threat( believe you are subject to potential litigation and the constitutes a threat that would justify that kind of CI( subsection of the Brown Act that is ,cited in the Agenda or the is relying on to go into Closed n exception is when you ~s very specific about what ion. Bu hat is not the lat the Council The matter was continued 1 the Wilh Public Utiliti to water boun( City of Ilow Cou~ NEW BUSINESS Authorize the Transfer of Water Dist~ ~ts from the City of Ukiah to needed infra., consider Staff h~ those the fire He contir ~tified ,rs into advise City of Ukiah currently provides service outside the on the southern edge of the City .h provided w irvice to these customers at a time when r Distri( Irict) was unable to provide service due to established. The District has developed the service ti stomers and has requested that the City of Ukiah these customers to the District. In addition, the District currently fire services to these customers due to the limitation of the plain how the transfer of service would be accomplished. and recommends that Council approve the transfer of County Water District. A brief di: was noted followed with regard to obtaining LAFCO approval for this project and it City Attorney that it would not be necessary. authorizing the transfer of specific Water Accounts from the City of he Willow County Water District; carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Regular Meeting September 5, 2001 Page 17 of 22 Councilmembers Larson, Smith, Libby, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 9. NEW BUSINESS 9a. Adopt Resolution Approving the Ukiah Commercial Develo Guidelines Planning Director Stump advised that Staff has been working on Desi~ commercial development within the City. The genesis of this was General Plan policies and some struggles that the City has had Commission and City Council level regarding approval of discretion~ design issues. Staff was given direction to develop Design iuideli~ development to ease that process. The Planning C~ recommended adoption of the Ukiah Commercial Deve continued to discuss the content of the Guidelines. some ing n Guidelines. He Joy Beeler, representing the Ukiah Main Street Guidelines was presented to the Main Street Guidelines. a draft of the Design they supported the Councilmember Libby inquired if the Guidelines were sent of Commerce. Director Stump explained that has not received any comme Commerce but M/S Larson/Smith Adopting Development Design Guidelines. the Ukiah Commercial Director Stum Policies to codified in develo opini with ~elief that it is the intent of the General Plan .lained that the Guidelines will not be voluntary. He discussed meeting with regarding development. It was his evelopment community with more flexibility Discussion cont aesthetica )cated commel with regard to the Guidelines and projects that have been developed have good design quality. It was noted that commercial City and discussion followed with regard to holding all the same standard. Motion Libby, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Larson, Smith, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None Discussion and Direction to Staff Regarding Revisions to City n Ordinance Regular Meeting September 5, 2001 Page 18 of 22 Planning Director Stump advised that the Planning Department Staff has reviewed the City Sign ordinance to determine what its strengths and weaknesses are and what changes might be required to effectively update existing sign regulations. The Planning Commission has determined that Staff should update the existing sign s e the ordinance format, and provide illustrations that would make it easier for th understand and use the ordinance. The Planning Commission is now City Council review the draft Sign Ordinance and provide direction to changes to the existing sign regulations. Associate Planner Lohse discussed delineating commercial from Councilmember Baldwin recommended that freestandin roofline and discussed moving in a more aesthetically signage. below ti with regard to Councilmember Smith expressed concern wi' should be prohibited. ~rns, trees, posts, etc. Councilmember Baldwin discussed the issue of cor events and that neon signs in neighborhoods be prohibitive footage required of signs be made :lear in the document. g signs for special hat the square Discussion continued with be conducted so that the was noted th c workshops would ice their concerns. gm NEW BUSINESS Authorize Mayor to Execute Christen and th~ Colle~ Not te for ice Between Layne of Ukiah for Rehabilitation of the Ranney ,732 and Approve Budget _ Public es Directo signi was designE modifications it ~on has dro and I: Rannt ~rnes advisedthe past few years, Staff has noticed a :hat we ~een able to produce through the Ranney water to the City's water treatment facility. It abou ion gallons per day and with some design to 10 million gallons per day. During the past summer the 5 million gallons per day. The Layne Christensen Company evaluation of the Ranney. He displayed a video of the lector and discussed corrosion of the valves and the need to authorizing the Mayor to execute an Agreement for Service between Company and the City of Ukiah for Rehabilitation of the Ranney amount not to exceed $98,732.00, and to approve Amendment to the et increasing expenditures in Account 820.3908.250.000 by $98,732.00; the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Larson, Smith, Libby, Regular Meeting September 5, 2001 Page 19 of 22 Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None 9. NEW BUSINESS 9f. Review of Proposed League of California Cities' Resolutions City Manager Horsley advised that Resolutions under consideration by California Cities were included in the Council packet. Council is asked to the Resolutions and determine the City's position on each item. Coun( acting as the City representative, would then vote on the Council's Conference. She explained that staff is supportive of Resolutions There was a brief discussion of the nine Resolutions and it to support Resolutions 1 through 6 and number 9. of 10. COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Smith reported that he attended t Francisco as the representative of the City and Bridge followed the ceremony. and Golden Gate Councilmember Libby reported attending a meeting Recreation Center concerning CDBG grants. State re for applying for grants, what 9 is looking for in a g approved. She found the met She also re Solid Waste with Mayor Ashi Parnum Pay Cook Off and the Chamber and ehalf of the Ukiah Valley them pointers to get them a meeting with II be having a Chili help in their booth. Councilmember Baldwin comm~ He discussed their two-page layout political and the ~end will personal Chamber P terminate pe of pt advertising should involved i; efforts Network Newsletter. )usine~ 'ocates and felt it is extremely certain bills, some of which are anti-labor. He Executive Director to ask them to are receiving a lot of tax funding they labor unions. Ma, Waste. He concerns and hters ¢ meeting went very well. Libby attended a meeting with Solid 1,2001 for over five hours regarding their City Mi the Leag~ Solid Wast{ 19, 2001 Council thi,, 2001 fDIRECTOR REPORTS r rted that next week many staff members would be attending ;ities' Annual Conference in Sacramento. She will prepare the ues that are extremely complex. They will be discussed at the September I meeting about the Transfer Station. She will provide this information to day for review. She advised that there is a need to begin the September lcil meeting at 5:30 p.m. for a Closed Session item and begin the regular ~:30 p.m. The agenda for that meeting will be lengthy. Regular Meeting September 5, 2001 Page 20 of 22 Councilmember Smith advised that he will be unable to attend the September 19, 2001 City Council meeting. City Manager Horsley advised that at the last meeting, she made an error in funding for improvements to the Alex Thomas Plaza is in the budget, when its changes to the Plaza design are presented to Council, staff will also concerning budget expenses. City Clerk Ulvila advised that the City Code has been installe~ computers and staff is undergoing training on the use of the City should be available on the City's Web Site very soon. Mayor Ashiku advised that Lee Howard made a statemt that he felt Council does not have the basis to go into rights matter. City Attorney Rapport advised that accordin. Session under subsection "c" of Government comments earlier in the meeting from Rosalind Pete Exceptions" which concerns whether you are exposed to someone else. Subdivision "c" p~ public agency. Council will be He explained that the re~ from an attorney in a privilege isn't waived by having to discussing matter, in part, du~ ~g Iai vice sh; il will go into Closed and noted that the to subsection "b, th litigation by ation as a 31osed Session. ~ncil to hear advise The attorney-client )n. Mayor Ashiku explained that the communication~ rights has provided Council the City Atto meetin~ there will da to disc on a discuss the them. that ti likely be an~ matter f rights attorney could not attend this Closed Session on the September 19t" '. Staff will attempt to have Mr. Weatherford Session at that meeting so he can directly 12. a. G.I EmP Labo~ No action b. to Cio. · n: 11:10 p.m. ED SESS =e with Labor Negotiator ~e Negotiations: Fire Unit otiator: Candace Horsley I. with Legal Counsel- Anticipated Litigation, on of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Government Code Section (1 case) Regular Meeting September 5, 2001 Page 2! of 22 Reconvened: 12:51 a.m. 9. NEW BUSINESS 9g. Adoption of Resolution Requesting Mendocino County Russian Ri Control & Water Conservation Improvement District ("District" Action on Interim Water Sur)ply Agreements and to Institute Process and Motion Authorizing City's Water Rights Attorn~ Concerns to District M/S Smith/Ashiku Adopting Resolution 2002-09, Requesting Russian River Flood Control & Water Conservation Improvem~ on Interim Water Supply Agreements and to Institute Partici following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Larson, Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: nicatc ~spend by Baldwin, and Mayor 13. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the City at 12:52 a.m. Marie Ulvila, City Clerk Regular Meeting September 5, 2001 Page 22 of 22 ITEM NO.: 6a DATE: 'October 17, 2001 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: REPORT OF DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER 2001 Payments made during the month of September, 2001, are summarized on the attached Report of Disbursements. Further detail is supplied on the attached Schedule of Bills, representing the four (4) individual payment cycles within the month. Accounts Payable check numbers: 34434-34656, 34771-34893 Accounts Payable Manual check numbers: 28745-28747 Payroll check numbers: 34310-34433, 34657-34767, 37469-34770 Void check numbers: 34768 This report is submitted in accordance with Ukiah City Code Division 1, Chapter 7, Article 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the Report of Disbursements for the month of September, 2001. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Candace Horsley, City Manager Prepared by: Kim Sechrest, Accounts Payable Specialist Coordinated with:Gordon Elton, Director of Finance and Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: Report of Disbursements APP ROVE D: ~~).~//~~'~.~-., Ca'dace Horsley, Cil KRS:W ORD/AGENDASEPT01 Manager CITY OF UKIAH REPORT OF DISBURSEMENTS REGISTER OF PAYROLL AND DEMAND PAYMENTS FOR THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER 200:1 Demand Payments approved: Check No. 34434-34528, 34529-34656, 34771-34893, 28745-28747 FUNDS: 100 General Fund $155,557.69 131 Equipment Reserve Fund 142 National Science Foundation $775.00 143 N.E.H.1. Museum Grant $1,306.00 150 Civic Center Fund 200 Asset Seizure Fund 203 H&S Education 11490(B)(2)(A)(I) 204 Federal Asset Seizure Grants $9,700.00 205 Sup Law Enforce Srv. Fd (SLESF) $78,990.00 206 Community Oriented Policing ($19.86) 207 Local Law Enforce. BIk Grant $1,624.80 220 Parking Dist. #10per & Maint $505.31 230 Parking Dist. #1 Revenue Fund 250 Special Revenue Fund $27,747.52 260 Downtown Business Improvement 332 Federal Emerg. Shelter Grant $10,315.52 333 Comm. Development Block Grant $1,360.40 334 EDBG 94-333 Revolving Loan 335 Community Dev. Comm. Fund 410 Conference Center Fund $6,130.05 550 Lake Mendocino Bond 555 Lake Mendocino Bond Reserve 575 Garage $1,704.81 600 Airport $80,226.92 612 City/District Sewer $31,325.19 615 City/District Sewer Replace 652 REDIP Sewer Enterprise Fund 660 Sanitary Disposal Site Fund 664 Disposal Closure Reserve 665 Refuse/Debris Control 670 U.S.W. Bill & Collect 675 Contracted Dispatch Services 678 Public Safety Dispatch 679 MESA (Mendo Emerg Srv Auth) 695 Golf 696 Warehouse/Stores 697 Billing Enterprise Fund 698 Fixed Asset Fund 699 Special Projects Reserve 800 Electric 805 Street Lighting Fund 806 Public Benefits Charges 820 Water 900 Special Deposit Trust 910 Worker's Comp. Fund 920 Liability Fund 940 Payroll Posting Fund 950 General Service (Accts Recv) 960 Community Redev. Agency 962 Redevelopment Housing Fund 965 Redevelopment Cap Imprv. Fund 966 Redevelopment Debt Svc. PAYROLL CHECK NUMBERS 34310-34433 DIRECT DEPOSIT NUMBERS 11249-11356 PAYROLL PERIOD 8/19/01-9/1/01 PAYROLL CHECK NUMBERS 34657-34767, 34769-34770 DIRECT DEPOSIT NUMBERS 11357-11467 PAYROLL PERIOD 9/2/01-9/15/01 TOTAL DEMAND PAYMENTS TOTAL PAYROLL VENDOR CHECKS TOTAL PAYROLL CHECKS TOTAL DIRECT DEPOSIT TOTAL PAYMENTS $19,039.03 $995.50 $14,839.54 $762.09 $9,856.98 $22,143.42 $193.79 $2,955.99 $2,517.00 $838,288.07 $12,240.28 $10.40 $194,516.34 $6,185.99 $57,710.12 $96,688.29 $799.59 $10,630.18 $1,697,621.95 $66,448.71 $162,592.18 $251,596.20 $2,178,259.04 VOID CHECK NUMBERS: 34768 CERTIFICATION OF CITY CLERK This register of Payroll and Demand Payments was duly approved by the City Council on City Clerk APPROVAL OF CITY MANAGER I have examined this Register and approve same. CERTIFICATION OF DIRECTOR OF FINANCE I have audited this Register and approve for accuracy and available funds. City Manager Director of Finance rJ · <:2> C> o o~ Z 0 0 0 L~ 00 0 ~ 0'~ C~ 00 00 00 ur. Jo O0 000 0000000 00 CO L~ · C~ 0 ,'~ 0 0 I.~ 00 · · 00 00 mm:> o o o ~0 ~0 > O0 0 00 · o§oo~§o 0000000 0000000 o~~o ~ O~ D~DDO~D 0 0 M O~ U~ ~0 0 ~0000000 oo~§ooo~ O0 000 00000000 000000 ~§°° ~0 000000 °°~oo o 0 ~oo~ O0 ~°°°~ ooo~~ ~mmm~ O~H~ g~~Z~o 0 000000 ...... D~DDDD 000000 Z~ Oo U~ <o Z 0 > ~0000 ~0000 ~OOUUUU ZZ~ouu oo ~0 ~o o d oo~ .... ~0000~~ 0 o o o o o o oo ix) 8°°°88o o o o o o o o o c~ o 0 0 0 o o c~ o o o o o o o o · o o · . ~° ~q DDD~ ~ mm ~0 O0 ~0 ~> · o ~o~ ~:o o ~° Oo Z 0 ~ H ~> 0 0 0 U ~ r.t~ ~ O0 c0 ~0 o o o o o o o o · -t ,--I ,-q 0000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 0 ..... ~ · ~ o ~ g o ~ o ~ ~ o o O0 O0 0000000 ~00~00 ~o~oo ZmO Z~ Oo Z 0 Z~ O~ 0~ O~ 0 Z ~ O~ ~ ~ O~ ~ Z~ ~ 0 (J O~ 0 0 ~ , O~ Om U ~ OH oo§ooog~oo~ O0 000 O0 00000000000 0000 0000 ~oo§§~oo~o ooooooooooo 00000000000 ~§~~oo~oo oo .0...0.0... ~oooooooooo o o o · 0 cq o o · [.,. · o 0000 0000 O0 mffiO00 ~00~ ~~0 E~c~ Oo ~:o Z 0 O~ > 0 ~~ooo~oo · ~ O~ Z 0 I.--t Z~Z~Z~Z ZOZOZO 0 Z Z O~ r~ 0000 0000 0000 00 00 O0 O0 0 0 O0 O0 000 O0 0000~0000000000 ~ ~00 ~ ~00 ~ O0 ~ O0 ~~oo~oo~o ~~H~O ................. Z Z~ o Z ~oo O0 0000 .... 0000 ZZ~ oo o ~Z uu:> Z-~ OO 0'-- Z 0 Z~ O~ Z~ Z 0 ~o; ~-0-0 ~o~o~ >0 o ~o Mo O~ U · Z CD 0 0 0 00 ~0 ~0 00 o~oo~ooo~ooo~ooo~ oo ooo~goo O0 000 O0 O0 O0 00000000000000000 000000000000000000000 ~o~o~~~g~o~oo~ O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 00000000000000000 00000000000000000 g~oo~goo~oo~go~§o O0 O~ ~0 0 Z 0 > ~ ~ ~00 ~~~oo Z oo o ooo~ zz~ H ~-~ H t~ t~ 000 O0 0 ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ 000000000000000 O0 O0 000000 Z ZH 0 0 E~ Z 0 000 ... ooo ~0 UUUO ~Z ooooooooooooooo ............... ~oo~o~ooooo ............... ooo oo o~ ~ ZZ ZZ ZZ~ZZ 00~00 ~ '~0 H~H~0 ~OOOOO~ OOO~OO~ ~OO~OOO ~oo~o~ 00~ 0 H H 0 -lc 00 0 Z 0 ffi 0  ~0 H O~ m 000000000000000 H 0~ OH H ~ZZ~Z I-.I H ~0 H rJ o o oo o oooo oooo 0000 O00 0 0 Z HHHH0 o~ oo oo .. oo 000 ~0~ o · · · t~ i © oo oooo .... ~°°~ ZZZZ~ 0000~ OOOUO ~~o ~° o ooo · . . 000 Z 0 ZH ~U O~ U ~ ~Z 0 ZZ ~000 0~ 0 000000 000000 oo~§oo oo ~ooo§~ O0 000 o~ 0000 0000 000 0 ~oo~o oo o 0~ ~UU o~§~oo ooo~°°~°oo o 0000000000000 ~ooo~o~o~o 0 ~0~ O~ ~ o~°~ oo~ o oo ~ooo ~ m ~mm~OmOmO ~0 0 ~ o 0~ 0% · 0 ~° 0 > ~0000000000000 0000000000000 ,~o 0~: Z 000000 oooooo~ E~ OO U~ 0 O~ :> ~ , 0 o o 0 · 0 o U · og ~Oo~o~OO~O~ C~O'~O Q n~ ~ Q H ° 0 r.~ O~ ~j · o o oo o o O0 O0~ O0 OOOOOOO0~ oo~soogoo O~OOOOOO0 o o88°°88oo OOOO000 ooo~ o o o ,-4 oosoo88oo O0 O0 O0 000000~00 ~go~~o O~ ~0 O~ o mo o oo~~~ o§8~o8~oo Z 0 ~H O~ > ffi =:>> O~ 0 > O~ U · ~o o > 0000 0000 0 CD 000 o o o o ~0 ~0 o0 oo oo ~-~ ~ o o 0 0 O oo~o oo o oooo ogo o o ooo · . . oo o · . . o · o ~mmO o o o · go E~C~ O~ O~ ~:o 0 ~ 0~ ~ zz O~ Z CD O~ O~ ~0 OZ ~0 ~U O~ ~0 O~ O 0 ~ 0 Z ooo O~ 0 ~ ~oo ~ ~ ~ ~ 0o~ O~ ~ 0 o o o o 00 o0 o o o o o o o · · . o o o0 ~o ~> o H r~ o o~ Z }..q ~o o,~ i U · ~o o > C, 000000000000000000000000 00000000 oo~ooo~§oo§~ooo~oo§§oo~§oo§~oo~o O0 000 O0 000 O0 O0 O0 O0 0 o o u o~§oo~;~oo~oo~ooo§ooo~oo~oo~ 0 O0 000 O0 000 000 O0 O0 000000000000000000000000000~000 ............................... ~;~°°~°°°~°°~2°°~~~°°°goo ................................. 0 O0 O0 O0 ~0 ~ O0 ~ 0 m~mm~m Z ZO~~UO~u 0~~~ ~0 ~ 0 ~0 ~ ~ Z UU~~Z~O~~H~ ~ ~ mmm~mmmm~mmm>mmm>m~ ~~o~o o , ~ o o u o rtl HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH 0000000000000000000000 mO000000000000000000000 HHHHHHHHHHH 00000000000 00000000000 Z uo uo 000 00 o~ c~ O~ 0'1 00 0 0 ,-t 0 C~ 00 00 · . 00 · . 00 · . 00 00 mm:> O0 0 00000 °°~o g~ oo8 000 · . O~ 0000 ~ ~0 ~~0 ~0~ 00 00 00 · . ~° · · Z 0 > O~ Z , ~ ZZ ~0000 ~0~ U r,J LD o o t~ t~ ~1 cq 00000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000 0 0 O CD 0 0 CD · · o H HO oogg°° oogg°° 00000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000 ~~~~~0~0~00~0~000~~ 00000000~0000~0~~0~000~0~00 0000000000000000000000~0~~000 00000000000000000000~~~0~ z~~ z~~ 00000000000000000000000000000000 Z~ O~ U~ ~:o 0 F4 H > 0 0 ~0 o ~z~~~ z~~ z~~ 000000000000000000000000000000000 O~ oo o oo 0 0 ~ ; ~°° oo o o ooo oo · 0 o ~ o ~o~ 0 ~ ~ 000 ' o~oo ~:o 0 O~ > Z N ~0 000000 0 ~0 O~ DZ 0 O 00000 ~00000 ~D~D~ o~: I--I o.,1 r,.) , C~ Z .......... ~~0000 000000~~ 000000000~ 000000000~ 0 0 0 0 0 o~ ~o Z 0 O~ Z~ ZOO00000000 0000000 O~ o Z~ Z~ ~o ~0 Z~ o~ oD Z~ 00000 00000 ~0 DH ~0~ °Z ~ o H~ ~Z~ o o 000 oo O0 O0 O0 00000000000000 00000000000000 00 00 o 0 00 · . 00 · o 0 Z o Z , EooEEooEoo§§oo O0 O0 O0 O0 00000000000000 .............. 00000000000000 · ....... ...... ~oo~oo§oo~oo~ O0 O0 O0 O0 ZZZZZZZZZZZZmZ 00000000000000 Z~ O~ O~ ~.o Z 0 > o o d Z r..gm , [~ Z ~0 ~©o o ZZ m mm O~ ~ZZZZ Zo ~0~ o o ~ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ~0000000000000 Z oo ooooo Z~ZZZ 00000 0000000000 0000000000 0 000 000 000 000 000 00000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000 oo 0~ oo ~ .0........... ...... .... oooooooooo~o~o~~oooo oooooooo~o~~~o~ Z~ZZZ~ZZZZZ~ZZZZZ~Z~ 00000000000000000000 EEooE oo ooooo 00000 .... . 00000 ggggg 00000 ZZZZZZ 00000~ Z 0 0 ~ Z~ ~ZZ~ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZm~Z ~00000000000000000000000 ~00000 00000000000000 000 0 O0 O0 O0 000 O0 00000000000000000000 ~;oo§~oo~oo~oo~oo~ 0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 00000000000000000000 o~oo~o~oo ~ ~ ~ ~oo~oo~ ~oo .................... oooooooooooo~o~~oo oooooooooo~o~~oo ~0 Z~ 0 O~ ~ZZZ U~ 00000 00000 O0 000 GO00000 O0 0000000 Z ~m~m~mmO ~ Z ~DDDD D~ D D D D D QD ~ DDDD~ Z 0 ~U O~ Z~ > HHHHH HHHHHH 0 0 0 ~HHHHHHH ~Z~ZZZZZ ~0000000 ~HHHHHHH U ~D~DDDDD -0000 UO000 ZUU~ O~ u · o > ~Z o o o o r~ o o o o o oo oo ooooooo H~HHHH oo ou · 0 HHHHHH O~ ~o Z o > ~0 ~0 o~u o H ~0 Z~ H ~ O~ ~o 0 >m r~ 0~ 0000 0000 000 0 00 IX) 000 O0 0000000 0 O0 0 0000 0 0~ UO ~0 ~~0 oooooooo ~ooo~o ~~oo ~ooo~oo 000 00 U O~ U~ U~ o > 0 0 U~ ~0 UO0000000 OO E~ ~0 o o Z o~ o ZH O~ > U~ 0 D ~ 0 .ID o~ I.-H C~ ~ · > Z~ O~ z o z z ~ z z ,¢ ~n~ Z ~ H o M -- 0 ~Z ~0 Z M Zm~ H ZUM © M z · Z oo oooo oooo oooo ~°°~ o o o o o o o o o c~ 0'3 o,1 ~ ,--.d ~ o o o o o o o o ,:Do co co co ~oo~ 888 Z Z Z Z Z o8 ZZZ 00~ o8oo °o8 ~co ~o <o Z 0 Z H OCa 0 Z~ m~z NH 000 ~ M~ ~ .M Z Z ~ OZ H 0~ ~ ~H ~ 'HH 000 ~ ~M ~ZZ 0 M 0 M Z M >0 ~M o o CD 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 ,DC) CO CO 00 0 0 c~ 0'~ C'xl 0 0 c~ CZ) c-,1 CD 0 0 0 0 0 CD 0 CO O0 CO CO 0 0 0 o o o o o co co 00 co co 00 o o o CD 0 o~ o'~ ('x,l ('.xl cx1 0 0 0 z z ,~ o~ E~O0 Z~E~ 0 ~ M 0 E-,ZZ ~0~ o C'xl Cxl ~-[ ['"~ 00 · . 0'3 z z oo~ o ~ ~ E~ ~o 88© oo8 ~o~o o © cq z o > 0 ' ~ z o ~ z ~ ,~z o ~ o ~ z~ z ~ ~ M o a~ o ,< z z · ~ o ~ o ~ z E~ M ~ Z e ~ Z Z Z ~ ~ Z 0 Z ~ o r...) o r~ ~ D".- o O O O O O cO co 00 o o ~ ~-I 00 D'~ c~ o~ ~o~ 0000 0o00 0o00 oo00 ~o o E~ ~o ~z o8 ~o o oo~ o 0 o o~ ~o OZOO~ <o~ o o~ooM 0 ~ 0 O~ U ~ ~o o M H > ~E~ ~z 0 H 0 o S o~ z o~ o z ~o ~z o D~ , , OE~ E~ ~00 ~ZZZZ 00000 ~MMM o o o~: ~ H E~ ~ ~ M M z o o ~ ~ z o u MHHHH O~ > c~ ~D o CD 0 CD 0 0 O0 OD ¢0 CO ,-~ ~-~ D".- L~ L~ 0 0 ~ ['-..- L~ U~ 0'~ C~ 0,1 C~ CD 0 o~ o o o o o o o ~° · ~ L~ O~ O~ C~ C~ 0 0 ~-~ o,1 o o o o o o o o co co 00 co o o o c) o o o o co co o0 co o ~ ~ o,1 ~ o co o'~ L.O L~ 0 0 o o o o ~° co ~-~ ex1 if-... o o o o o o o cz) co co 00 00 CD 0 ~ E~ Z , 0 M O Z Z ~Z~ 00~ 0 888 · . . o o cD o ~ O O~C~Z o o o ~0 ~0 ~OH~ o o o o · . LO L~ · · c~ · E~ 0 E~ OOM Dco Z ~Z ~0 ~OH Z ~ 0 Z Z M~ 0~ o ~ © 0~ E~ 0 0 o 0 O ~ooo o © E~ H < © Z ~0 0 H ~o~ 0000 °°~ c,"1 .,~ o o o cD o o °~ c~ c0 [.~ c0 c0 c0 o o o CXl t-'x,1 o,1 CD 0 o o o o o o o 00 ~ r.,. ~ E-, r.~ (%] cq q4 D.-, 0 r--I c~ c~ CD 0 · . CD 0 o"', o% · CD 0 Cxl c'~ · . o CD 0 8oo© o o 0 00,~ 0 ~ ~ 0 cz) o ~ o Z 0 F4 H > Z Zm Z 0 ~q ~ u Z 0 0 ~ 0 m ~Z M ~ PI H ~ZZ N (_9 ~Z ~MMM cao~ Z~ MOO ~ZZ u ~ ~ 0 © Z © ~ o~ o o o o °~ co~o o~ CD ~° ~° 00 00 c~ o o ~ [-~ o o o o o o CD o co co co co ~ Z 0 0 co o0 o o o o o o co co co ZZZ 000 ~ L~ ~ Cq C~ C'q o o o o o · , · · t--xl cq · Z ~ ~Z ~0 ~mO0 °88 o X X 0 0 Z Z M M M M 00,~ CDOE~ 0 ~ ~ E~ o o o °88 o o oq oq oN1 ZZZ ~0 ZZZ~ ~0 oo88 Z~ OC~ ~o Z 0 > 0 ~ Z Z 0 H tn tn o ~ ~0 H~ M ~0~ ~ 0 © tn M(.9 © Z'~ H tn M 0 Z~ 0 rJ~ 0 ~ H ~ 0 ~ 0 H tn 0 0 ~ 0 ba 0 ~0~ MOO ~00 0 Z m H 0 Z~ Z 0 ~ H ~ 0 , O~ Z o o o o o co co O0 00000 ZZZZ~ZZZZZZZ 000000000000 00 C~ 00 oq ~ o o o o o o 000 cc, oho Cq Cq Cq C~ C> CD ZZ 00 Z Z 8 · ~o © Om~O ~O Z ~ ~ O O ,~ ~O~Z ~ooooo~oo OOOOOO OO OOOOOOOOOOOO ............ ............ ~oo~~o~ O~O ~O O0 0 ~ 0 H~HHHHOHHHHH0 H~HHHH~HHHHHZ 8 M ~ Z ~ 0~0 o8oo · . . ~0 ~0 ZZZZ 000~ oo~ ~ u © ~:~> o°SS°SSo ZZ~ZZZ DDDDDD U~ Z 0 Z H 0 ~ ZZZ ~HHH Z~ Z~ Z O ~ MH H .HHHHHHHHHHH~ ~0 H M H ~ H ~ , ~ 0 M 0,~ H ~ U > (D Z 000000000 O 00000000000 0000 0000 ~°° ~oo~ o o o o o c~ o~ o~ c~ o'~ cy~ o o o ZZZZ 0000 ZZZZ °°SS oo oooo Z Z O 0 Z Z o o o o 0 0 o ooo oo OOOOOOOOOOO 0000 ~ 0 0~0~0~0~ 0000~00~00 O~O~OO~OO ZZ~~ZZZZZ HHHHHHHHHHH ZZ Z ~~O Z ~~O 88 oo88 ZZ~ ,,ffi~ m~ ~ZOO~ ~O H~ O ~O ~~O o8 ZZ~S OO~ O M D20 Z~. ~ a0 ~o 00000000000 m~ ~Z ~ H Z O ~ O ~ O O O E~ ~S O O H O ~ ~O d~~ -0000 OOOOO 0~~ ~OOO 0 0~~ 0~~ Z o~ 0000 ~°° 00000 0 000 0 0 SS~SSoo oooooo 0000000 000000 00000~0 000000 000~0~~0000 000~0~~00~ Z 0 ~ H © m > ~OMO ~ ~o~Z 0 ~0 ~00000000000000 ~ o 0000 ~°° ~o8o cog,~ 0 0 oo8 HO H ~O 88°°8©o o o 000000 88°882o 00~~ ~~HO ~co >~ 0 r4 H > D.-] Z 0 © © ~HHHH © ~ H 0 H ~ H,~ HMMM {HHH 0 E~ n~ E~ H H ~000000 ex1 o,1 o o o o o~ o c~ o L.~ L~ O"x1 mX1 00 ,r-4 o o o Lf') kO ~ 0,1 L~ Ltl ~ 0,1 t"q L~ L~ O~ 0'1 ('Nl C'-,1 0 0 0 0 0 0 L¢1 0 0 o ',,~ ,,~:~ L~ CO O0 0'3 cq Oq ~%1 ("q 000 00000 00000 0000 000~ 00000 00000 000 00000 ~ Z 0~ 0 ~0 o o o o o o · · o L~ L~ 0 · ,---I ,---I 0 0 0 0 · 0 0 ~D ~ Z ~Z ~ 0 0~ °88 0 ZZZ~ 000 ~0 ~Z ~o~o o o ooooo 0~ ~ ~0000 00000 ~co '<0 Z 0 D4 H c~ > 0~ Z 0 0 H H r~O ~ H >OO 0 Z ~ r~ > Z 0 ~ 0 E~ 0 o H Z n, 0 m H ~ ~ 0 E~ 0 o ['-- c0 ex1 ¢,,1 ¢xl o o o o o o 2°2 t.D Lr3 t.D o o o o o ,--i ~ co Lr) L~ 0 0 0 0 oooo o~o~ 0o0 OC~ ,~o 0 ~-1 H > Z~ OM H~ mo~ ~z~ ~o~ ~Z ~ 0 0 H ~ ~ r~ H H 0 0 ¥ r~ H E~ ~ Z~ H Z H H 0 ~ LN 0 0 AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. 6b DATE: October 17, 2001 REPORT SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION OF ONE-TIME PAYMENT TO MENDOCINO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND APPROVAL OF BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE CITY'S SHARE OF THE COST TO REHABILITATE VICHY SPRINGS ROAD One year ago the City of Ukiah and the County Mendocino reached agreement regarding the sharing of costs to rehabilitate Vichy Springs Road after its long time use for access to the City's Solid Waste Disposal Site. A copy of the formal agreement is attachment #1 to this report. As noted in the agreement, the original "fair share" financial participation in this project was determined to be $180,000 with an inflation adjustment to coincide with the landfill closure. Two years have transpired since the base estimate was made and a 2.8% annual inflation factor increases the amount to $190,220. This project is one of the mitigation measures for landfill closure and thus required to finalize the disposal site operations. This expense was not included in the 2001-02 adopted budget and thus a budget amendment is necessary. The expenditure will be accounted for in the Landfill Fund (Fund 660). The General Fund is not affected by this amendment. Staff recommends the authorization of this one-time payment, in the amount of $190,220, to the County of Mendocino in accordance with the agreement. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize one-time payment to Mendocino County Department of Transportation, and necessary budget amendment, for the City's share of the cost to rehabilitate Vichy Springs Road. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: Diana Steele, Director of Public Works / City Engineer~~ Diana Steele, Director of Public Works / City Engineer Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Agreement dated November 27, 2000 2. Budget Amendment Worksheet APPROVED:: ....~%¢_./1~~'') Candace Horsley, Cit~Manager 300 SEMI.NAR¥..AVE., UKIAH, CA 95482-5400 · ADMIN. 707/463-6200 · PUBLIC SAFETY 463-6242/6274 · FAX # 707/463-6204 · EMAIL: ukiahcty(~jp$.net · November 27, 2000 Mr. Stanley Townsend Director of Transportation County of Mendocino 340 Lake Mendocino Drive Ukiah, CA 95482 RE: Letter of Understanding For The Rehabilitation Of Vichy Springs Road This Letter of Understanding between the City of Ukiah and the County of Mendocino is to memorialize our recent understanding regarding the City's cost obligation to rehabilitate Vichy Springs Road, a County road, as a result of the City's landfill operations. The City and County both agree and understand the City's one-time, lump sum payment originally estimated at $180,000 will be adjusted to $190,220. Payment by the City to the County will be made by the date of landfill closure, currently set for June 2001. Rehabilitation of Vichy Springs Road is also planned for the 2001 construction season. It is mutually agreed, that if necessary, the City and County will continue to cooperate during fiscal year 2000-2001 for the annual maintenance and repairs, whereby the City performs grinding and supplies Asphalt Concrete and the County provides all other personnel, equipment, and materials. . During 1993, the City of Ukiah prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the final closure of the City's landfill operation k~cated at the end of Vichy Springs Road. Subsequently, Mendocino County staff raised concerns regarding the impact of the landfill's truck and vehicular traffic on Vichy spdngs Road. In response, mitigation measures were formulated between City and County staff. One of the mitigation measures included the understanding that the City would compensate the County with-a one-time fair share payment of $180,000 for the rehabilitation of Vichy Springs Road, between Redemeyer Road and the landfill site entrance (approximately1.9 miles). At that time, it was assumed the landfill would close operations during 1999. As you well know, and as previously stated, the landfill closure date is now set for June 2001. You recently expressed concern the previously agreed upon $180,000 may not keep up with increases in construction costs from 1999 to 2001. In recognition of inflation cost increases, discussions were held and agreements reached to increase the City's original $180,000 by an average annual inflation rate of 2.8% per year. This equates to $190,220 ($180,000 x 1.028 x 1.028), for the year 2001. The City and the County fully understand the City's remaining obligation is only financial and is a compensation for the City's fair share of degradation to the 1.9 miles of Vichy "~e Are Here.To Serve" Springs Road. Further, we both understand the County will be fully responsible for the development of any and all construction documents, bidding and awarding procedures, and administration of contracts related to the rehabilitation of Vichy Springs Road Thank you for your Cooperation on this important issue. If you do not concur with the above understanding or have any further questions, please feel free to call me. Candace Horsley, City Manager'~ ,,S'~nley Townsend, Director of Transportation Date Date CC: Diana Steele, Director of Public Works/City Engineer David Rapport, City Attorney DS:idf E ~[o · -, ,._ E ._ ~o~ogg~ ~i ' 'o ~00~00 000000 0 0 O0 O0 . . ., .... ~ gggoo ~0 0 ', ', ', : : '. ~ ', , ,, : : : N ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 Z o (J ITEM NO. 6c DATE: October 17, 2001 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: REPORT OF ACQUISITION OF FIVE REPLACEMENT COMPUTER SYSTEMS FROM PREMIO COMPUTER, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,662.89. SUMMARY: Section 1522 of the Municipal Code requires a report be filed with the City Council regarding purchases between $5,000 and $10,000. In accordance with the above mentioned section this report is submitted to the City Council regarding the acquisition of five (5) replacement computer systems, to be distributed as follows: Department Quantity Airport 1 Finance 2 Fire 2 Budgeted Account 600.5001.800.000 131.1965.800.000 100.2101.800.003 The Information Technology Department issued a Request for Quotations and six (6) bidders responded. After careful consideration of the bids received, a Purchase Order was issued to Premio Computer, Inc. which is located in the City of Industry, CA. Attached is a complete bidders list of those companies who were sent the Request for Quotations and additionally, a summary of the bidders who responded along with their corresponding bids. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive report regarding acquisition of replacement jcomputers from Premio Computer, Inc. in the amount of $6,662.89. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by:: N/A Prepared by: Paulette Klingbeil, MIS Coordinator Coordinated with: Nora Kennedy, Purchasing Supervisor and Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: Bidders list and summary of bids received. A p p ROVE D: ~ /'V/~,..~'i~~,.. Ca~'~ace Ho'~sle~, Ci~Manager 0 E ITEM NO. 6d. DATE: OCTOBER 17, 2001 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: REJECTION OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES RECEIVED FROM WILLIAM H. PARDUCCI AND REFERRAL TO JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY, REDWOOD EMPIRE MUNICIPAL INSURANCE FUND The claim from William H. Parducci was received by the City of Ukiah on October 1, 2001 and alleges illegal vehicle towing and impounding on August 2, 2001 at Thompson and Clay Streets. 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 William H. Parducci 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 Claimant Michael F. Harris, Risk Manager/Budget Officer Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Claim of William H. Parducci, pages 1-2. APPROVED~ ~,~-~L_ _ can~ace ~o~'~ey,-~~,y Manager NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST ' THE CITY OF UKIAH, CALIFORNIA ' Thi= claim must be presented, as presc~fbed by Parts 3 and 4 of Division 3.6, of Title 1, of ~he Government Code of the State of California, by the claimant orby a person acting on his/her behaif. RETURN COMPLETED FORM TO: C/TY OF UKIAH At'tn: City Clerk '" 300 Seminary Avenue · Ukiah, California 95482 1 CLAIMANT'S NAME: 2. CLAIMANT'S ADDRESS: 1 Number/Street and/or Post Office Box c~x Home Phone Number State ~'p Code ( ).. Work Phone Number PERSON TO WHOM NOTICES REG~'RDING THIS CLAIM SHOULD BE SENT (if different from above): 4, Name Number/Street and/or Post Office Box Ci~ DATE oF THE ACCIDENT OR OCCURRENCE: 5. PLACE OF ACCIDENT OR OCCURRENCE: ( ) Te/ephone . o. State Zip Code · · · GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE ACCIDENT OR OCCURRENCE (Attach additional page(s), ff more SPace is needed): . ~ ' NAME(S), ff known~ OF ANY PUBLIC EMPLOYEE(S) ALLEGEDLY CAUSING THE INJURY OR LOSS: . 8. ~ ~.. N_ESS(ES), if k, n, own i ., .. Ndme' ' ' .... ':: .... ~-..a. ' " ~'~~"~. b. Address · /~?~G. ~>~.~'~ .5~ ~/,'~.~q. Telephone · . DOCTOR(S)/HOSPITAL(S), ff any, WHERE CLAIMANT WAS TREATED: Name Address a. b. Telephone 10. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE INDEBTEDNESS, OBUGATiON, INJURY, DAMAGE OR LOSS so far as # may be known at the time of presentation of the c/aim: Te3c.~ i AJC~ ,/ ~777,E~z~--./~-~_ -- STATE THE AMOUNT CLAIMED if it totals less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) a~ of the date of presentation of the c/aim, including fhe estimated amount of any prospective injury, damage orioss, insofaras it may be known at the time of the presentation of. the claim, together with the basis of computation of the amount claimed (for computation use #12 below). However, if the amount c/aimed exceeds ten thousand dollars ($10, 000), no dollar amount shall be included in.the claim. However, it shall indicate whetherthe c/aim would be a limited civil case (CCP.~ 85). ' 12. Amount Claimed $. or Applicable Jurisdiction <~lW~.L ~'~4R~/~3 ~T .. THE BASIS OF COMPUTING THE TOTAL AMOUNT CLAIMED IS AS' FOLLOWS: a. Damages incurred to date: Expenses for medical/hospital care: Loss of earnings: Special damages for. General damages: b. Estimated prospective damages as far as knOwn: Future expenses for medical and hospital care: Future loss of earnings: Other prospective special damages: Prospective general damages: 30,0o This c/aim must be signed by the claimant or by some person on his/her behalf.' A clai.,~m'relating to a cause of action for death or for injury to the person or to personal properly or growing crops sha~/b~pr~sented not later than six (6) calendar months or 182 days after the accrual of the cause of action, whiche~/e/is Jonger. C/aims relating to any other causes gf act,ion shall be presented not later than one (1) year afte~,9~, aJ/o~j~e cau§e of action. Dated: ./~/e?,/O / ' __////~ ~(...--...-J. ' . .' . . . . -,~.SIGNATURE OF CLAIMANT(s) Received in the Office of the City Clerk this ~ ~-' day of 0~', Z,oo ~ B NOTE: This form of claim is for your convenience only. Any other tyPe of form may be used if desired, as long as it satisfies the requirements of the Government Code. The use of this form is not intended in any way to advise you of your legal rights or to interpret any law. ff you are in doubt regarding your legal rights or the interpretation of any law, you should seek legal counsel of your choice at your own expense. Rev. 2000 ITEM NO. 6e DATE: October 17, 2001 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: REPORT TO COUNCIL REGARDING PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF VACANCIES ON TRAFFIC ENGINEERING COMMITTEE Recently the City Clerk's office was informed that there are two vacancies on the Traffic Engineering Committee. The Committee received a verbal resignation from Diane Zucker, a public representative on the committee. Additionally, Steve Turner, who has been MTA's representative, recently resigned from MTA. MTA will have the opportunity to select a new representative to the Committee. Staff is requesting Council's approval to advertise for one "public representative" vacancy on the Traffic Engineering Committee and designating November 1,2001, at noon, as the deadline for submittal of applications. The applications would then be reviewed, and the appropriate appointment made by Council at its November 7, 2001 meeting. RECOMMENDED ACTION' Authorize the City Clerk to advertise for one vacancy of a "public member" on the Traffic Engineering Committee. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachment: N/A Traffic Engineering Committee Marie Ulvila, City Clerk ~, ~ Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Draft News Release announcing vacancy on the Traffic Engineering Committee APPROVED: Candace Horsley, nager ASR: Commission Vacancy-Traffic Eng NEWS R VACANT SEAT ON CITY OF UKIAH TRAFFIC ENGINEERING COMMITTEE DATE: FOR RELEASE: SUBJECT: CONTACT: October 18, 2001 Immediately Vacancy on City of Ukiah Traffic Engineering Committee Marie Ulvila, City Clerk, 463-6217 UKIAH, CA., The City of Ukiah announces an opening for one public member on the City of Ukiah Traffic Engineering Committee. If you are a City of Ukiah resident, of driving age, and are interested in serving as a volunteer on the committee, we urge you to fill out an application. Any qualified individual who would like to make a difference in the community may apply. Pursuant to the Municipal Code, the Traffic Engineering Committee serves as the City's Traffic Engineer. The general duty of the Traffic Engineer is to determine the installation and proper timing and maintenance of traffic control devices and signals, to conduct engineering analyses of traffic accidents and to devise remedial measures, to conduct engineering and traffic investigation of traffic conditions and to cooperate with other City officials in the development of ways and means to improve traffic conditions, and to carry out the additional power and duties imposed by City Ordinances. In most cases, the Traffic Engineer submits its recommendations to the City Council for approval. Applications may be obtained at the reception counter in the administration wing of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, or by calling the City Clerk's office at 463-6217 and an application will be mailed to you. The deadline for submittal is November 1,2001 at Noon. The appointment will be made at the regular City Council meeting of November 7, 2001. Marie Ulvila, City Clerk C: KUKI/KIAH KPFM KWNE KOZT KFVVU KZYX KMFB/Channel 8 KNTI PRESS DEMOCRAT UKIAH DALLY JOURNAL 300 SEMINARY AVENUE UKIAH, CA 95482-5400 PhoneC¢ 707/463-6200 Fax'# 707/463-6204 Web Address: www. cityofukiah.com AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. 8a DATE: October 17, 2001 REPORT SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING NOTIFICATION OF AWARD OF FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT, DETERMINATION OF FUND ALLOCATION, AND APPROVAL OF BUDGET AMENDMENT SUMMARY: The City of Ukiah's application for grant funding, FY 2001/02, from the Federal Bureau of Justice Assistance was approved in the amount of $32,045 with a local City match of $3,561, for a total project award of $35,606. The Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (Fund 207) is included in the approved FY 2001/02 budget with an authorized $2,500 match. The additional $1,061 in matching funds will be transferred from the Department's Asset Seizure Account. The Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) program requires a public hearing be held by the governing body of the recipient agency to determine the proposed program for expenditure of the funds. The LLEBG is designed to fund projects which assist and help make law enforcement officers more effective within their community. Over the last few years this grant has assisted the Police Department with funding for the PAL Program, Public Safety Technology Improvement Project, the installation of Video Cameras in patrol vehicles, and most recently the Officer Transcription Project. (Continued on page 2) RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: 1. Hold required Public Hearing on proposed project expenses. 2. Approve Transcription Project ($20,000) and Radio Improvement Project ($15,606) at a total cost of $35,606 as expenditure program for the 2001/02 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant. 3. Approve amendment to the 2001/02 budget increasing revenue in account 207.0900.488.002 (2001/02 grant revenue) to $32,045, increasing revenue in account 207.0900.905.000 (miscellaneous revenue) by $1,061, decreasing expenditures in accounts 207.2001.250.000 and 207.2001.690.000 by $3,000 and $2,000 respectively, increasing expenditures in account 207.2001.711.000 to $15,606, and increasing revenue in account 698.0900.905.201 to $15,606 for Transcription Activities and Radio Communication Improvements. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: Reject proposal and provide staffwith direction for alternative action. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: APPROVED: N/A Police Department Chris Dewey- Administrative Captain Candace Horsley, City Manager and John Williams, Police Chief Budget Amendment Worksheet Candac~e J-lorsley, Ci~ Manager PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING NOTIFICATION OF AWARD OF FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT, DISCUSSION OF FUND ALLOCATION, AND APPROVAL OF BUDGET AMENDMENT October 17, 2001 Page 2 Through the Officer Transcription project, the Ukiah Police Department has been able to reduce officer report preparation time, and increase officer time on active patrol. Based on the success of this project, the Police Department wishes to continue this project for the next year, at a cost of $20,000. The Department has an established contract in place with our existing dictation service and plans to modify that contract slightly for this next year, reducing the costs to the City. In addition, the Department wishes to use the remaining funds, $15,606, for the on- going Radio Communications Improvement Project. These funds will be included in the total cost of the Radio Communications Improvement Project to help reduce to the overall cost of this project to the City of Ukiah. Though award of the grant was anticipated in the adopted FY 2001/02 budget, the identified revenue, local match, and expenditures are different than the actual grant figures. To insure proper accounting for the grant, a budget amendment is necessary. The appropriate amendment is to increase grant revenue from $22,500 to $32,045, increase miscellaneous revenue to $1,061 (to meet the additional required local match), and increase total expenditures in Fund 207 from $25,000 to $35,606 to accommodate the both the Transcription and Radio Improvement activities. The General Fund is not impacted by this budget amendment. Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing to consider the programs available for LLEBG funding, determine the most appropriate expenditure of funds, and approve the required budget amendment. cdewey counllebg2001 Y AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO.: 8b DATE: October 17, 2001 REPORT SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF TEMPORARY USE PERMIT NO. 01-34: UKIAH RECYCLE, 1080 CUNNINGHAM STREET SUMMARY: On September 12, 2001, the Ukiah Planning Commission considered Temporary Use Permit No. 01-34 to allow the allow the establishment and operation of an outdoor recycling designed to serve as a temporary replacement facility for the recycling center housed in a recently damaged structure on the eastern half of the subject property. After conducting a public hearing, the Planning Commission denied the Use Permit on a 3-2 vote, based on the four findings made by the Commission at the hearing (see Page 2 of this summary). On September 21st of this year, Mr. Wayne Reynolds filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny the project. (continued on Page 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Deny the appeal and sustain the Planning Commission's denial of Temporary Use Permit No. 01-34. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: 1. Conduct a Public Hearing regarding the appeal of Temporary Use Permit No. 01-34, and Uphold the appeal filed by Mr. Wayne Reynolds, and approve Temporary Use Permit No. 01-34, based on the findings and Conditions of Approval contained in Attachment Citizen Advised: Legal notice published in the Ukiah Daily Journal Requested by: Ukiah Planning Department Prepared by: Dave Lohse, Associate Planner Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager and Charley Stump, Planning Director Attachments: 1. Appeal Letter from Wayne Reynolds 2. Minutes from the Planning Commission hearing held on September 12, 2001 (Pages 1-5) 3. Letters of Opposition presented at the Planning Commission hearing 4. Planning Commission Staff Report for Major Use Permit No. 01-34 (dated September 12, 2001) 5. Memo to the Planning Commission with attached reference materials for Use Permit No. 01-34 6. Letter of Support from James Eddie (received 10/10/01) 7. Letter of Support from Mary Buckley, Executive Director, Plowshares (received 9/23/01) 8. Letters of Opposition (received 10/11/01) APPROVED: ~and~ce H(~rsley~- Cit~ Manager BACKGROUND: In January of 1997, the Planning Commission approved a Major Use Permit (#96-54) to allow a recycling center at 1080 Cunningham Street. This facility was housed in a 3,300 square foot building and the abutting yard area for the processing and storage of recyclable materials. Unfortunately, in July of this year the roof of the building collapsed and the City Building Inspector prohibited its use due to the potential hazards to life, health, and safety. This building remains closed and the applicant has requested the approval of a Temporary Use Permit that would allow him to shift the recycling operation to the outdoor storage areas for a period of six months. This outdoor center would be used for the collection and recycling of much smaller amounts of aluminum cans, glass, plastic, and other metals. The outdoor recycling center would be located in the yard area on the western portion of the site, as shown on the site plan contained in the attached Staff Report to the Planning Commission (Attachment ~4). This center would be accessed through two 20-foot wide gates on the Rupe Street frontage, with internal circulation over a circular driveway to be covered with 12 inches of gravel or rock base for dust control. Three parking stalls with gravel or rock base surfacing would be developed between this driveway and the southern property line. Loose recyclables would be stored in three 8-feet by 28-feet storage containers on the north side of the driveway or in an 8-feet by 40-feet cargo container in the northeast corner of the site. Recyclable materials that could be baled or stored on pallets would be placed in open areas on the northwest portion of the yard where they would be partially screened by the storage containers. The entire storage yard would be partially screened by the existing chain-link fence, which would be fitted with slats, and the oleanders that were planted next to it several years ago. ANALYSIS: In the Staff Report for the Planning Commission (Attachment ~), Planning Department staff concluded that the propesed temporary recycling center could operate on the site provided the outdoor areas were better organized and the materials accepted at the center were limited to paper and cardboard, glass, aluminum cans, and other materials that do not require large storage areas. Staff's recommendation was also predicated on a number of approval conditions designed to address problems caused by the existing recycling operation. These conditions include regular staff inspections of the property and a six-month time limit on the duration of the operation. During the Planning Commission hearing, members of the public and several Commissioners expressed concern with the poor maintenance of the existing recycling facility and the adverse effects it had on the surrounding neighborhood. Individual commissioners also cited the applicant's lack of effort in complying with the conditions and standards required for the original recycling facility. Based on these concerns, a motion to deny Major Use Permit No. 01-34 was passed by a 3-2 majority, subject to the findings: . The driving and parking areas required for the proposed temporary outdoor recycling center have created a hazardous or inconvenient condition to the adjacent and surrounding area during the conduct of the past recycling center, and are not adequate; , The proposed recycling center would cause a detrimental effect on the character of nearby businesses and residences because it would continue and worsen the existing aesthetic blight and hazardous conditions on the site; . The proposed recycling center is detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the community because it violates the good neighbor policy that the applicant promised on the original Use Permit by causing economic blight, litter, and trash problems, as well as violations to the original Use Permit in several categories; and 4. The site contains no gutters or cap system to contain potential pollutants and the site possesses improper grading features. In addition to this action, the Planning Commission also discussed the option of revoking Use Permit No. 96-54 based on the operator's failure to comply with required Conditions of Approval and improper maintenance of the existing facility. This discussion was curtailed, however, once Planning staff advised the Commission that the revocation action would require a public hearing that had been properly noticed. The Commission subsequently deferred this action until the City Council had acted on the expected appeal. In preparing its recommendation on the appeal, Planning Department staff retains its opinion that the project site is ideally situated for the operation of a recycling center due to the surrounding industrial uses, the relatively Iow numbers of persons who travel to it, and its proximity to the residential and commercial users it serves. However, staff is convinced by the information presented at the Planning Commission hearing and the response to this decision that the applicant does not fully comprehend how important the efficient operation and maintenance of the recycling center is to its neighbors and those persons that use it regularly. This has created a difficult and unfortunate situation since the recycling center is a small local business that provides a valuable service to the community, as well as employment for approximately six persons and a small means of income for people who collect'recyclable materials. Therefore, while the Planning Department now supports the Planning Commission decision to deny the temporary Use Permit, staff urges the Council to have a meaningful and comprehensive discussion on any alternatives to the closure of the business. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The City Council could choose to support the appeal and approve the project. Should the Council take this action, Planning staff recommends that the approval include all the Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report for the Planning Commission (Attachment fi4). These include Condition No. 5, which restricts the operation of the temporary recycling center to a six-month timeframe that would end on April 1st of next year, and staff suggests that the City Council specify which alternatives to this date and timeframe might be acceptable. Staff further recommends that the Council provide strong direction to the applicant regarding its expectations for the cleanup of the existing site and the need for full compliance with all required Conditions of Approval. September 20, 2001 TO: FROM: Ukiah Planning Department Wayne Reynolds, Uldah Recycle Temporary Use Permit Ladies/Gentlemen: I am sending this letter as a formal request to appeal the denial of a 'temporary use permit' for U]da~Reeyele, 1080 Cunningham St., Ukiah. I will have the completed several of the issues brought up at the Planning Commission on September 12. Wayne Reynolds Uldah Recycle RECEIVED 01YOFUKIAH PIA#ttit G DF. FI'. MINUTES CITY OF UKIAH PLANNI.NG COMMISSION September 12, 200'1 MEMBERS PRESENT, Joe Chiles, Chairman Mike Correli Judy Pruden Gaither Loewenstein Robed Wallen OTHERS PRESEN .T,. Listed Below, Respectively STAFF PRESENT Charlie Stump, Planning Director David Lohse, Associate Planner ', Cathy Eiawadly, Recording Secretary DRAFT MEMBERS ABSENT. The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Correll at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. Roll was taken with the results listed above. 3. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION Site visit for item 8A was verified. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. - August 8, 2001 ON A MOTION by Commissioner Correli, seconded by Commissioner Pruden, it was carried by an all AYE voice vote of the Commissioners present to approve the August 8, 2001 minutes, as submitted. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS,.. Scott Smith Jr., reported on an incident he witnessed on Cleveland Lane and the. negative ramifications associated with this altercation. Chairman Chiles and staff directed him to the correct source for assistance. 6. APPEAL PROCESS. Chairman Chiles read the appeal process to the audience. meeting, the final date for appeal is September 24, 2001. For matters heard at this 7. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE Staff reported Major Site Development Permit No. 01-34, was legally noticed in accordance with the provisions as outlined in the City Municipal Code. e PROJECT REVIEWS Major Use Permit No. 01-34, as submitted by Donald. Wayne Reynolds four Ukiah Recycle 'to allow the establishment and oPeration of a temporary outdoor_' recyclin.q center on the western portion of a property in the M (Manufacturin_cl} Zonin,q District · MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 1 September 12, 2001 Associate Planner Lohse reported approval of the proposed Temporary Use Permit would allow the establishment and operation of a temporary outdoor recycling center on the subject property whereby the outdoor center would serve as a temporary replacement facility for the recycling center housed in the damaged structure on the eastem half of the subject property. The project would be consistent with the Ukiah General Plan goals and policies for Industrial land use classification and the applicable use and development standards for the Manufacturing Zoning District, particularly since the facility is a relatively iow-intensity commercial use that would not cause substantial conflicts with the Iow-density residential uses and heavy commercial/light industrial uses located on abutting properties, if operated efficiently. Staff recommended Conditional Approval of Temporary Use Permit subject to Findings Nos. 1-6 and Conditions of Approval Nos. 1-17 and the staff report is herein incorporated by reference as agenda item 8A. ! Mr. Lohse stated in January 1997, the Planning Commission approved'a Use Permit to allow the establishment and operation of a recyCling center on Cunningham Street to include the building located on the eastern portion of the site and outdoor storage area located to the west. In July of this year, the roof of the existing building collapsed.and the City Building Inspector has shut down the structure for potential health and safety hazards. Staff met with the applicant to discuss the recycling operation and staff determined a Temporary Use Permit would be required to utilize the outdoor area for the bulk of his operation. The previous Use Permit was issued for a larger area and the proposed center would be a scaled-back version of the previously approved land use. Staff addressed access/parking and landscaping issues and noted the nuisance impacts to this establishment has continually generated numerous complaints concerning litter and the adverse visual impacts caused by materials stored at heights above the fence line. Staff supported the recycling center use concept and would like the operation to continue within the City limits as it provides a valuable service to residents. However, based on past operational practices and the validity of neighborhood complaints, staff was concerned that' the allowance of the proposed temporary recycling center would forestall the necessary actions to correct existing problems. Staff determined issuance of a Use Permit to allow any temporary recycling center should be contingent on conditions requiring continual clean up and maintenance by the applicant and regular inspections by staff as provided for in Conditions of Approval Nos. 6 and 7. Mr. Lohse stated staff's intent is to assist the applicant obtain a means to maintain a Temporary Use Permit while the future of the condemned building is decided and the existing operation reinstated. Approval of the Temporary Use Permit would allow the applicant to continue his recycling business as well as to allow Staff the opportunity to address the legitimate complaints in the Condition, s of Approval relevant to the ongoing problems associated with the existing operation. Staff analyzed the project as if it was a new operation and staff maintains the site to be conducive for a recycling business. The Temporary Use Permit would allow the applicant to operate for six months encompassing an expiration date of Apdl 2002 permitting staff to review the operation in terms of Code compliance and. other maintenance/improvement requirements. Planning Commission Questions to Staff: Commissioner Con'ell inquired regarding Condition of Approval No. 16 and whether there are appropriate site accommodations for these portable bathroom facilities since the existing building has been condemned. ~ MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 3_ September 12, 2001 Staff replied there is an existing portable bathroom on the site. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:50 p.m. Donald Reynolds, Ukiah, Applicant, presented'a bdef summary on the nature of his business. He intends to work with the landlord relevant to the condemned building, but gave no time line when the building or potential new building would be operable. Chairman Chiles inquired whether the applicant had reviewed the staff report and understood the Conditions of Approval imposed. Mr. Reynolds replied affirmatively. Mr. Chiles favored approval of the ,Temporary Use Permit on the premise the applicant dean up and properly maintain his recycling center Operation. Chris Ruddicko Ukiah, owns businesses in the vicinity and he was not supportive of the project. He stated the site has been an eye sore for some time to the residences and other businesses in the area and the landlord, as well as the applicant, do not appropriately care or maintain the property. Bill EVans, Ukiah, operates 'a chemical business in the vicinity of the recycling center and stated he was concerned with the lifter/debris as it creates a potential fire hazard. Michael' Dunno Ukiah, commented he and his family reside and operate a painting business in the. same neighborhood as the recycling center. He stated this neighborhood has steadily improved and the owners take pride in maintaining homes and businesses located in the same vicinity as the recycling center. He noted Ukiah Recycling Center's inability to dean up and maintain the subject property not only downgrades the area, but also creates hazardous conditions to the people living and working in the neighborhood. He stated the busines~ does not appear to be a recycling center and referred to it as a "junkyard." Lisa Dunn, Ukiah, resident and business owner in the area was not supportive of the Temporary Use Permit and recommended the Commission vote against it. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:03 p.m. Planning Commission Discussion: Staff again noted the property owner has been notified regarding the condemned building, but no timeline has been established as the building's future plans. Staff anticipates the property owner will take swift action regarding building renovation or replacement. Commissioner Pruden did not favor approval of the'proposed Use Permit and noted the continued property neglect aesthetically affects the area that has greatly improved its standards. She commented the Leslie Street operation was managed in the same neglectful manner and she did not desire for the existing operational problems to continue on Cunningham Street. She was not supportive of putting the applicant out of- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 3 September 12, 2001 business, but noted the business should not. be permitted to operate in the same manner on Cunningham Street. Commissioner Correll stated the close proximity of the businesses in the area requires all people to be good neighbors. He noted recycling is a necessity and it is the responsibility of the applicant to comply with neighborhood and Code standards/requirements. He did not foresee that any improvements would be completed, since this is the applicant's second chance to correct operational problems. Commissioner Lowenstein visited the area and found the homes and businesses, despite industrial uses, to be appropriately maintained. However, he found the recycling center business to be inappropriately maintained and the site in ve~ poor condition. He drew attention to Condition of Approval No. 20 of the original Use Permit specifying that any outdoor refuse and recycle containers must be aesthetically screened from view and that garbage not be visible outside of the enclosure. Condition of Approval No. 22 provides that landscaping be irrigated by an automatic irrigation system and be maintained in a neat weed-free manner. He further drew attention to the Mitigated Negative Declaration regarding parking specifications and .noted the mitigation measure was not addressed in the Conditions of Approval. He stated Condition of Approval No, 8 of the original Use Permit specifies that if any Condition of Approval is violated, the Use Permit shall be null and void. it was his opinion that the applicant was in violation of the above-referenced Use Permit provisions. He was not in favor of granting the Temporary Use Permit as the applicant has had sufficient time to appropriately clean up and maintain his business operation. He doubted whether the proposed Conditions of Approval would be adhered to should the Use Permit be approved and stated the City should not be spending resources making reoccurring visits to chronic violators of Use Permit standards. He was not in favor of granting the Use Permit and recommended steps be taken to revoke the existing Use Permit. Commissioner Wallen stated there were essentially three elements contributing to the problems in this maffer and they include the owner, the use and type of facility, and poor planning to allow a mixture of residential, manufacturing, and industrial uses so dose in proximity. He recommended staff and the Planning Commission reView areas incorporating land use conflicts. He further recommended the review period for the Use Permit be shortened to three months and stated,, as a new COmmissioner, he was hesitant to vote against the project since the business provides a valuable service.. He stated the existing business should be cleaned up or it should not be in business. A brief discussion followed regarding shortening the review period to three months. Chairman Chiles favored providing the aPplicant with a second chance to clean up and properly maintain his business. He also favored the three month review period and noted this would allow the applicant sufficient time to formulate a plan for the condemned building as well as clean up the site. Mr. Lowenstein reiterated his experience with motivating people to comply with Municipal Code violations has been a very lengthy and complex process. He stated.the three month review period was too long of a time to allow the applicant to start the clean up process and noted the applicant has had sufficient time to comply with the necessary dean up requirements. · MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 4 September 12, 2001 Commissioner Correll advised that car parts and other related components exist on the site, which was not the original business intent. ON A MOTION by Commissioner Pruden, seconded by Commissioner Loewenstein, it was carried by the following roll call vote of the Commissioners present to deny Major Use Permit No. 01-34. AYES: NoEs: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Commissioners Lowenstein, Pruden, Correll Commissioners Wallen, Chiles None None Denial of Major Use Permit No. 01-34 was based on the following Findings: Finding No. 1: The driving and parking areas required for the proposed temporary outdoor recycling center have created a hazardous or inconvenient condition to the adjacent and surrounding area during the conduct of the past recycling center, and are not adequate. Finding No. 2: Finding No. 3: The proposed recycling center would cause a detrimental effect on the character of nearby businesses and residences because it would continue and worsen the existing aesthetic blight and hazardous conditions on the site. The proposed recycling center is detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the community because it violates the good neighbor policy that the applicant promised on the original Use Permit causing economic blight, litter and trash problems, as well as violated the original Use Permit in several categories. Finding No. 4: The site contains no gutters or cap system to contain potential pollutants and the site possesses improper grading features. Staff noted the existing Use Permit pertains to the use of the building, but the building is presently inhabitable. Technically speaking, if the Use Permit is not utilized in the fashion it was originally granted for six months, it becomes invalid. Commissioner Lowenstein queried regarding'the revocation process for which an existing Use Permit can be declared null and void and he referred to Condition of Approval No. 8 that states if an applicant is in violation of the. Use Permit, the Use Permit shall be deemed null and void. Staff replied the revocation process, requires public notice and a Planning Commission hearing, at which time the Use Permit could be revoked. Mr. Lowenstein recommended a Use Permit revocation discussion for this project be agendized for review by the Planning Commission. 9. PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORTS, MINUTES .OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page $ September 12. 2001 RECEIYED OTY OF UKIAH PIAtlNIN60EPT. Ci+''.: of Ukiah Attention: Planning Commission Dave Lohse Sub3ect: Recycling Center Temporary Outdoor. Recycling We the undersigned are very concePned about gr'anting of' a new TEMPORARY permit to do outdoor, r'ecyclin~ at the pmesent location at i0~0 Cunningham Street. ~i?'st, we would like ,/ou to refer, to the original :30 conditions that were %o be met BEFORE the rec¥ciin~ center even started operations at the p~esent address. No on~ ever ~nfor.=ed thos~ conditions; the conditions wen% unheeded. Now you want to le~ this continue- +o,~ dete~iorat~ even fal-ther.? Be ,~=lis~.ic,- '- . The buiidinE has collapsed 7~ cannot be = ~ in .... e ~ rased. Br. i n~ your' engineers, if you have any questions. The mess is a repeat performance of %he Leslie Street site. The building needs to be demolished and the site cleaned up. This CANNOT possibly be done with a business Continuin~ operate. We cha!lenfe each of you to tour the si're and make a visual inspection. Be sure to view the opposite side of' Cunnin~ham ~treet where ~he bales of' r'ecyc]in~ e~-. be o . - ma._.ial are now lng stored, it isn't beinf cleaned up, it is me~ety bein~ moved across the~-~r. eet i~ theme a perm~+ for ~ecvci; + that. ..... . ~ addr.e~'? it is in close proximity to the rai!~oad ~r-acks. is this a safe site? Do you ever. obser, ve %~e kind of clientele that frequent the railroad tracks, and what ~oes on back there. Are VOU a!!owin~ this risk to threalen cther businesses in the apes'? Is it fair. to the businesses in the area to have the constant t~ash problem? We have been more than patient, more than fair in waitin~ for some resolution ~o this constant problem. You now have the opportunity to co~ect the mistakes and make amends for not doin~ your-paP% in keeping %~is business in compliance. ~';e do not feel that t.~'~is temporar-.v per. m±t Si':oLt!d be ~z-'an, ted un,der. any condi%.ior.,. Ther-e has been a Pr'ecedent _~et and ,.'.he ir'ack r. ecor-d is !es~. than de-~£rable. Ne ask *hat .V~u dens, this, wltl-.,out , Ne s .... - . - pr'e3udice a pr. oper-%y owners and residents of the area are clearly concel~ned, R=CE VED Cit',/ of Ukiah Attention: Plmr.,r~.!r:g Con',.mimmior~ Dav~ Loh~ R C ¥ED ~' '"~ 0 ~ 200! PJ. ANNIN6 OEP)'. S. ubject: R~-cT,~!ir.,g Center TEMPORARY OUTDOOR RECYCLING PERMIT WE THE UNDERSIGNED OBJECT TO THIS BLI.SINESS BEING GRANTED A PERMIT TO DO OTJTDOOR RECYCLING AT !0~O CUNN!NGHAM STREET Name: ~ ~ ~ ~_. · ~it? o~ Ukiah Attention: Planr.,ir.,g Commimgio.,--; Dave Lohme Subject: Recyollng Center TEMPORARY OUTDOOR RECYCLING PERMIT WE THE UNDERSIGNED OBJECT TO THIS BUSINESS ~EiNG GRANTED A PERMIT TO DO OUTDOOR RECYCLING AT 1080 CUNNINGHAM STREET Name: Acidness: Phone: Nallle: Addr-esg: Phone: · '£i t',./ of Ukiah P ! ar::"_.- i n.~ Dave Lohse PA4NNINS DEPT. Subject: Recvcl~,-l~ Center· TEP. Ip:nm-ARV OUTDOOR RECYCLING PERMIT · NE THE UNDERSIGNED OBJECT TO THIS BUSINESS BEING GRANTED A PERMIT TO DO OUTDOOR RECYCLING AT 1080 CUNN!NGHAR] STREET Phone: Name: Phone: '~*:':" 0 ? 200! .: ann i Dav~_ CITY 0F UKIAH PLANNING DEPT. S~,b..iec~: Rec'-.;'c!fn_f. C~ntez-TEMPORARY OUTDOOR RECYCLING PERM!'F WE THE U.NDEF(SIGNED OBJEC-i~ TO THIS BUSINESS BEING GRANTED A PERMIt' !'O DO OUTDOOR RECYCLING A'f 1080 CUNNI['4GHAM STREET U£ t? Ukimh A 'L 't ~ I': '~ ! o r~ - Subiect:_ Recycling Center-TEMPORARY OUTDOOR REC~"CLiNG PERMIT WE THE UNDERSIGNED OBJECT TO THIS BU,SI!qESS DEI!:K3 GS:ANT~_3'O A TO DO OUTDOOR RECYCLING AT 1080 CUNNINGHAM STREET i,;~m~: __ Addr-ess: __~_~? Addz'.ess: Addr'~sm: 2itv· o£ Ukiah At lze~':% ion :- P1 ar,.nin.g Commi Dave Lohse CITY OF PLANNING DEPt · Sub j ect: Center TEMPORARY OUTDOOR RECYCLING PERMIT WE THE UNDERSIGNED OBJECT 'TO THIS BUSINESS ~EiNG GRANTED A PERMIT ?O DO OUTDOOR RECYCLING AT 1080 CUNN!NGHAM STREET Name: Addl'-e~: "£ tv' of 2001 CIIY OF UKIAfl P~NI, IING DEPlr. Sub.jeci2: Recvc!ing Cen~zer- Ts.'NPORARY OUTDOOR RECYCLING PERMIT WE TM'E YO DO OUTDOOR RECYCLING A! J. 08C) CUNNINO?f.Ab! iq ame :: ^~t~-,~: ~ L____'I-~.~.-~___~._ £ 7'. UNDERSIGNED OwjJ]!CT TO 'f'H1S BU.SI!'.]ESS BE!!,IO GRA!'4TED A PERM!I ~,,,o,,~: ..lkqr_qe'5-) t_ Lo City of Ukiah Staff Report to the Planning Commission Major Use Permit No. 01-34: Ukiah Recycle ITEM NO. 8-A Meeting Date: September 12, 2001 PROJECT SUMMARY: Approval of the proposed Temporary Use Permit would allow the establishment and operation of a temporary outdoor recycling center on the subject property. This outdoor center would serve as a temporary replacement facility for the recycling center housed in the damaged structure on the eastem half of the subject property. The discretionary actions associated with this project are quasi-judicial in nature; therefore each decision-maker must. physically and personally visit the site prior to participating in the vote to approve, disapprove or modify the projects. APPLICANT: Donald Wayne Reynolds PROJECT LOCATION' The project site is located at 1080 Cunningham Street (Assessor Parcel No. 003-080-05), on the northwest corner of the intersection of Cunningham Street and Rupe Street. The collection area for the proposed recycling site would be accessed via existing gates on the Rupe Street frontage. .~ ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Ukiah's Environmental Coordinator has determined that the proposed project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, in accordance with Categorical Exemption Section 15304, Class 4(e). GENERAL PLAN / ZONING DESIGNATIONS: I (Industrial) / M (Manufacturing) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The .8-acre subject property is a relatively flat lot that has been developed with a 3,300 square foot building and a fenced yard area. in January of 1997, the Planning Commission approved a Major Use Permit (#96-54) to allow a recycling center that utilizes both the building and the yard area for the processing and storage of recyclable materials, including paper and cardboard, glass, aluminum, and other metal products. Unfortunately, the roof of the existing building collapsed in July of this year and the City Building Inspector has prohibited its use due to its status as a potential hazard to life, health, and safety. This building remains closed while the owner of the property determines whether or not to demolish the structure, and the applicant has requested the approval of a Temporary Use Permit to allow the operation of an outdoor recycling center that would collect and recycle much smaller amounts of aluminum cans, glass, plastic, and other metals ... The outdoor recycling area would be located in the yard area on the western portion of the site. This center would be accessed through two 20-foot wide gates on the Rupe Street frontage, with internal circulation over a circular driveway that would be covered with 12 inches of gravel or rock base for dust control. Three parking stalls with gravel or rock base surfacing would be developed between this driveway and the southem property line. Minor Use Permit Application No. 01-30 Loose materials would be stored in three 8-foot by 28-foot storage containers on the north side of the driveway or in an 8-foot by 40-foot cargo container in the northeast corner of the site. Recyclables that could be baled or stored on pallets would be placed in open areas on the northwest portion of the yard where they would be partially screened by the storage containers. The entire storage yard would be partially screened by the existing fence and the oleanders that were planted next to it several years ago. STAFF ANALYSIS: Compliance with the General Plan: The project site is located in the I (Industrial) land use designation, which allows the proposed recycling use so long as a use permit is approved. The proposed use is also consistent with the I land use requirements for project siting and new construction, including location, access, maximum building intensity, and design review since it would be located within an existing structure. In fact, the proposed center would be a scaled-back version of a previously approved land use. Compliance with M Zone Development Standards: Planning Department staff reviewed the proposed recycling development and determined it would comply with M zoning standards for buildout, building height, and front, rear, and side yard setbacks. Access & Parking: Ingress and egress at the site would be over an existing gravel or base rock · driveway that would extend between two 20-foot wide gates along the Rupe Street frontage. Three parking stalls for customers would be developed in the area between the driveway and the existing fence on the southem property line. Public Works Department staff reviewed this access and parking layout and determined that the proposed ingress and egress would be sufficient to serve the scaled-down reCYcle center and that the circular ddveway would be an effective means to provide for the drop-off of recyclable materials. Public Works staff'aiso determined that the 12-inch gravel or rock base would be an adequate cover for the temporary driveway access, but cautioned that a permanent asPhalt covedng may be more appropriate if the facility were to operate for mOre than six months. Therefore, staff recommends that Condition No. 8 be required to ensure that the ddveway is inspected every six months by Public Works staff to determine if the integrity and dust-suppression factors of the ddveway are intact. This condition also authorizes the Public Works Director to require standard asphalt surfacing if staff inspectors conclude that the unpaved ddveway is contributing to adverse levels of dust, mud, or other air quality impacts. Landscaping: The applicants will retain the existing landscaping on the south side of the site, which consists of oleander bushes planted approximately fifteen feet apart. This vegetative cover is relatively skimpy, but it is consistent with the amounts of landscaping on abutting lots and adequate to comply with the less intense landscaping requirements of the M zone. Furthermore, additional landscaping appears to be unnecessary due to the temporary nature of the proposed facility. Therefore, Planning staff recommends that no additional landscaping be required. Airport Master Plan: According to the compatibility criteda of the Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan, the project site is located within Compatibility Zone B-1 (Approach-Departure Zone), which designates those lands subject to noise and risks from aircraft flying below 400 feet above ground level (AGL). According to the cdteda established for this compatibility zone, the recycling yard uses is normally acceptable so long as the site density does not exceed 60 persons per acre and at least 30% of the site area is retained as open land. In this case, no additional land would be covered since no new buildings or building additions would be constructed. Furthermore, the number of persons visiting the site is already well below the 60 persons per acre criteria, and it is expected that the proposed outdoor recycling facility would draw ever fewer persons. Based on these factors, it is the opinion of staff that the project complies with all airport compatibility cdteda. Minor Usc Permit Application No. 01-30 Nuisance Impacts: in the years since the establishment of the existing recycle center, the Planning Department has received numerous complaints concerning litter and the adverse visual impacts caused by materials stored at heights above the fence line. Planning staff determined through site visits that the majority of the complaints were warranted and staff was in the process of working with the applicant to correct numerous adverse impacts and Use Permit violations when the recycling center roof collapsed. Planning staff is highly supportive of the recycling center use and would like to see its continued operation within City limits since it provides a valuable service to residents. However, based on past operational practices and the validity of the complaints discussed above, Planning staff is concerned that the allowance of the proposed temporary recycling center would forestall the actions necessary to correct existing problems. Therefore, it is the opinion of staff that the issuance of a Use Permit to allow any temporary recycling center should be predicated on conditions that require continuing clean up and maintenance by the applicant and regular inspections by Planning and Public Works Department staff. These requirements include the establishment of a Staff inspection schedule and specific time pedods for the "temporary" recycling operation, as listed in Conditions 6 and 7. , CONCLUSIONS: Planning Department staff conclUdes the proposed temporary would be consistent with Ukiah General Plan goals and policies for the I (Industrial) land use classification and with all applicable use and development standards for the M (Manufacturing) Zoning District. This determination is based on the fact that the facility is a relatively Iow-intensity commercial use that would not cause substantial conflicts with the low-density residential uses and heavy commercial/light industrial uses located on abutting properties if operated efficiently. DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: 'The Planning Department recommends Conditional APPROVAL. of Major Use Permit No. 01-34 on the grounds that the proposed temporary recycling use is consistent with the I (Industrial) land use designation of the Ukiah General Plan and the use and development standards for the M (Manufacturing) Zoning District. Findings in support of this recommendation are listed below. FINDINGS: Planning Department's recommendation for the approval of Major Use Permit No. 01,34 is based, in part, on the following findings: . The proposed recycling center, as conditioned, is consistent with the General Plan goals and policies for the Industrial land use classification and with the applicable use and development standards for the M (Manufacturing) Zoning District; . The proposed recycling center would not create hazardous or inconvenient impacts to existing vehicular or pedestrian patterns since there would be no increase in average daily traffic levels that could cause service levels for abutting public streets or abutting intersections to decline, and would provide an effective intedor circulation pattern; . The driveways and parking area required for the proposed recycling center use would not create a hazardous or inconvenient condition to adjacent or sUrrounding uses since the City Engineer determined the proposed driveway entrances would conform to City and County road standards; . . No mature or native vegetation would be .removed from the area to be developed and sufficient landscape areas and plantings exiSt for screening and shading the building and parking areas; The proposed reCYcling center use, as conditioned, would not have a detrimental effect on the character of nearby residential homes since the site layout is consistent in design and appearance with the features found on nearby properties; and Minor Use Permit Application No. 01-30 , The potential significant adverse environmental impacts caused by the proposed residential/commercial use would not cause adverse environmental impacts and is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, in accordance with Categorical Exemption Section 15304, Class 4(e). CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The following Conditions of Approval shall be made a permanent part of Minor Use Permit No. 01-34, shall remain in force regardless of property ownership, and shall be implemented in order for this entitlement to remain valid: , . . , , , o All use, construction, or occupancy shall conform to the application approved by the Planning Commission, and to any supporting documents submitted therewith, including maps, sketches, renderings, building elevations, landscape plans, and alike. Any construction shall comply with the "Standard Specifications" for such type of construction now existing or which may hereafter be promulgated by the Engineering Department of the City of Ukiah; except where higher standards are imposed by law, rule, or regulation or by action of the Planning Commission. . In addition to any particular condition, which might be imposed, any construction shall comply with all building, fire, electric, plumbing, occupancy, and structural laws, regulations and ordinances in effect at the time the Building Permit is approved and issued. Applicant shall be required to obtain any permit or approval, which is required by law, regulation, or ordinance, be it required by Local, State, or Federal agency. The approved Temporary Use Permit is issued for six months and shall expire on April 1, 2002, unless the Planning Commission approves an extension. Should the applicant choose to close down the existing recycling activities to set up the proposed outdoor facility, the six-month time period shall begin after the facility has been inspected and approved by Planning and Public Works Department staff. This Use Permit may be revoked through the City's revocation process if the approved project .related to the Use Permit is not being conducted in compliance with the stipulations and conditions of approval; or if the project is not established within two years of the effective date of approval; or if the established land use for which the permit was granted has ceased or has been suspended for twenty four (24) consecutive months. Except as otherwise specifically noted, the Use Permit shall be granted only for the specific purposes stated in the action approving the Use Permit and shall not be construed as eliminating or modifying any building, use, or zone requirements except as to such specific purposes. Regular inspections by Planning and Public Works Department staff shall be conducted during business hours to ensure that the recycling center is being operated and maintained in a manner that is consistent with all required conditions. The applicant shall maintain the access driveways and the 20-foot wide commercial driveway approaches onto Rupe Street in a dust-free manner. Gravel base or rock base materials approved by the Director of Public Works may installed on this driveway, but asphalt covering shall be installed if the Public Works Department staff determines that excess dust is being caused by the use of the alternative surfacing materials. 9. Existing landscaping shall be regularly maintained. .. 10. The mat screening on the fence surrounding the temporary recycling facility shall be replaced with wood or plastic fence slats or a solid wood fence. Minor Use Permit Application No. 01-30 11. Materials placed in the storage yard shall not be stacked higher than the fence unless they are placed in bins or other storage containers that effectively screen and contain the materials. Four- foot wide walkways shall be maintained between all stacks, bins, or other storage containers. 12. All storage containers or cargo containers used for recyclable materials shall be covered when the business is closed. 13. The grounds of the recycling center shall be maintained free of litter, with regular watering to prevent dust and other wind-borne debris from traveling off the site. 14. The materials being collected at the recycling center and its hours of operation shall be posted on a sign located between the two gates along the Rupe Street frontage. 15. No bins or other collection areas shall be established for off-hour collection of recyclable materials unless the Planning Director approves the size, location, and design of the collection box prio~ to its installation. Any such bin or collection area shall be self-contained and large enough to prevent overflow of materials into unContained areas. 16. A pOrtable bathroom facility for employees shall be installed on the site and routinely maintained. 17. Signing for the recycle center shall be consistent with Sign Code provisions of the Ukiah Municipal Code. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Project Description by Appli.cant 3. Site Plan 4. Photographs of the Existing Recycle Center Minor Use Permit Application No. 01-30 LOCATION MAP MAJOR USE PERMIT No. 01-34: Ukiah Recycling (Wayne Reynolds) 1080 Cunningham Street (Assessor Parcel No. 003-080-05) 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 300' APPROXIMATE SCALE: 1 inch = 500 feet NORTH August 1, 2001 TO: City of Ukiah Planning Commission FROM: · Wayne Reynolds, Ukiah Recycle Ladies/Gentlemen: The building that my business, Ukiah Recycle, operates out of collapsed on July 4, 2001. I am asking for a use permit to operate this · business outside for a period of time until I am able to have another structure to operate out of at the same location. I am asking you for specific details of what will be required in the way of such a structure. I had a difficult time securing a use permit over 4 years ago when I moved to this location. I understand that there will always be some who are disgruntled over my business being in the same location no matter where it is. I am asking you to understand that I am just now recovering from the move from Leslie Street where I was in business for 16 years. To relocate this business, or maintain this business at my present location, I am asking the city of Ukiah for help. I need your help to keep my business open at this location or perhaps to move to a city owned location. I do not receive any type of subsidy, or grants 'from the state, county, or city. My recycling business kept over 2 ½ MIl,LION pounds out of the landfills last year alone, now multiply that by the 20 years that I have been in business. I am attaching articles on the r~d for recycling the pertain to Mendocino county. I am wondering wfly my existence needs to be justified when this city and county NEEDS a business like mine. I will list below some of the things that I am presently doing, obstacles I am encountering, and reasons metals have not been moved out before now. They are: I am removing iron, tin, aluminum, copper, and brass from the west end of the property to clear an area for my balers, can crasher, and glass crasher to be placed. This will also improve both the site and present working area. ae The market on iron, tin, aluminum, copper, and brass dropped to less than ½ the price approximately 2 ½ years ago. Because of that I have been trying to hold on and wait for the market to bounce back. Some of these metals I cannot even recoup what I paid for them. I am no longer holding these commodities, I am taking the loss. 2~ I am scaling way back on receiving to aluminum cans to approximately 5500 pounds, glass in only small amounts to approximately 2500 pounds weekly (because at this time I cannot operate the crasher), plastic to around 1600 pounds weekly, and other metals 800 pounds. So, where we were taking approximately 45,000 to 50,000 pounds weekly we now are taking only 10,000 to 11,000 Weekly. a® We do not have proper electricity to operate the glass. crasher. We desperately need a power drop. 3~ I have drawn a plan for interim parking customer parking that includes graveling a driveway in and out of the existing fence and 3 parking spaces. I am putting up signs to guide the public away from danger and for a minimum of 50' setback from the building. 4~ I am looking at the possibility of renting or buying cargo containers for storage and work areas. These containers are used in every type of business in southem California.. I have 2 track trailers of my own plus the track trailer that Alcoa provides for aluminum cans. I am using my own trailers for Storage now. e There are several bins that are trapped inside the building that have recycleables in them. I had t° buy every bit of what is inside the building - I do not know when or if I will be able to retreive these things. In this business I have to start each day with a $1,000.00 bank to buy what people bring in. I make nothing until those reeycleables are processed, baled, and shipped out. I employ 5 people and pay all the taxes that go along with employees. I pay city, county, state, and federal taxes that go along with having employees and operating and owning a business. Each load I ship out with the exception of Alcoa costs me $420.00. I don't make a lot of money on anything, I just have to hope for and work on volumn. Right now the local macks are hauling not only logs but pears too, and the grapes are coming up. They come first to the shippers ® Mrs. Golden has been very helpful and open thru this. She is having a miserable time trying to connect to her insurance company and the adjusters that were sent out. There again I am the one who is affected by these delays. To sum everything up: I am trying very hard to comply with what is required of me to stay in business. I pr°Vide a very necessary service to the people~.ofM. ~.~...¢ -°Cino. Co~ .unty. I am in jeopardy of losing my business that I. have had for 20 years. I am losing' so much money now that I fear I will have to close my doors in time. I am caught in the middle of a property owner and her insurance company. I am caught in the middle of politics. I have to jump thru the hoops if any~one complains that my business offends ihem. I need your s'.mc, ere help.' · : Please review attachments 1 thru 4. P~.. e note als. o,that I have, thru the years had tours of my busines~ for.s, "~ls to brin~ and have'.,had many coupon incentives' i?(~ii". '. 6'{~tZ~s (~f:t~.'c(mmy~....~' ~ . .... · ~ : ~"~-::.:.: ~'.... .:. .. ~..:. '"'": Wayne Reynolds .'~; ':.'~.'.. · 4"~--'~. ' -'-el'-' .' ' ' '* Ukiah Recycle q-Il City of Ukiah Planning Department MEMO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: September 7, 2001 FROM: Dave Lohse, Associate Planner Reference Materials for Use Permit No. 01-34: Ukiah Recycle Attached to this memo are the following reference materials for the project referenced above: 1. Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held on January 22, 1997; 2. Planning Report for Major Use Permit #96-54;and 3. Negative Declaration/Initial Study prepared for Major Use Permit #96-54 Please contact me at 463-6207 if you have any questions before the hearing on Wednesday. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: CommisSioners Larson, Puser, and Chairman Pruden Commissioners Chiles and Correll None None AMENDED CONDITIONS'OF APPROVAL: , Orchard Avenue shall be restriped from Perk'ins Street to Ford Street'to provide for a two way left turn lane, a single lane for north and southbound traffic, and bicycle lanes on both sides of the street. The existing median island between Albertson's and J.C. Penney shall remain. 12. A fee equal to five percent of the project cost of relocating the signal at Scott and State, or Norton and State, to Clara and State, shall be deposited with the City prior to use and occupancy. Fees collected may be used at the City Engineer's discretion for other traffic related mitigations for impacts to Clara Avenue traffic. 7B. Use Permit Application No. 96-54, as submitted by Ukiah Recycle, to allOw a recycling center on a 0.8 acre parcel located in the M (Manufacturing) Zoning District, on property located at 1080 Cunningham Street (Assessor Parcel No. 003-084-05). Charley Stump, Senior Planner, introduced Associate Planner Dave Lohse for presentation of the Staff Report. Dave Lohse, Associate Planner, presented an overview of Use Permit Application #96-54, as presented in the written Staff Report. He noted that Planning Staff has concluded that the proposed recycling center use, as conditioned, would be consistent with the goals and policies of the Ukiah Valley General Plan and with the use and development standards for the Manufacturing District. Planning Staff also concludes that potentially significant adverse impacts could be caused by the development and operation of the project, but that these impacts would be reduced to levels that are less than significant with the adoption of the Negative Declaration prepared by Staff. Mr. Lohse referenced written correspondence received from Mr. Greg Farmer, in which he notes concerns about general debris, traffic and congestion, hazardous materials, soils contamination, and potential for hazardous materials to drain off the site. He advised the majodty of these potential impacts were analyzed within the Negative Declaration and the Staff Report. Mr. Lohse also called attention to a petition signed by 30 "concerned business owners and tenants" which was received pdor to the project actually being applied for. He noted Planning Staff has subsequently had verbal contact with some of the petitioners. Commissioner Puser inquired as to the nature of the citizens', petition. Mr. Lohse stated the petition expressed concems with traffic, a busy street due to commercial traffic, no area for off street parkingi'p0tential for noise pollution and' offensive odor pollution. He noted he has discussed these concerns with a number of the petitioners. Commissioner Puser inquired about the current and proposed drop off times and if there is a possibility there will be after hours drop-offs. Mr. Lohse Stated the applicant has indicated the hours of operation will be 9 am - 5 pm, Monday through Friday, and 9 am - 4 pm on..Saturdays.. He noted Staff is reluctant to impose hours of operation for such a business. · Commissioner Pt;sar f~'rther inquir~l"~b0ut requirements for paved parking spaces and asked' why pavement is required. ' ' ' Mr. Lohse stated the Zoning Code requires a minimum of 2" pavement over 6" aggregate base, as noted in MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page $ JANUARY 22, 1997 Condition of Approval No. 11. He,._,ed the only way an alternative surface _.,n be approved is through the City Engineer, and in the past he has been reluctant to do so in commercial operations. Mr. Lohse stated pavement is a standard requirement, without which there is potential for potholes, dust, and increased potential for accidents.' Commissioner Larson asked Staff if the environmental analysis on noise included information relative to the decibel level of and acoustical screening for the can crushing machine. Mr. Lohse stated he did not specifically discuss the can crushing machine with the applicant. They did discuss the potential for a glass grinder, which will be operated within the building. Mr. Lohse noted this project is subject to the noise standards contained in the Municipal Code, and the noise standards for the industrial areas are somewhat higher than those for commercial areas. There is nothing in the application to indicate that noise standards would be exceeded and Staff has not received any complaints of noise on 'the current location. Commissioner Puser inquired about the possibility of oil storage at the project site, now and in the future. Mr. Lohse stated according to the applicant, Mr. Reynolds, he is not interested in oil storage due to potential problems associated with it. Mr. Lohse stated it was included in the Negative Declaration and the Staff Report assuming it would be a typical use a recycling center would have. He placed a call to Regional Water Quality and the Mendocino County Department of Health, who indicated the mitigation measures proposed would be more than adequate. Staff decided to retain the Conditions to leave the door open for oil recycling in case it became part of an operation in the future. Chairman Pruden inquired if Staff has written correspondence from Water Quality Control Board and if the low level contamination mentioned is site generated, or off site contamination flowing beneath the soil. Mr. Lohse stated he does have wdtten correspondence from Water Quality and the specific nature of the contamination is not made clear in the letter. He noted he has tded to follow up On this issue with them but has not received a return call. Mr. Lohse clarified the site referred to in the letter is labeled the "Exxon Distribution Center", which leads him to believe it could have been generated from that site if gasoline materials were previously stored there.. Mr. Lohse emphasized that the letter refers to "low levels" of groundwater contamination and did not require any sort of soils clean-up at this point in time. Commissioner Puser inquired whether surrounding property owners have been made aware of the proposed conditions outlining mitigation measures for the project. Mr. Lohse indicated copies of the Staff Report are sent to each applicant and property owner, and made available to the public upon request. A copy was furnished to Mr. Dutton, a neighboring business owner. PUBLIC HEARING,OPENED: 8:15 P.M. Chester Dutton, t099 Cunningham Street, expressed his concerns, and the concerns 'of other surrounding neighbors about the project location. He stated he owns a custom cabinet shop across the street, and he questioned the fact that a recycling business is considered Umanufacturing". He also questioned the reference on Page 3 of the Staff Report and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board's reference to four monitoring wells in existence on the site. Mr. Dutton stated he is very familiar with the site and he has not seen monitoring wells in that !ocation. He stated there are; however, monitoring wells'located across the street, and he recommended that staff obtain furffi~;clarification' on this matter. Mr. Dutton also cautioned'the CommissiOn to consider potential drainage problems, citing two drain inlets in front of the site that, with excesSive rains, run down Rupe and Cunningham Streets and eventually, to a storm drain directly into Doolan Creek, which runs through-his'property. He referenced Condition #31 which states all conditions must be completed prior to occupancy being granted, and indicated it appears Mr. Reynolds has already moved in. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 7 JANUARY 22, '1997 . Pete Carter, 191 Cherry Street, _,(iah, stated he is against this project ._,. several reasons. He expressed concern for traffic problems, items left outside the Center at all times of night or day, and the noise factor. He noted the proposed area is in a transitional phase from residential into commercial, but the property owners are trying to upgrade the area, not downgrade it. He expressed further concern that the recycling business would attract rodents and the potential that the rodents would invade his neighborhing mini-storage business. Earl Schleif, 9371 N. State Street, Redwood Valley, stated he owns the auto repair business adjoining the current Ukiah Recycle site on the south side. He has been located them for seven years and never had a problem with the noise level. He stated it is short-term noise, and not bothersome to him. Traffic is not a problem from his vantage point, as them is no high level of traffic at any particular time. He did note a lot of foot traffic on Leslie Street and stated it seems necessary to have a recycling center in a central area of town where it can be accessible by anyone. Jack Cox, $$1 Poma Lane, Ukiah, expressed his opinion that the area to the north of the Chevron Station on Talmage including the strip center next to it, all the way up to Thomas Street, is ripe for redevelopment. He stated the whole community would be enhanced by some development of that property, and in particular the properties fronting State Street that include the old Foster Freeze location, Consolidated Electric and the lighting business. He envisions the probability in the near future of some type of development that would encompass that entire area and stated this type of business would not seem to be consistent, in relation to long-term community development, with the type of large dollars it would take to redevelop that area. Mr. Wayne Reynolds, 122 Leslie Street, indicated he is the owner of the Recycle center, currently located on Leslie Street. Chairman Pruden asked Mr. Reynolds several questions regarding the number of employees he has, employee parking at the current site and at the proposed site, and about his plans for vegetative screening at the new location. She further inquired as to whether 'he. rents or owns the property, if the property owner has been contacted, and about Mr. Reynold's intentions to reassure nearby property owners that he will operate his business as a good neighbor. Mr. Reynolds stated he employs four to five employees who usually park on the street, though there have been occasions when they park inside the yard. Mr. Reynolds indicated he iS renting the property on Cunningham Street, and plans to screen the property by placing redwood slats through cyclone fence and planting oleander bushes.' He stated the reason for his relocation to Cunningham Street is because it is a larger location that will allow his operation to run more efficiently without creating problems for the neighborhood. Mr. Lohse added there is nothing to preclude Mr. Reynold's employees from parking within the yard, though Staff has recommended to Mr.. Reynolds that they park on the southeast comer at the new site, which is not the most likely spot for storage of recycling materials, it would provide quite a distance because of th~'twenty foot gate between the parking area and any stored materials. He noted there has been no direct contact with the property owner regarding this project, but he was required to sign the Use Permit application. Commissioner Larson inquired about the possibility for night time drop-offs not'requiring a refund, such as cardboard, and provisions for containing the inevitable after hours drop-offs so they are not blown around. He also inquired about the planned location of the can crusher and glass crusher, Mr. Reynolds stated., he. does not plan ~t0.have night time drop-offs and will discourage them, as he has done in the past. Covered bins'will be availat~l~ should they occur. He stated both the can crusher and glass crusher will be located on the inside of the building, which will provide a sound buffer and the protection of this employees from the weather. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 8 JANUARY 22, 1997 "'omm. ss:oner ,'¢ .i ,i :; es inquired aL _~t the provisions made to prevent pape, .,om blowing around and about the pr'opos;~,:'J locaticn o'" the baler. Mr. Reynolds indicated no paper will be located outside, it will all be collected inside and the baler will be located at the very back of the site. He stated this will be a much larger facility than the current one and it will be a lot easier to work with. Commissioner Larson noted the finished bales are currently stacked three high for pick-up. He expressed concern that the six foot fence would not screen the bales from public view and asked the applicant if he would oppose a condition limiting the height of the stacked bales. Mr. Reynolds stated he would have no problem with limiting the height, but added he has entered into an agreement with Mendocino Solid Waste wherein they will pick the bales up once he has 16 bales or more. He indicated he has plenty of room to store the bales and other metal containers below the fence line. Commissioner Correil inquired of the applicant if he knows the location of the four monitoring wells purportedly located on the project site. Mr. Reynolds indicated he was not aware of their location on the site. Mr. Lohse clarified that Mr. Dutton's eadier comments about four monitoring wells located on an adjacent site, which still has an Exxon sign posted, calls into question whether or not this site is actually the location for contamination. Mr. Lohse added, in reviewing the letter which was just received late last week, it notes that the Exxon Distribution Center is located at "1100 Cunningham Street, Ukiah Case Number 1TMC116". This address is' actually the parcel to the east of the subject parcel. Commissioner Correll inquired if the applicant has any type of monitoring system in place for potential °il leakage relative to the collection of oils. Mr. Reynolds stated he has never collected oil, and does not intend to do so. Commissioner Puser inquired if Mr. Reynolds has had any complaints from his current neighbors. Mr. Reynolds stated he has had a few minor complaints but has been able to correct the issues. He added he is willing to discuss any issues the neighbors might have in an'effort to correct them. The Commissioners questioned Mr. Reynolds regarding daily customer volume, locating his parking on the southeast comer of the site as proposed by Staff, the size of trucks transporting materials from his property, and traffic and circulation concerns on and around the site. -'-' Mr. Reynolds indicated he sees an average of 60 - 80 customers per day, though it is hard to estimate because receipts are only issued to customers who request them. He stated he does not have a problem with Staff's recommendation to relocate hiS parking to the southeast comer of the site. He also noted customers can park in the front, or they can drive through to Perry Street. In relation to trucks transporting materials, he has a contracted glass truck come in approximately once a month to haul glass away, and every ten days an aluminum truck picks up a trailer full of aluminum cans. Other materials are shipped periodically as needed. Commissioner PU'~'er'i~quired if Sta~F'h~s· any traffic information for the current'site on Leslie Street. Mr. Lohse stated there are no traffic cOunts available for Leslie Street. He did check with the City Engineer who indicated traffic does not appear to be a problem in that area, there is not a large number of accidents or other indicators that traffic has been a problem. Staff analyzed the potential for traffic in the Initial Study, using' the · : MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 9 jANUARY 22, '1997 .highes", standard traffic generatic ,Jgure they could for industrial uses, a, . they calculated approximately 63 ;~dditional trips per day. Commissioner Correli asked the applicant for a realistic estimation of the quanitity of recyclables left after hours. Mr. Reynolds stated it is very little, only an occasional box of cardboard or plastic bags. They have not had the problem with people dropping off large items, such as refrigerators or large piles of trash. He reiterated that they discourage it by having the police patrol more often and by posting signs. Andy Bacci, '!54 Gibson, Ukiah, introduced himself as the handyman at the Recycling Center. He stated the center has a lot of foot traffic and therefore should be centrally located to accommodate that. In regard to rodents he stated he has been them twelve years and hasn't seen one rodent, and he covers the entire area. He noted there is very little paper and trash around the site, if any. When the employees come to work they pick up anything that has been left after hours and put it where it belongs. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 8:37 P.M. Commissioner Larson inquired if any Condition (~r City regulation exists to require the applicant to shield from view any recycled materials or storage, such as fencing or landscaping. Mr. Lohse stated there are no shielding or fence requirements and clarified visual impacts are included ~as part of the review of development standards. The landscaping that Mr. Reynolds has proposed is pdmadly a response to Staff's concerns about the potential for visual impacts. The Use of a six foot fence and vegetative screening alleviates the direct impact and provides adequate mitigation to the site. Mr. Stump added the amount of screening required by Condition of Approval No. 30 seems reasonable to Staff for an industrial area. Mr. Lohse stated substantial doubt has.been created in his mind that the monitoring wells are located on the subject parcel, and pending a valid verification from Regional Water Quality Control Board staff, he requested to qualify, that if the project is approved with those Conditions that the Commission directs Staff to delete them if determine that they do not apply to this site. He does not want to hold the applicant accountable for a condition not related to his site. Commissioner Larson suggested amending Conditions 27, 28,.and 29 to state "any existing ground monitoring wells" in each case, which would solve the problem. Commissioner Puser inquired of Staff how much time the applicant has to install the landscaping treatments and fencing mentioned, in Condition No. 30. ;-' Mr. Lohse stated they must be installed before final occupancy is granted, subject to Condition #31: It depends on how quickly the applicant wants t° occupy the site, as to how quickly he complies with the rest of the conditions. Commissioner Correll inquired if the landowner has been made aware of all the proposed Conditions. Mr. Lohse indicated he is not aware if the property owners have read the Staff Report, and stated the only requirement the City. has is that the prope .rty owner signs the application. He advised the Negative Declaration for this project has 'l~een:'publicly notied~i;ini'the newspaper, notice of the application and this hearing have been mailed to the property owner, as well as public notice being placed on .the site itself. Staff has made every attempt to keep the property owner informed of this ongoing project. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page l0 JANUARY 22, 1997 Commissioner Correll expressec' ,ncern as to whether the property own~ are aware of the proposed fencing and paving improvements to the property required by this project and the costs involved. He further stated his concerns, if this project is approved and it is determined there are no monitoring wells on the site, about the potential for future oil processing on the site as addressed in Conditions #23-25, absent the monitoring devices. Mr. Lohse stated the intent of the monitoring wells is to monitor an existing plume of some contaminant. The intent of Conditions #23-25 is to prevent a new plume of pollutants from ever reaching the soil. If contaminants were to reach the soil, then the applicant and the property owner are liable for the cleanup cost incurred. The problem that the Regional Water Quality Control Board has expressed to Staff, not on this project specifically but in general, is that their regulatory powers have not been able to ensure cleanup unless there is a voluntary effort on the part of the owners. Their request for keeping these wells open is to make sure that the plume is not moving on to an adjacent parcel. ON A MOTION by Commissioner Chiles, Seconded by Commissioner Larson, it was carried by the following roll' call vote to approve the Negative Declaration for Use Permit #96-54: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Larson, Chiles, Puser, Correll, and Chairman Pruden None None None Chairman Pruden stated despite the concems expressed by neighboring property owners she is reluctant to see this project go outside the city limits due to the need for a central location that can be accessed by foot and bike traffic. She agreed with Mr. Cox that this area is ripe for redevelopment, and indicated if property values climb the applicant may be at risk of losing his location as a tenant.. Chairman Pruden advised because this project is a Use Permit, there is a possibility for revocation, if the applicant is not a. good neighbor. She expressed support with reservation. Commissioner Chiles expressed support for moving the traffic from the residentia! neighborhood it is currently in. Commissioner Puser stated she also supports the project, indicating the concems expressed by the Commission and the public have been adequately addressed by Staff in the Conditions Of Approval, and the Use Permit can always be revoked if necessary. Commissioner Larson stated he will support the project if them is a consensus to amend Conditions 27 and 29 to read "any existing groundwater monitoring wells', since it is not known if they exist on this site. He stated the potential for oil handling and storage is covered by Conditions #23-25, which is appropriate if and when it occurs. He requested the addition of Condition No. 32 to require a parking circulation and drop off pla;ri to be submitted and approved, by the Planning Director. This would allow Staff to work out parking logistics and traffic movement within the project. He noted it is not so much a parking situation, but a vehicular movement/circulation situation that has not been adequately addressed in the site plan. Commissioner Correll supports the project as submitted. He indicated he has been by the Leslie Street site to view the operation and it does not appear to be a good location for such a business. ON A MOTION by Commissioner Larson, Seconded by Commissioner Chiles, it was carried by the following roll call vote to approve':Use.'Permit #"96.5~;[based on Findings #1-3, and Conditions #1-31, as stated in the wdtten Staff Report, with amendments to Conditions of Approval #27. and 29 to read Bany existing groundwater monitoring wells'; and the addition of Condition of Approval #32 to state, "A parking, circulation, and drop-off plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director pdor to the approval of building permits or the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.' MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 11 JANUARY 22, '1997 AYES: Commissioners NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None .m, Chiles, Puser, Correll, and Chairm~. ?ruden NEW & AMENDED CONDITIONS OF.APPROVAL: 27. 29. 32. The location of any existing groundwater monitoring wells on the project site shall be dearly marked to ensure that none of these wells is covered by stored materials, structures or other surfacing materials. (Amended) Access to any existing groundwater monitoring wells shall be permitted to Regional Water Quality Control Board staff or monitoring contractors; the frequency of access shall be determined by RWQCB staff. (Amended) A Parking and Circulation Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to the approval of building permits or the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. (New) Chairman Pruden announced the approval of Use Permit #96-54, emphasizing that it is a Use Permit, and is subject to the applicant being a good neighbor. RECESS: 8:53 p.m. RECONVENE: 9:04 p.m. C. Rezoning Application 96-52(b), as filed by the City of Ukiah Planning Department to rezone 3 parcels from "P-D" (Planned Development) to "P-F" (Public Facilities), located at the Fairgrounds and Cemetery; 7 parcels from "R-3" (General Multiple Residential) to "R-2" (Multiple Family Residential) located along the northwest intersection of Low Gap Road and Bush Street; 3 parcels from "C-1" (Limited. Commercial) to "A-E', (Agricultural Exclusive) located at the northeast corner of the Talmage Road/Highway 101 intersection; 34 parcels from "R-2" to "R-l" (Single Family Residential), located along Yosemite Drive and El Rio Street; 105 parcels from "R-J" to "R-2" located along Betty, Marlene and Lorraine Streets; and Henderson Lane; ~ parcel from "P-D" to "R- 3", located at the northeast comer of Dora Street and Washington Avenue; and 2 parcels from "P- D" to "R-3", located along Mulberry Street between Washington Avenue and Observatory Avenue. Chairman Pruden stated Item #5 - Sub-Group #1, covering parcels in the Lorraine and Betty Street area, will be considered first by request of the audience. Senior Planner, Charley Stump, presented an overview of the Staff. Report for Phase #8 of the General Plan Rezoning Program, which captures parcels throughout the City that Were not included in earlier rezoning phases. He described the eight different geographical areas and the proposed rezonings covered by this particular project. ITEM #5 - Sub~G.roup #1 Marlene, Lorraine.& Betty Streets and Henderson Lane' Mr. Stump stated the Betty Street / Lorraine Street grouping involves a rezoning from R-1 to R-2. As noted in the Staff Report, Staff is opposed to the proposed rezoning, for reasons similar to those encountered in the Empire Gardens neighborhood. This is a stable, single family residential neighborhood and it appears that it will remain* as such. The neighborhood is currently experiencing traffic problems and Staff has determined rezoning the area to R-2 would be inappropriate and detrimental. Mr. Stump noted the southem most residential lots in this grouping are owned by Mr. Jack Cox, who also owns the largest parcel on the Talmage frontage road adjacent to the two residential parcels.,:. Mr. Cox belieVes his two residential parcels should be rezoned to commercial, rather than R-1 or R-2, becau§e th'ey adjoin his:~rnerciai lot on Talmage Road. Commissioner Puser inquired as to the lot sizes in the subject neighborhood. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 12 'JANUARY 22, 1997 CITY OF UKIAH PLANNING REPORT AGENDA 7B. ITEM: ,, 01-22-97 DATE: -, i i DATE: January 22, 1997 TO: City of Ukiah Planning Commission FROM: City of Ukiah Planning Department SUBJECT: Use Permit (#96-54) APPLICANT: Ukiah Recycle PROJECT SUMMARY: Approval of the proposed Use Permit.would allow a recycling center to be operated from an existing 3,300 square foot building and storage yard on a 0.8 acre parcel located in the M (Manufacturing) Zoning District. The discretionary action associated with this project is quasi-judicial in'nature; therefore each decision-maker ,must physically and personally visit the site prior to participating in the vote to approve, disapprove, Or modify the proposed project. PROJECT LOCATION: The proposed site is located at 1080 Cunningharn Street, at the northwest corner of the intersection of Cunningham Street and RuPe Street (Assessor Parcel No. 003-084-05). DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department recommends APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration prepared for the project and the .APPROVAL of Use Permit No. 96-$4 on the grounds that the project, as conditioned, is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and with the applicable use and development standards for the M Zoning District. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: The City of Ukiah as Lead Agency has determined that the project is not categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, and has prepared an Initial Study that identified potentially Significant impacts to ground waters and visual impacts. Planning staff has, however, determined that these impacts would be reduced to levels that are less than significant if the Mitigation Measures recommended in the Initial Study are adopted, and a Negative Declaration for the project has been prepared. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Industrial · ZONING DISTRICT: M (Manufacturing) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of a Use Permit to allow a recycling center to be operated on a parcel located in an industrial area of the community. The project site consists of a 0.8 acre parcel located on the west side of Cunningham Street and the north side of Rupe Street. This lot has been developed with a 3,300 square foot building that is located on the easterly half of the lot, and the remainder of the site consists of a large open storage area. A four to six-foot high chain link fence has been erected along the majority of 'the site's perimeters, with gated entrances along the eastern and southern sides. The existing building is fifty-five feet by siXty feet wide, and approximately twenty-four feet high. The structure contains a public entrance along its eastern elevation, which also contains large paned windows; the remaining elevations contain smaller windows and there are sliding doors (9-12 feet wide) located on the west and south elevations. The exterior of the structure is covered with cream colored stucco material, and the pitched roof consists of gray asphaltic shingles. The-primary access to the site would be along the Cunningham Street frontage, which contains six parking Spaces and a twelve-foot wide gated entrance located between the east elevation of the building and the street right-of-way, which is approximately 18 to 30 feet wide. The building is located in the center of the site and there are wide areas along the north, south and west sides of the side to allow internal circulation. The applicant for the project has indicated that the proposed recycling operation would be similar to the existing recycling operation run by the applicant at a smaller location in the City of Ukiah. The existing recycling center accepts only metal and scrap materials; it does not accept recyclable materials that require processing or special storage, including antifreeze, auto batteries or other potentially hazardous materials. Surrounding uses consist of a door manufacturing/installation business and a natural gas dispensing business in M (Manufacturing) zoning on the parcels.to the south; vacant lands and storage buildings in M zoning on the parcels to the east; and 'an irrigation installation business in M zoning to west.' The adjacent Parcels on the north Side of the project site are also located in the M zone and Contain an auto repair business, a machine 'shop and a single family residence. STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff reviewed the Project and determined that the proposed operation of the recycling center would be conducted within a structure and yard area that comply with the applicable use and deVelopment standards for the M Zoning District. These standards include those for building height, front setback lines, and yard areas. Planning staff also determined that the six parking spaces shown on project plans are an adequate number to comply with parking requirements for salvage yards and similar uses. However, the location of the parking spaces does not comply with Zoning Code requirements for aisle widths, which would'require 'a minimum of eighteen feet behind each of' the stalls for safe and efficient ingress and egress. 'The proposed parking stalls would require vehicles to back out into traffic on Cunningham Street, and is not. considered to be a safe method of egress. Therefore, approval of the project would require the relocation of all six off-street parking spaces onto an area of the lot that would provide sufficient area to comply with parking standards. Specifically, it is recommended that these spaces be installed near the southeast corner of the existing building since this location would provide access to the building and would not interfere with on-site circulation. Staff also reviewed internal circulation patterns, noting that the location of the existing structure and gates is highly conducive to vehicle drop-off of recyclable materials. Staff recommends that specific loading/unloading areas be developed and clearly marked to facilitate the efficient movement of vehicles onto and off the site. The Planning Department's analysis of this project also included the preparation of an Initial Study which determined that'potentially .significant impacts to ground water supplies could occur if oils stored on the site were allowed to leak into the ground. It is staff's opinion, however, that this impact would be mitigated adequately by the adoption of the measures recommended by staff; these measures have been included as Conditions 23-25 'in this report. Staff's environmental analysis als° identified potential visual impacts' associated with the project, particularly as the result of storage of materials outside the structure. Staff has recommended that fencing and visual screening be required to mitigate these impacts, and included them as Condition No. 26 in this ,report. The initial study also notes that the location of the proposed parking spaces could significantly increase traffic congestion and the occurrence of accidents at the site. Staff recommended that these spaces be relocated onto a more efficient area of the site to eliminate the significant impacts, but has not included this measure as a Condition of -Approval since the required comPliance with Zoning Code standards would be adequate to provide mitigation of impacts. The Planning Department has also been informed by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board-North Coast Region that Iow levels of groundwater contamination exist on the site, and that four monitoring wells required to monitor any movement or increase in contaminated groundwaters do exist on the site. RWQCB staff have also requested that provisions be made to protect these monitoring wells if construction or other development could impact them, and that access for monthly and quarterly monitoring activity be assured. Planning Department staff has recommended that Conditions 27 and 28 be adopted to ensure that continued monitoring of groundwater can be effectively continued. CONCLUSIONS: Planning Department staff concludes that the proposed recycling center use, as conditioned, would be consistent with the goals and policies of the Ukiah ' Valley General Plan and with the use' and development standards for the M District. 6'-II Department staff further concludes that potentially significan[ adverse impacts could be caused by the development and operation of the project, but that these impacts would be reduced to levels that are less than significant with the adoption of the Negative Declaration prepared by staff. FINDINGS. The Planning Department's recommendation for the approval of this project is based, in part, on the following findings: . The proposed recycling center use, as conditioned, conforms to all General Plan goals .and policies, and with the use and development standards established in the Zoning Code for the M Zoning District that are applicable to the project site, including permitted uses, building height limits, building site areas, yard areas, setbacks and parking; The project causes no significant adverse environmental impacts that could not be reduced to levels of insignificance if the mitigation measures required in the Negative Declaration prepared for the p'.roject, and included as Conditions of Approval, are adopted; and . The granting of the proposed Use Permit will not, as conditioned, materially affect the health, safety, comfort or general Welfare of persons residing or working .in the neighborhood, or be detrimental to property or improvements on or around the site, or be harmful to the general welfare of the City since the-development and operation of the recycling center would be located in an industrial area of the City and would be in conformance with all applicable Municipal Code standards for industrial development, and the use of the existing building limits the'need for additional physical improvements on the site. · .CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL': The following Conditions of Approval shall'be made a permanent part of Use Permit #96-47, shall remain in force regardless of property. ownership, and shall be implemented in order for this entitlement to remain valid. le All use, construction,, or occupancy shall conform to the application and to any supporting documents submitted therewith. (SC) Anyiconstruction, and the location thereof, shall conform to any maps, sketches, or plot plans accompanying the application or submitted by applicant, in support thereof. (SC) . Any construction shall comply with the "Standard Specifications" for such type of . construction now existing or which may hereafter be promulgated by the Engineering Department of the City of Ukiah; except where higher standards are imposed by law, rule, or regulation or by action of the Planning Commission such standards shall be met. (SC) ,, , Sm e Se 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. In addition to any particular condition which might be imposed; any construction shall comply with all building, fire, electric, plumbing, occupancy, and structural laws, rules, regulations, and ordinances. (SC) Applicant shall be required to obtain any approval which is required by law, regulation, or ordinance. (SC) Building permits shall be issued within two year after the effective date of the use permit, variance, or site development permit or same shall be null and void. in the event the building permit cannot be issued within the stipulated period from the project approval date, a one year extension may be granted by the Director of Planning if no new circumstances impact the project.. (SC) If any use permitted shall cease for six (6) consecutive months, then the right to any variance or use permit permitting such use shall terminate and such variance or use permit shall be revocable by the granting body. (SC) If any c°ndition, special or standard, is violated or if any required approval is not obtained, then the Use permit granted shall be null and void; otherwise to continue in full force and effect indefinitely .until otherwise terminated and shall run with the land. (SC) Except as otherwise Specifically noted, any use permit shall 'be granted only for the specific purposes stated, in the action approving such variance, use permit, or site development permit and shall not be construed as eliminating or modifying any building, use, or zone requirements except as to such'specific purposes. (SC) All curb, gutter,, sidewalk,, and street paving which are broken or damaged or driVeways which will not be used are to be removed and replaced as required by the City Engineer. (SC) .. · All on-site paving shall be a minimum of 2" of asphalt concrete with a 6" aggregate base, or an approved option.. (SC) On-site drainage shall be to the approval of the City Engineer. (SC) All work within the City right-of-way shall be performed by a properly licensed Contractor with a current City of Ukiah Business License. Contractor must.submit copies of proper insurance coverage (Public Liability, $1,000,000; Property. Damage, $1,000,000) and current Workman's Compensation Certificate. (SC) An encroachment permit from the .Public Works' Department is required to perform all work within the street right-of-way. (SC) §-13 . 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.¸ 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. Stockpiled soil shall be protected from erosion, and drainage from ali disturbed and stockpiled soils shall be directed on site to a disposal location approved by the City Engineer. (SC) Sewer, water, and electric service shall conform to the specifications of the City Department of Public Utility. (SC) Street improvements, including curb, gutter, sidewalk, and street trees shall be as per the City Engineer's recommendations. (SC) All signing to conform to the City of Ukiah Sign.Code. (SC) Any roof-mounted air conditioning, heating, and ventilation apparatus be aesthetically screened from view consistent with the architecture of the building on which it is located. (SC) Any outdoor refuse/recycle containers be aesthetically screened from view. Garbage shall not be visible outside the enclosure. (SC) Landscaping plan be approved by the Director of Planning prior to placement. (SC) Landscaping be irrigated by an automated .irrigation.system and maintained in a neat, weed-free manner. (SC) All oil storage containers shall be located on impermeable surfaces, and Shall contain funneled opening Or other devices designed to prevent the spilling of oils during the transfer of these oils into or from the storage container. (MM) All oil storage containers shall be maintained and monitored by recycling center staff on a regular basis to ensure that the tanks do not leak. (MM) The transfer of oil to or from storage containers shall be conducted, only by employees of the recycling center. (MM) Any future storage of potentially hazardous materials, including anti-freeze and auto batteries, on the site shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to such use to ensure that these materials are handled, stored and .transferred in compliance with State and Federal gUidelines. The location of existing groundwater monitoring wells on the project site shall be clearly marked to ensure that none of these wells is covered by stored materials, structures or other, surfacing materials. .' 28. Regional Water Quality Control Board staff and the City Planning Director shall be notified immediately if any groundwater monitoring wells are damaged, destroyed or otherwise rendered inoperable, and these wells shall be replaced in accordance with Control Board requirements. 29. Access to existing groundwater monitoring wells shall be permitted to Regional Water Quality Control Board staff or monitoring contractors; the frequency of access shall be determined by RWQCB staff. 30. All storage yard areas shall be fenced With chain link fencing or solid wood or masonry walls that shall be a minimum of six feet in height. Chain link fences shall be screened from public view by bushes, trees or other landscaping treatments that shall be approved by the Planning Director as part of a landscape plan for the site. (MM) 31. All conditions be completed prior to release of final inspection and issuance of use and occupancy permit. (MM) ATTACHMENTS: . 2. 3. 4. Location Map Site Plan Building Elevations Negative Declaration/Initial Study for Use Permit No. 96-54 · ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: The following personnel prepared and reviewed this Planning Report, respectively: Dave Lohse, Associate Planner . Bob Sa . CITY OF UKIAH PLANNING DEPARTMENT NEGATIVE DECLARATION DATE: December 30, 1996 APPLICANT: Ukiah Recycling (by Wayne Reynolds) PROJECT NO.: Use Permit #96-54 LOCATION: 1080 Cunningham Street DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The project consists of a Use Permit to allow the operation of a recycling center on a 0.8 acre parcel located in the M (Manufacturing) Zoning DistriCt. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The project site is a relatively fiat site that has been developed with a 3,300 square foot structure and a fenced storage yard. The site contains no significant watercourses, topographical features, vegetation or animal poPUlations or habitat. · ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: Potential impacts, identified by staff in the initial study prepared for the project consist of the following: 1. Potential pollution of ground water if oils stored on the site leak; and 2. Visual impacts. FINDINGS SUPPORTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION: *No significant impacts resulting from this project were identified, and all potential impacts associated with the project can be mitigated by the measure identified in the initial study. *The site has been developed with a structure and storage yard that will not require significant renovations or modifications; · *The site is located in an industrial, area 'of the city and, as conditioned, would be consistent with General Plan goals for industrial areas and the development standards of the M (Manufacturing) Zoning District; and *The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the general public because the proposed recycling center is a permitted use, subject to the securement of a use .permit, and would not cause activities that would be objectionable if the mitigation measure listed in the initial study is adopted. STATEMENT OF DECLARATION: After appraisal of the possible impacts of this project, the City of Ukiah has determined that the project will not have a significant effect On the environment, and further, that this Negative Declaration constitutes compliance with the requirements, for environmental review and analysis required by the California Environmental Quality Act. This document may be reviewed at the City of Ukiah Planning Department, Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. Charles Stump, Senior Planner/Environmental Coordinator '.P 0 TE NTIA LiE N'~I'R 0 N M E'~¥'~'~'::~'J'~ ~i~ ~:~ '!i:ii~i~iiiiil. ili'"' -.'..... i-..:i .:. ' ::: · ...... BACKGROUND INFORMATION . . . . . i Name of Project Proponent:.., Ukiah Recycle {by Wayne Reynolds) Address of Project Proponent: 122 Leslie Street, Ukiah, CA 9548? Name of Project: Use Permit #96.$4: Ukiah Recycle Project Site Assessors Parcel Number(s) & Street Address: 003-084-05 1080 Cunninqham Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County, California Date of Initial Study preparation:_December 27, 1996 Name of Lead Agency: City of Ukiah Planning Department Phone Number and Address of Lead Agency: ~_707.) 462-4805 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Project Description: A Use Permit to allow a recycling center on a 0.8 acre r)arcel located in the M (ManufactuHn.q) Zonina District. Thc proposed center would utilize an ex. isting 3,300 sqUa~e foot'buildin£ located on the eastern half of the site, and the fenced yard area 'tha; encompasses the remainder of the site. 10. Pro~)osed development would Consist of the.planting of additional landscaping..the installation of six-fOot hi._clh fences .and minor imr)rovement of parking areas. Person ResPonsible for Preparing Initial Study: Dave Lohse, Associate Planner. 5'17 LOCATION MAP USE PERMIT NO. 96-54: UKIAH RECYCLF -- _1080 Cunningham Street (Assessor Parcel Nos. 003-084-05) ! I I I 0 500 1000 t500 · 2o00"' 2500 3000 FT. SCALE: 1 inch = $00 feet 5'-18 I' ' ':~'~:'~' 4:~:;~' ' ' ""' "'""::':'""?i. .......:..: ...-..;- .-.., ~'f'"¢"i: :"'"' ':. ' "'"':"~': · "~ ~,~ 2'. . "-:~ .~ .-.-.. ,. ~' , ' .' · -'.:':..'-..~. , ~. .. · ~ , ,.. · '.- '" .'. :!'...~ · .: ..'..'. ,.~' .,:..-. . : . . : ' :-' :"~ ." ';.~T'. .. ' °-..'~4-',.. ~: · .,,i~ .' . · · ' '' ' ' .l" ' - ~':-' '~ '.~ -' ' · ". · ~ " ' *' ' ':':'.." .:.:.. '. '."'.1 .... "."-"':,'"'.'~:::-':,~ ';.'"""'"" "'.':':':'"""'. ' ~' "'.'' · " ' ':';':1 i'-".'.;...'.:' ':'..':.'.. .' :-.'." .' ' '' :' ~" ' '" .::i..' ";'""'l:::;:,-";'i"~';Z~";'; ~,,':::(?::-:-'.i',.'--. r-.:.'.: i .. '. · '..." :' "'i_ ::' "':"~i "'"': ": '''~ ':-T.~'.'-'.'.'::'.:::..:,:~-~ · '-:' ".-'-"i.:: :,~., -.. ' - · · · j .' .... !,....:.......:...,.::~.;.,.....:.. :, :'.~....: . ...., : -:,:.: _!-..~:: .... · , ii' " : ""' '":' ' ' " ' .... ~ ' ': '" ' '"' ' ' " · .' , %. '~ ..,: ,:..-..%.-,. · . . ~.. :. .'~l~ ~ . . , - .~ · · "· :'~1'.~'.- ¢":.":~.'-." "- "' '.~ · . ;- " · .' '.:..' ."~ll.~ ' '' · ": "-:. '' ~.' "' "' ' ' ~l "r\ · ..i...'. . _'..,X,l."~';' .:-,..':'. ''..,' .. "~ ..-;.'~ .1~ ' ,: . i.'"'ii::... '-.', .:.,,. ;'~'-',',:..;.'-~l'l:'.~;":.'.:'.':".-.'"~ .'.::.:.'"~' :~i:.:":~ ~:~ :... "' · · .:'.':;':'i "i :."'."l:':' !:!': ': .':;."'.5 ;:'i"'.".:'i';.':.i''''!:' '7":'.'.'10 :' : , " 1' . , *.. 1, ....... ,.~.o ,/ ~,.~,. .... ~ .,.,~,.~. .,,:~..~ · .~..~. '..-~...., o. 0. o . o · · ' ', .~1,' ..... . ,," .-.-~ ...... ' .... .~ .~,. ...... '.-s'7~.',. -, ' ' ,..' . :-:'f':'. "-' ,.-.' ;:'.:~:"".::,;., .~.'.'.-.~-/-'C:..i': .... ., ,... · :.~.- ....: .: -::.....--:. ,....., .,- ·, :, :-.-.- · ' ... ' . ~.::.';'., '.~..;.'".; ;:'. -" ' -. '1 ~'. ~'~1 '" ' ..... ' '~ ': ' · ' :...'~: ":.*'.-'.".-.':., "' '"' ::'" !'":,'" I'll'"": ..... ~' '::" ~'~''~. : '""" :.'.':..~ '- ...." .: .:!.:. ? :' .': .: ..' .' ' -..~.". ~ · ' ~ · ' .. I~. ..i." :'-' :~.:'. I":~i":.'.:~--'.;ii.':'. 1........ '":' ': ":' "'. ' '.':.~.':'-: · '.':,?~."' .'. '" ' :.~ ' .~1-. ' · " ' -- ~.~- ':"- · ' '""';.~' ?'"r .' ":' · '.- "-.' ~,~'~ '. ' ' .':" ': :"'/~ ':'-:'~""" ·: :...: ' :~"':".'"'~". :'..!'.. :.": '" .:" ."'-." ".:..:'.-;"~ :.:' ~ ' · . ,.: i~.~.""."...: : ·'..~,-i'_-.,~-'.,:i .... · · .' .,~ ',,.l ~- · : '. ~ ~' .' '.'f; _~:'. ' I .... ' .... !/"~ - . I'~. · ." ; ~. -~ ':.gl ~ ' '1" · .' .' ' . .'... ~",.J. '"'% ~ '.i ' : ' .'(' '...: i~'1'~':. '.''-.'. '~';~_ '~,...I. ... · · I. . ~ ~ .~", · ' ~K)~ ' ' ' · k~.~. _~".' I .'- · ' .-'.-. . · ~,k~. '' .. ~ · ':"'.:'" ~'" ~'" '...". ' '.~,-. ~ .,. ,' .- · 'i~_ ·· ~v. ~, ':.:.. .: :::".- .: :'": '.:':" ':.'" .:' "'. !:: 1 :..,..~.,..::'..-.........: : :.::: ...,..'.. . ... ! · :'~~' i~ ~ ~ -' "-" ": ':',,.:... "~' -' 'i ~;~ ": ,~ - .' ~ ~ - . · . '. ' . . '~"~ :-' ..",' "' ' .: .. ~ . : .. .. ; : -~1 .' · ..' ,~ .. ' " : ~'- : , ..,- ""':' '":":" · . ' ..'. . ~' . ' .. .~ ,. · . .~ ·.... ~~ ..: · "'-. ..:' · .. ... -~ ~ : .,: .' ..- '.- ~_m~ . :.",~ · ~..~, '~ ~: '-''.- i · o,.~ ~ '. .. . -...... ..~ ~ , .: · i · · .-, · . I · ' . i ' . · I · · . .'......'~-. · ..l '. ; ',' .. · j · ;. · ,' ~:-.-'. . -, : ,. ' j- . ,, . J .., :' . s I · ;: ' .'-.·, :.;. : "'," 'i ~ .m,.:- · ,, · ' ' "'$ :' I · ..° .. ':7<. '~'. · ' · · · · oo · WILL THE PROJECT RESULT IN THE FOLLOWING ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: 1. EARTH: e. Unstable ea~ conditions or c~anges in geologic smJcturee. Disruptionsl Displacements, Compaction, or overcovering of soil. Change in topography or ground surface relief features. The destruclion, covering, or modit',=ation of any unique geologic or Any increase in wind or water em.sion of soils, either on or off the site. Changes in deposition or erosion of · beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition, or ero.sio"n that may mocrffy the channel of a river, stream, inlet, or bay? Exposure of people or property to geologic hazm~ such a~ earthquakes. Significant Significant Signiftceat Unle~t No M]tlgatecl Apparm~t Mitigation Cumulative Impacts 'AIR: be Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air qua.q~. The creation of objeclJonaJ odors. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperaaJm, or any change in climate, eider locally or regionally?. 3~ b. WATER; Changes in lhe currents, or lhe coume of water movements, in either fresh or marine waters. Changes in Ihe absorplion ares, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff, Alterations to ~e course or Ilow of flood waters. Change in ~e amount o! surface water in any water body. Discharge into surface water, or any alteration of surface water clu~ty, including but not limited to temperature, c~=solved oxygen or Nterafion of lhe direction or rate of flow of ground water. Change in lhe quantity of ground · rater, eil~er through, direct additions. or withdrawaJs, or lh'n:)ugh interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavalJor~. Change in Ihe quaJity of ground water. Substantial mduclion in lhe amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such aa Ilooding or tsunamis. 2 4. 'PLANT LIFE: a- Change in l~e diversity of species, or including trees, ahrub.=, g~..~, orol:~' and aqualic plants. · b. Reduction of l~e numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species c. lntmcluction of new species of plants / normaJ replenishment of existing cL Reduction in acreage of any // · '"='~ ~'"'I~1 i:;t I:;;;]1 ~ I:;;t , 5. ANIMAL UFE: a. Change in ~o diversity of species, or including birds, land animals, mptile~, fL~h, insecf~, and bel~nic o~anisms. unique, ~re, or endangered species of animals. in~ an ama~ or in a banier to ~e migration or movement of anima/s, ii 6. NOISE: ' · b. Ex--re of people to ~vem nobe : '. i 5 '?,-S 7. LIGHT AND GLARE: b. Reduction o! solar expesum or / adverse impacts to exis~g solarI~ ~ I:~ i~ [;~ collection facilities. .i 8. LAND USE planned land use of a given area. , 9. NATURAL RESOURCES: a. nature] Increase in the rate of use of any re.~ourcas. ,i, 10. RISK OF UPSET: · oil, pesticides, chemicals, or ~acr~ation) in me event of an accident or upset condi~ons. Io b. Possible interference with a~ /' evacuation i 11. POPULATION.. .:' density, or growth r~te of hum~ ii ii 12. HOUSING.' " housing or create a demand for ne,~ housing? :. i ii . 13.- TRANSPORTATION: Generation of substantiaJ additional veh. i~iar movement?. Effects on exi$~g parking facilities, or demand for new parking facilities? Substantial impact upon existing transportation aystams? Ntemt~one to present pattema of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? Ntemtions to waterborne, ~1, or a/r traffic? Increase in tra~c hazards to motor vehicle-<, bicycr~ts or padeslz~a? 14. PUBLIC SERVICES: Will Ihe proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government ~ervicea in any of the following areas: 1. Rm protection? 2. Poiioa protection? ,I. Schools? 4. Park~ & recreation facir~es? $. Maintenance of public facilities? e. O~er governmental services? 15. ENERGY: U~e of substantial amounts of fuel or ene~/? SUb~anlial increase in demand upon exisling ~oumes of energy, or require development of new enen~y aources? 5 16.-UTILITIES: a. Wgl the project result in a need for new system~ or substantiaJ altamtione to the following: 1. Potable water? 2. Sewerage? 3. Transmission lines? 17. HUMAN HEALTH: Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazasd? Exposure of people to any exia~g health hazards? 18. 19. 20. be AESTHETICS: Obstm~on of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or croats an aealhetically offensive site open to public view?. RECREATION: Impact upon the quality or quantity of existing mcmatior~J opportunities? CULTURAL RESOURCES: Nteration or destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological ' site? Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building or structure? Cause a phYsical change that would effect the unique ethnic cultural vaJues? STED NTAE'~,~IMPACTS RES.: EARTH: The Ukiah Valley is part of an active seismic region that contains the Maacama Fault, which traverses the valley to the east and north of the City. According to resource materials maintained by the Ukiah Planning Department, the projected maximum credible earthquake along this fault would be approximately 7.4 magnitude on the Richter scale. The project site is underlain by a variety of soil types and contains no known unique geologic or physical features, and no known areas of instable soils. Approximately 7,000 square feet of the project site has been covered by structures or pavement for parking spaces and access lanes. a. !mpacts: The only potential adverse impacts to soils on the project site may be the further coverage of small areas with additional pavement that would be required to ensure that the parking on the site meets required Zoning Code standards. The majority of the .site would remain uncovered, however, and no significant overcovering of on-site soils, is anticipated. b. Mitiaation: None required. '2. AIR: Potential impacts to air quality at a project site 'are generally measured by the concentrations of a pollutant in the atmosphere above the site, which are largely dependent on the volumes of pollutant emitted and the atmosphere's ability to dilute the pollutant. The project site is within the Ukiah Valley basin, where air quality has generally been in compliance with the "attainm, ent" levels required for all air-borne pollutants by the federal and state air quality standards. According .to information received from the Mendocino County 'Air Quality Management District, the only known exceptions to good air quality in the valley consist of isolated and limited occurrences of non-attainment for small particulate matter (PM-10). a. Impacts: The development of the proposed recycling center could cause minor increases in the levels of vehicular traffic in the area, but it is not anticipated that the projected traffic increase (64 vehicle trip ends per day) would generate emissions from Vehicles that would be substantial enough to cause any significant adverse impacts to air quality. It is also not anticipated that the proposed recycling center would create objectional odors since no organic materials would be collected or stored as part of this operation. b. Mitigation: None required. WATER: The project site contains no significant watercourses or other drainage courses, and the majority of the site (approximately 35,000 square feet) would remain uncovered by paving or other structures. The project site is located in Flood Zone C, according to the Flood Insurance Rate Map (Community Panel No. 060186 0002 D) prepared for the ama by the Federal Emergency Management.Agency.- This zone des!gnates that the site is not subject to flooding. a. Impact: The proposed recycling center would accept used motor oils as part of its overall operation. These oil products, which would be stored in large metal or plastic containers, could cause pollution of ground waters below the site if storage containers are not maintained or oil is spilled during transfer and it soaks into uncovered surface areas. Therefore, Planning staff recommend that oil storage containers areas be. permitted only on impermeable surfaces, and that such containers be regularly maintained and monitored for leakage by recycling staff. Staff further recommends that only employees of the recycling center be permitted to transfer oil products to and from storage containers, and that ali storage transfers be conducted on impermeable surface areas. ' b. Mitiqation: The following measures are recommended to mitigate potential adverse impacts to ground waters that could be caused by the spilling of oil products: . All oil storage containers shall be located on impermeable surfaces, and shall contain funneled openings or other devices designed to prevent the spilling of oils during the transfer of these oils into or from the storage container. . All oil storage containers shall be maintained and monitored by recycling center staff on a regular basis to ensure that the. tanks do not leak. . The transfer of oil to or from storage containers shall be conducted only by employees of the recycling center. 4, PLANT LIFE: Resources maintained by the City Planning Department reveal no known rare, threatened or endangered plant species within the project area, and the only vegetation on the site consists of ivy plants growing on a chain-link fence located on the southern property line of the parcel. 10 a. Imr~acts: Project plans indicate that proposed landscaping on the site would consist of approximately twenty-one oleander bushes that would be planted along the southern and southeastern perimeters of the parcel. The introduction of these plants on the site would not require the removal of the little vegetation that exists on the site, and would not introduce a new species to the area since oleanders are commonly used in landscaping designs in the City of Ukiah. b. Mitiqation: None required. ANIMAL LIFE: According to the Natural Diversity Data Base prepared by the California Department of Fish and Game, the project site does not contain any rare, threatened or endangered animal species. a. ~: The project site is located in an industrial area of an urbanized portion of the city, and no substantial or significant impacts to wildlife is anticipated. b. ~: 'None required. 6, NOISE: It is anticipated that forklifts and Other equipment used to move materials throughout the site would cause a minor increase in the ambient noise levels on the site. The generation of additional traffic could cause an increase in the ambient noise levels of the area..There are no known noise generators associated with this project that could expose persons to severe noise a. !reDacts_: The use of forklifts and other moving equiPment to move materials on the site and to load these materials into larger trucks for transport off the site would cause minor increases in the ambient noise levels on the site. These vehicles could also cause an increase in the incidental noise sources, from the site. However, there is nothing 'shown On project plans to indicate that the proposed recycling operation would generate noise levels that would not be consistent with other industrial noise sources located on adjacent parcels, which contain- cabinet making and *machine shops. b. Mitigation: None required. LIGHT AND GLARE: The proposed recycle center would be located in an existing building and storage yard area, which do not currently have any significant sources of glare or lighting that could affect site users or adjacent parcel users. The recycling use would entail the storage of metal materials that could cause glare if stacked higher than the six-foot high fences proposed for the site. · . 11 a. !m~)ac~: The proposed recycling center does not contain any major sources of glare or elevated lights that would shine onto adjacent properties, but glare could be caused from sunlight reflecting off the metal surfaces of recycled materials if they are stacked above the top of the existing or proposed fences that would surround the site. it is not anticipated that this glare would occur on a regular basis, or cause significant adverse impacts, since material stored on the site would rarely.be higher than the fences.. b. Mitigation: None required. aw LAND USE: The proposed recycling center is located on a parcel that is designated in the Ukiah General Plan for Industrial uses, and Planning staff has determined that the center is an industrial use that is consistent with the General Plan goals and policies for such uses. The recycling center is also generally consistent with the allowed uses in the underlying M (Manufacturing) Zoning District and with the industrial operations located on adjacent parcels, which are also in the M District. The allowance of the proposed Use Permit is required due to the potential for this use to cause impacts that would not be "objectionable", as outlined in Zoning Code Section 9112. a. !mpacts: The allowance of the proposed recycling center is subject to the approval of a Use Permit since it is an industrial use that has the potential to cause objectionable impacts on the site and on adjacent parcels. It is the opinion of Planning Department staff,, however, that the potential impacts caused by this project are environmental impacts that have been analyzed thoroughly in this study, which also contains measures designed to mitigate significant adverse impacts to levels that are not significant. Therefore, it has been determined that the proposed recycling center is compatible with the General Plan goals and policies, the development standards of the M Zoning District, and the industrial uses located on adjacent parcels. b. Mitigation: None required, NATURAL-RESOURCES: The proposed recycling center would utilize the existing structure on the project site, and no substantial development is anticipated as a result of this project. a. ~: It is not anticipated that substantial natural resources would be utilized in th'e completion of this project since the proposed recycling center would utilize existing structures. b. Mitigation: None required. 10. RISK OF UPSET: The proposed recycling center would accept and store used motor oil as part of its operation, although no other hazardous or explosive materials would be located on the site. · 12' a. I_moacts: The oil products that would be stored on the site would not directly contribute to the risk of upset at the site if stored in leak-proof containers, but it could be released during an accident or contribute to the severity of a fire should one occur on the site. However, it is likely that these impacts would be not be significant if oils are stored in compliance with the regulations of the Fire Code, as required by the Standard Conditions applied to discretionary permits. The increased potential for an explosion or the release of oil products may also require the filing of a Hazardous Materials Business Plan with the Mendocino County Department of Health, depending on the amounts of oil products that are stored. Compliance with this requirement would lower the risks associated with the storage of oil products to a level that is not considered to be significant since it would provide fire fighters and other emergency personnel with accurate information about the types of materials and the locations that they would be stored ' b. Miti_aation: None required. 11. POPULATION: The current population for the City of Ukiah is approximately 15,000 persons, with an annual projected growth rate that is less than two percent (2.0%) per year. a. Imoacts: Approval of this project would not directly require that additional persons move to the City of Ukiah to operate it, and it is anticipated that the majority .of jobs created as a result of this project will be held by persons currently employed at the existing recycling center operated by the applicant, which is also located in the City of Ukiah. b. Mitiaation: None required. 12. HOUSING: The development of the site would not directly affect the number of housing units available in the City of Ukiah. . ; a. Impacts: Due to the industrial nature of the proposed recycling center and the relatively few persons projected to operate it, it is not anticipated that the operation of the business at the project site would affect existing housing stocks in a significant adverse manner. b. Miti_aation: None required.' 13. TRANSPORTATION:. The project site is located at the intersection of Rupe Street and Cunningham Street, with the front of the existing structure facing Cunningham Street and gated access lanes along both frontages. Cunningham Street extends southward through' an industrial area to Talmage Road and northward to Thomas Street, which extends from this intersection westward through a mixed-use area to State Street.. 13 There are no existing parking spaces located on the site, although it appears that the area in front of the existing structure has been used for parking in the past. Ingress and egress at the site is available from gates located along the east and south sides of the fences that close off the yard. a. !reDacts: It is anticipated that the proposed recycling center use would generate a higher rate of traffic than the majority 'of industrial uses since it would be open to the general public for recycling. Planning staff, therefore, used one of the higher standard traffic generation rates listed by the Institute of Traffic Engineers to calculate that the proposed use could cause approximately 63 additional weekday.vehicle trip ends (TE) per day along area roads. There are no traffic counts available for Cunningham or Thomas Streets, which would provide through access to the site, but observations made in the field would indicate that the projected increase in traffic volumes along these streets would not be sufficient to cause congestion or other substantial impacts to existing transportation systems and patterns of circulation. The proposed recycling center is required to have six off-street parking spaces, and project plans show that all of these required parking spaces would be installed perpendicular to the Street, which would require that vehicles exiting the site back directly onto Cunningham Street. This parking design is not consistent with Zoning Code parking standards that require a minimum aisle width of twenty-four feet for parking stalls installed with a ninety degree angle, and this design could not be approved as part of the project. It is also the opinion of staff that the location of the proposed parking stalls could generate significant hazards to vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians using the site due to the lack of back-up area..and the restricted access, which could cause congestion On the Site. In addition, the 'northernmost parking stall would be located in front of the gated area on the north side of the existing structure, which would allow only twelve feet of turning radius for larger trucks and other vehicles that use this entrance. This gate is also partially blocked by the existing telephone pole located on the northeast corner of the site. Therefore, Planning staff recommends, that a paved area for the .proposed parking .spaces be constructed on an area of the lot (such as the Southwest corner of the site) that would provide sufficient aisle width for vehicles entering and leaving the lot. b. Mitigation: The following mitigation measure is recommended to mitigate .potential traffic safety hazards that could be caused by the proposed project: All off-street parking spaces shall be a minimum of nine feet wide and nineteen feet'in length, and shall be located on a paved surface that provides adequate area for parking spaces and an aislewidth that is consistent with the Design Standards for Parking Areas that are outlined in the Zoning Code. PUBLIC SERVICES: The project site has been used for other industrial uses in the .past, and it is not anticipated that the proposed recycling operation would require any significant increase in public services beyond those currently required for the site. 14 6;'3Z- a. !mpacts: The use of the site for a recycling center will require essential public services, such as police and fire protection and the review of diScretionary and ministerial permits and licenses. However, due to the location of the center in an industrial area of the City, it is not anticipated that these services would be significantly impacted in an adverse manner. b. Miti_~ation: None required. 15. ENERGY: The operation of the proposed recycling center will require the use of electrical energy and the consumption of fossil fuels for vehicles that would be used in the movement of recycled materials. a. !mDacts: The operation of the recycling center will require the use of a.minor amount of electrical energy and fossil fuel for forklifts and trucks to transport recycled materials. B;3th of these energy sources are in plentiful supply, however, and it is not anticipated that the amounts required by this use would significantly affect energy reserves or distribution lines in an adverse manner. b. Mitigation: None required. 16. UTILITIES: The project site is located in an area of the city that is connected to existing potable water, sewer and electrical transmission lines. a. Impacts: The existing structure is currently connected to water and sewer services that are maintained in trenches located next to the public streets that run adjacent to the project site, and service can be provided after the appropriate hook-up requirements have been completed. .The structure is also connected by an overhead line to an electrical transmission pole located on the northeast corner of the project site, and electrical service on the site can be established by signing up with the City Utility Department. b. Mitiaation: .None-required. 17. HUMAN HEALTH: The project site is relatively clean for an industrial lot, and contains no known human health hazards. a. Impacts: The proposed recycling center would not store hazardous materials (i.e. freon) or materials known to contain such materials, but the storage of used oils. on the site could increase the potential hazards associated with a fire on the site if these oils are not stored properly or registered with the Mendocino County Department of Environmental Health'. However, it is not anticipated that the potential for additional hazards would be significant if oils are stored in compliance with the regulations of the 'Fire Code. Therefore, no specific mitigation 15 5'35 measures would be required. b. Mitigation: None required. 18, AESTHETICS: The proposed recycling center would utilize an existing building and an open yard for the storage of materials and vehicles. The majority of this storage yard is surrounded by a four to six foot high chain link fence that runs along the perimeter of the site. a. !rn;)acts: The proposed recycling operation would utilize the existing'structure, and no modifications to the exterior of this building are proposed. It is the opinion of Planning staff that the aesthetic characteristics of this building are consistent with those of structures °n adjacent industrial lots, and no alterations should be required. The applicant for the project has indicated that the storage yard would be used for the storage of vehicles and recycled materials in bins, tanks and stacks. The materials in the storage yard would be open to public view and could be offensive to sOme adjacent property users and passersby. Project plans show, hOwever, that the stOrage yard would be partially screened by a six-foot high fence made of wood and chain link that would be located on the perimeters of the yard, and by a line of oleander bushes that would be planted along the southern and southeastern portions of this fence. It is the opinion of staff that the proposed fence would adequately mitigate any adverse visual impacts. b. Miti_aation: The following measure is recommended t;3 mitigate potential adverse visual impacts associated with this proposed recycling center: All storage yard areas shall be fenced with chain link fencing or solid wood or masonry walls that shall be a minimum of six feet in height. Bushes, trees or other landscaping treatments shall be installed in front of chain link fences to screen the stored materials from public view. 19. RECREATION: The proposed recycling yard is not located adjacent to any public recreation facilities. ~ a. Im=acts: The project site is not located adjacent to, or near, any public recreational facilities and no adverse impacts to such facilities is anticipated. b. Mitigation: None required. 20. .. CULTURAL RESOURCES: There are no known historical, cultural or archaeological resources located on the project site. 16 a. Impacts: The project site contains no structures listed in the Architectural and Historical Resources Inventory Report, which lists structures located in Ukiah that have been determined to have significant architectural or historical features. b. Miti__aation: None required.. 21, MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a. Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? YES [~1 NO b. Short Term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environments one which occurs in a relatively, brief, definitive period of, time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future). YES NO c. Cumulative: Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect on the total of those impacts on the environment is significant). YES [~ NO d. Substantial Adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? YES [~ NO 1¸7 October 9, 2001 RECEIVED City of Ukiah C/O Charley Stump, Planning Director Ukiah Civic Center 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah, CA 95482 CITY OF UKIAH PJ. ANNING DEPT. Dear Mr.. Stump: I was asked by Wayne Reynolds to look over his recyCling center in Ukiah. I made the trip and found the following. The business suffered a big loss when the building on the rented site collapsed. How lucky that no one was under it! Mr. Reynolds presently is operating his business outside in the elements. There was a good amount of inventory inside the building when it Collapsed. The business returns some profits to the owners and runs at no cost to the public. The business was busy while I was there. A number of people dropped off materials for weighing, sOrting, and sale of these recyclables. This business hires six people that otherwise may be unemployed. It encourages walk- in patrons that may not be able to use the new facility on Plant Rd due to the distance. Many people do not have transportation that contribute to recycling. The surrounding neighbors may find this center disagreeable, but the area is,.to my understanding, zoned industrial. With a use 'permit it is in an area acceptable to its use. I think that in-lieu of the need of this recycling center'in the area, the employment if offers, and that it helps the city & county meet it's recycling commitment, it should be allowed with conditions. Those conditions should require the recOnstruction of the collapsed building, limited storage outside, as well as a requirement to keep the premises clean. I believe that Wayne Reynolds should be allowed a specific time to work out the problems he faces. ~ 'Sin~rely, / J~mes Eddie ! 9401 Main St. L~. 'Potter Valley, CA 95469 707-743-1534 COMMUNITY DINING ROOM i"(': PF_4.CE & JUSTICE CENTER LOWSHARES Post Office Box 475 150 Luce Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Phone 707.462.8582 Fax 707.462.0320 September 21, 2001 Planning Commissioners City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah, CA 95482 Dear Planning Commissioners, I'm writing in support of the Ukiah Recycling Center. They provide several very valuable services to our area--relieving the landfill operation, encouraging homeless people to lighten the trash load while creating a small income stream for themselves, helping return stray shopping carts to stores, and saving precious resources that can be re-used rather than wasted. Having been involved in the homeless shelter project, I am well aware of the legitimate complaints of neighbors when something impacts their sense of peace or cleanliness. But certain activities need to happen somewhere, and neighbors will complain no matter where they are located. For a recycling center (or a homeless shelter) to fully serve its purpose, it must be located where people can easily access it, which in this case is in an industrial area within the city limits. A more appropriate response than shutting it down might be to seek "beautification volunteers" to give them a hand. Our community is generally very responsive to such calls for help While I am not aware of the details of their situation, I know that Ukiah Recycling is a small, locally-owned, long-term and well-intentioned operation. Their landlady, as you are surely aware, does not have a strong history of caring for her buildings, and the tenants do not deserve to suffer for the roof collapse. They are struggling to provide a valuable service to our community, and ! encourage you to support their use permit as far as practically possible. cc: Ukiah Recycling Center Sincerely, · Mary BuCkleY. Executive Director PUNN/NGD Recyciin,Ei Cer~.'t. ez-'. Use Permi't p.e~'mit [..of r-ecyclin8 aii lOG0 Cun~-'.,ingt~am :%~?-eet . 'f~irs-t, we would lire you to r'e~er. {o {.he or'i,&{inal J:;0 concii%ions tha-E ~4'er.e %o be mae BEFORE the r'ecyciin~ cern%er' even s'ta~-ted O!Del''~i2 ioliS at the 'p!"esei'!'t addi,ess. 1'.~,:2, olie evel" e~lfo~-'ced ~.hose conci .[ t ions; the cond i 't. { ohs wer'~t unheeciect ~"- vo~t wani. t.o l el. thi~ corit, in~e to dete~io~.a'Le even far-the~ i:" ~;4e hope not. The buil. din.8 ilas collapsed. I't cannot be satvaa'ed. BI'ins in your ~r, erfor'ma~ce of ~.he Leslie Stl"eet si~e. IRe t~u .... i idin£:_ needs %0 be dem. oli~.--'-,=¢~ ..... a~-:d 1:he si-re cleaned u,..t}. 'i'~i s CANNO'r rossi b! V be done ~i t.h a Ousif~ess cont. inuing ope!' a~.e. fie ci~ai!enge each of you to t©ur the si%.e ~%ci make a visual inspect ion. Be sure to vie%4 the opposi ~;.e side of Cunninaham Stz'-ee't ( 1061 Cunninaham St . ) where %!%e bales of r-ecyctiil8 rna'her-iai ape r~o'w being; ....... stored, and add'i 'uional bi ,',s o¢ reoFc'=ah~_es s~i'.e being added. It is bein~ clea~ied up somewha'5, but it is too ! it-~ie too late. !s 'ther'e a pePmi't for' r'ecyclin8 a~ tha~. acid,-ess? ZE is in close proximity to ~ne r'ai!~-oad t~'acks. Is frequent the r'a i 11-oad ir'acks ~ and what Eoes on back t. hez'e. Ar-e ~s it fiir. to the businesses J.n the are.P, to i~ave t~e constan~ ~':oti,~e that 'ther, e is acr. iv.ity inside ti'~e ~:,~uii,diingt evei'"yday. The ,--sffic:e conzinues to be used, elec~ir'ici-ty is being used fr'om inside the buildi~lg, the oasl~i ~'egister- is 2:'ta-[e S'treet'P if' ti--le etiildii"i.~ is co~-ic[emneO ~ t{ny dic~n' r {-r Se'~. !r'osted and l"ed {a.ssed'}' Piav'e you ac{ualls~ seen %!-ie oon-[in~iin.g dai 1y sepa~'-a[ io.fi of ~.he r'oof al.ea see i{ evei'-5, day. I{. is a hazal'O Lo the woI'i,[e!'.s and ~o tile pu~blio, in gener'al ~,~ho fr-eqtten~z. 't~is busi~'-~ess. We have been more 'fha.,.-,, p. at~ iei~t, more -t nar~ ffai'r ~ n 't.-.~ai ~ in8 ~or some resolu'tion to ~his cons[ar'i~ pz"oeiem, You now tiave the op'por't~Jrii'L5 to oor'l-'ec-t_ line mis'Lakes and make amends foz- al. low{ n8 iiNis -repeat per'for-mance t.o de---v'alue our en~zire neiShbor'hood. ~.~ e LIr ~' -':~ 11. o r- e v cD k e L! S e _ .~ 5"Okl t h i S 13, er-lt'i i 't.. Tiler e ti8 s been a pr'ecedent set and t. he tr'ack Pec:c:rd is less %Nan desir'abie, We as $l:!-ope!-ijy ol.-~'ner-~ ai'~d r'esiden[s c, rl 'khe -b~r-e& al'e ciear'Iv c©ncer-ned. Z:'~!b i.azo'C :: Recyc 1 i:.~':S Ce,"-,-C. ez- L!a;i.:: PEi::(P!!'r P.'ii'~!:t io:L,: Ci-L-y C oc!r~oil P-'~l'k~l-.!: [ !c:,r:' ti'tS' Cou!r:ci 1 }: }: o r_~ e ' ~_. JOHN W. AND MARILYN DALTON 18101 VAN ARSDALE RD. POTTER VALLLEY, CALIFORNIA 95469 October 11, 2001 Ukiah P~ Department and Planning Commission Dear Sir or Madam: In regards to the application for an outside use permit, requested by Wayne Reynolds DBA, Ukiah Recycle Center. Located at 10g0 Cunningham Street Ukiah California. We have known Wayne Reynolds for the last 25 years. In all the time that we have known Wayne, he has always been a very patriotic and concerned citizen in addition to being a hard working individual. We just feel, that it is so wrong for the Ukiah Planning Departmcnt and Planning Commission to even comider to close a business and take away a mans livelihood due to an unforeseen structural failure. This business is the only way that Mr. Reynolds earns his living and to deny him the opportunity to continue to Pursue his only source of income would be deplorable. It is our plea that you give great thought and consideration in making your decision in regards to the temporary outside use permit. Since this permit is only for the duration while construction efforts to rebuild a safe structure in which to house his b6siness are undertaken. We ~.e.l that the need to preserve an individuals livel~ood and :provide a service to the recycling efforts of the Ukiah area community, should bc given the greatest of deliberation. S~erely, · Dalton Marilyn Dalton RECEIVED ~"i' 1 '! ;2001 ~. OTY OF UKMH PtANNIN6 DEPT. OCT 1'7 2001 2:53PH OCT !7 ::'001 1:51PH : t ORVE HULL I~S RGNY HP LRSERJET 3200. .70.74626508 Oetobe~ 15, 2001 Mr. Dave Hsdl Mr. Rick Piffero 275 W. Gobbi Street Ukiah, CA. 95482 Re: West$ide Addition Subdivision It was good visiting with you and visiting the Western Addition Subdivision project site on October 2'a. As l~er our discussion that day, and subject to my subsequent field visit on October 12~, I am providing tkis letter report. As you will recall, you asked me to provide any general comments, and to comment specifically regard~g your possible manipulation of the vegetation on the project area to the enhance fire suppression]protect/on activities. Suuulemental Field Visit Following ouz field meeting I asked two members of my staff: Ms. Jennifer L. Barto[omei, Private Consulting Biologist ~0048, and Mr. Dean Schlichting, Bot~_n_i~t to accompany me to the site on October 12~. ~ney have provided brief reports summari~g their observations made that day, and these are attached. In h/s report, Mr. Schlichting describes the two plant communities found within the project area: Broadleaved Upland Forest, and Closed-Cone coniferous Forest. The Broadleaved Upland forest is dominated by Douglas- fir and Redwood trees species, with a dense shrub layer. The Closed-Cone Coniferous Forest is dominated by a variety o£ tree and shrub species favored in environments where fire is prevalent, such as l~-ol3cone Pine and various Manzanita species. In both of the plant c~mmunities fire scars or signs of past fire activity were plainly visible. None of the plant species observed were species of special concern, rare, threatened, or endangered species. All could be classified aa 'common'. Ponderosa Pine found on site does not appear to be native, instead being planted by the landowner in the recent past. p.1 P.O. Box 509 Radwood Valley CA 95470 v~ce 707,485,721 ! www. ncrm,com 707.485.8962 fax OCT OCT !? 2001 2:53PM I)RVE HULL IHS AGIIY ?0?4626508 17 200! !:5!PM HP LASER.lET 3;'00 In her Biological Re,dew, Ms. Bartolomei presents the f~llowing general recommendations designed to mamtaJa or enhance-wildlife habitat conditions within the project area: · Maintain special habitat elements, including large/broken-top/highly- structured trees, snags, stumps, some LWD piles, & wildlife trails, within landscaping and]or vegetation setback areas. · Create rock outcrops, by piling cleared rock for landscaping and/or in vegetation setback areas. · Create snags, or perching platforms, to encourage raptor foraging. · Implement bird & bat boxes to provide "inaectivores" with an essential habitat element. · Maintain native vegetation within landscaping and vegetation setback .areas. · Spread mulch along roads, on ridge-top bare ground, and within landscaping. · Coordinate/Implement control sPot/patch burns to regu~te fire hazards, and promote healthy, productive re.vegetation. · Min~m~'~_ fen~ I~eed8. She goes on to state, "Upon review of wildlife and biotog&al resources, and implementation of recomrn~nda~nz, the proposed subdivision is not likely to result in significant adverse impacts to wildlife or biological resources evaluated." The existing roadway leading from We~t Standley Street follows a 70-foot non.exclusive easement that traverses several other land ownerships for approximately 4500 feet, while climbing agproximately 800 feet in elevation to where it enters the subject property. The age of this existing roadway is not known, but it appears not to have been constructed in the most recent past. Thi~_ roadway is not surfaced, though I understand that as a part of the planned subdivision, it will be paved to 18' width to the point where it enters patrol #1. It appears that little road reconstruction will be required, as the existing roadway appears for moat part to be of su~eiextt width. There were no areas of instability, or excessive erosion that were noted during my normal vehicular trip up tiaa hill. The watercourses that cross the roadway appear to be minor class HI watercourses, and thoir stream claannels show little evideztce of supporting water flows o£ appreciable volume. It ia my opinion P.O. Box 509 Redwoocl Valley CA 954.70 707,485,7211 www.ncrm,com 707,485.8962 fox IO.3 p.2 OCT OCT 2001 2:S3PM DRVE HULL IHS RGHY ?0?4626508 2001 ]:SIPM HP LRSERJET 3200 that paving fl~e existing roadway to the pO/hr where it enters the property will provide for better year round access, improved vehicular safety during both regular and emezgency situations, and will reduce the potential for sedi_m_entation off' of the existing roadway into watercourses below. Fire in the Western Foothills _. The f~othills west of Ukiah contain a diverse mix ofvei~etation, anal these can be plainly s~en from the project area. When looldn$ across these foot]fi]Is, it is plain that much of the vegetation on these hillsides is similar to that of the project area; small areas supporting conifers mtorm/xed with oak woodland, and brush fields. A majority of the hillsides appear to Be occupied pzedominantly by oak or brush dominated vegetative types. While the author of this report has not researched the spec/ftc fire history of the area, it is known that several large fires burned in the f0othillA in approximately 1949 and 1957. For the most part, the clensity and size of the vegetation au the subject property, and across the foothill view shed reflect .fire activity consistent w/th this time fr_~me. As noted previously, many trees on the subject property show signs of fire scarf/rig from past fires. Fire has been, and will continue to be a factor that influences the foothill~, by modifying the vegetative landscape, and posing a potential risk to inhabitants (and to their rescuers), The frequency and intensity of wildfires are dJ~cult to pre;I/ct, but the western foothill area in general contains fuels sufficient to support fires of a catastrophic nature. For this. reason, it is important to consider the potential impacts of the proposed development on the incidence and intensity of fire in the area, and s~condly, it is important to cons/der the safety of occupants and that ofresponders called W suppress fires in the area. The situation faced by the owners of the subject property is not dissimilar to those of others throughout California; the potential for destructive wildfire increases as vegetation ages, fuel.loading increases, and more people enter the rural-urban interface. The owner(s) of the parcels w/thin the proposed subdivision will have a limited ability to influence the lmhavior of adjacent landowners and the vegetative cond/tion of their properties. For this reason, absent a government sponsored, watershed wide vegetative management protiram (such as the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection's VMP P.O. Box 509 Redwood Valley CA 9547'0 voice 707,485.7211 www. ncrm.com 707,485.8962 fax p.4 p.3 OCT 17 2001 2:S3PM DRVE HULL IHS RGHY ?0?4626508 OCT 17 200~ l:51PM HP LRSERJ~T 3~00 program) one must assume that conditions similar to those currently found on site continue to exist into the futuze. The adjacent parcels are densely covered with vegetation, and dopes tend to be steep. As such, in the instance of a wildfire in the immediate area of the subject property, the use of the ex/sting roadway for fire suppress/on purposes would have to be carefully considered depending on fire conditians. It is likely tha~ under certain conditions, portions of the access roadway would be engulfed in fl~_ _m__es or heavy smoke, m,lrlng ingress and egress problematic from an occupant and crew safety standpoint. The most viable option then would be create a situation where the subdivision parcels would be made less prone to contribute to fire potential into the area, and where in the instance of fire in the area, that occupied areas would have enhanced %urvivability' where occupants could "shelter in place" ff required by adverse conditions. I believe that this is possible through a carefully applied prog~s, m of design standards combined with careful manipulation of the surrounding natural vegetation. These design standards for homes should con~_njn at the least the fo]lowing components: Street signs and addresses should plainly displayed, and should be designed and installed in such a manner that they will aid the prompt location of property. This may include g~drll.g signs at bottom of hill, and intermediate signs installed cooperatively with adjacent landowners when coming uphill. * No~-combustible roof materials such as Glass-A asphalt shingles, slat~ or clay tile, metal, concrete, or terra.cotta tiles. Fire resistant sub-roof. Fire resistant siding such as stucco or masonry. Double pane and tempered glass for windows and skylights. · Use smaller versus larger windows whenever possible. · Use non-fin,-mable screening shutters for windows and skylights. p.5 p.4 P.O. Box 509 Redwood Valley CA 95470 voic= 707.485.7211 www. ncrm.oom 707.486.8962 OCT 17 2001 2:53PM OCT 17 2001 I:$1PM DAVE HULL INS AGNY HP LRSERJET 3200 ?0?4626508 Houses/structures should be positioned whenever possible on level terra/n, or back at least $0' from a drop-off. Topo~raph~ saddles and canyons should also be avoided. * Utilities should be routed underground. · Use of wood outside, such as for decks, fences, decorative covers or roofs, should be minimized. · Outside fuel tanks should maintain proper clearances'from structures and from surrounding vegetation. Fi~e Hydrants should be installed adjacent to each house site. There ahould be minimum water storage of 2500 gallons per residence. If pools or ponds are installed, provisions should be made for removal of water and utilization for fire suppression purposes; such as gravity fed drains down slope, or auxiliary pumps, The fire hydrant system should have a redundant (back up) pumping system that will function in the absence of"grid" electric power. Storage and piping for wa~er systems should be installed underground~ or protected from flame/heat impingement. · Adequate hose bibs should be installed along entire perimeter of house (all four sides) to allow for use during fire. Chimneys and attic vents should be adequately screened to prevent spark movement (1/2" screen on c~imueys, 1/8" screen on all structure vents). In a small area of the property the current landowner has thinned overstory tree and shrub species p~esent to increase accessibility and to diminish fuel loading and potentially fire intensity. This area is approximately three acres in size, and is contained in portions of proposed parcels one through three. I believe that the current activities are appropriate, but they should be formalized for each parcel and housing location. I believe that to properly protect homes in this area, that a comprehensive program of vegetation modlflcatian and Icing.term management will be required. This program would include at least the following components: p.5 P.O. Box 509 Redwood Valley CA 95470 707.485,7211 www, ncrm,com 707.485.8962 OCT !? 200! 2:54P~t u~l 1'! 500! !:$2P~t DAVE HULL IHS AGHY HP LRSERJET 3200 ?0?4626508 1) Create a Defensible Space: · Tins area should be a minimum of 50' cn level ground, and may extend up to 200' depending on slope. · Consider using lawn, stone, bare earth, or concreU~ coverings in this Ornamental ahrubs should be fire resistant, and should not be taller than 18". (A list of fire resistant plans can be obtained from the u.C. Cooperative Extension Office) · Use fire resistant broadleaf trees for shade. · Prune lower tree limbs to 6'-1(~ above ground level in this zone. · Do not plant conifers in this zone. · Minimize or avoid use of wooden fences and trellises, and never attach them to house. Practice "good housekeeping" by cleaning up debris and seasonal accumulations of dead leaves. · Water trees and shrubs periodically to ma/ntain maximum moisture levels. · Prune trees so that no branches overhang, or come with/n 10' of buildings. No l;mbs should be within 15' cf chimneys. Avoid the us~ af plant borders or flower beds containing annual plants d/rectly adjacent to structures; these tend to accum~te debr~ and /ncrease flammability. 2) Create a "Mid-Zone" Defe..nsive Suace: · Th/s area may extend an additional 50 feet on level ground, and extend up to an additional 200' on steeper dopes. p.? p.6 P.O, Box 509 Redwood Valley CA 95470 707,485.7211 www. ncrm.cem 707,485.8962 fax OCT 1 ? 2001 1,il 17 2001 2:54PM DAVE HULL INS AGMY ?074626S08 I:S2PM HP LASERJET 3200 This is the area for landscape trees and shzabs, orchards, and tlardens, bat not for wild, dense woodland vegetation. Thin ornamental or wild shrubs so that they are spaced at least twice as far apart as their d/ameter. Tree cover should be thinned so that tree crowns are not touching, with a minimum of 10' between crowns, with 5 additional feet for every ten degrees of slope. Tree cover in this area should be minimized, with individual trees or small dusters only. Continuous tree cover should be avoids& Prune lower limbs to C-10' abo~e ground level in this zone. Ideally, use only/ire resistant trees and shrubs in this area Create an _Outermost Zone or "b"haded _Fuel Break": This area will extend another 50' on fiat slopes, and up to another 100' on steeper slopes. This is the "wild forest" area, but precauSons will apply. · ~hln mature trees so that crowns are separated by at least 10', with ii additional feet for every ten degrees of slope. · Prune tree limbs to a height of at least ten feet. Prevent furl ladders from develop/ng; thin or remove understory brush or ~rass such that it becomes less likely that ground fires will move into the tree crowns. · Conduct fall season controlled burns to reduce accumulations of dead woody material, slash, or debt/s, and to reduce the number of small plants and herbaceous cover. · Large woody debris should be let in planned locations to provide for wildl/fe habitat~ P.O. Ek~x 509 Redwood Valley CA 95470 vel=, 707.455.7211 www. ncrm.cx)m 707.485.8962 fax p.? OCT 17 2001 2:54PM DRVE HULL INS RGHY 7074626508 OCT 17 2001 l:52PM HP LASER3ET 3~00 Outside of these defensive areas, ] would recommend that natural vegetat/on be mod/fled, subject to Ms. Bartolomefs recommendations, as follows: · Thin or remov~ shrub spec/es to reduce fuel loading and to encourage regrowth of new, juvenile plants, containing higher quality forage. If shrub species are removed via controlled burning, cr small patches cleared using hand or mechanical equipment, clear/rigs should be kept sm__s!br than 1 acre in size.- If possible, subsequent blocks should be located in areas not directly adjacent to freshly cleared blocks. In this manner a mosaic of vegetation o£ different maturity, size, v/sual quality, and forage quality will be created. Special and spec/men trees and skrubs (large size, special qual/t/es, wildlife habitat-cavities, nests, etc.) should always be preserved. Trees should be tlfinned to create a shaded stand wherever possible. That is, trees should be tkixmed so that they are spaced to prov/de 60%.70% crown shading to the ground. In this m,~ner, sprouting of grass and shrub vegetation will be nfini~m& · Avoid planting non-native vegetat/on, and plant fire resistant plants whenever possible. The above guidelines, while general, give a start in plann/ng for a fire safe, and defensible development. I think that once we have had time m d/zcuss th~m, and other issues the affect fire safety such as homeowner education, and specific CC&E's that you are planning for the subdivision, we can refine them for each parcel. I hope that my comments are h~lpful, and that you will call me if you have any further questions. Mark D. Edwards Registered Professional Forester ~v2039 p,9 p.8 P.O. Box 509 Redwood Valley CA 95470 707.485.7211 www.ncrm.com 707.485.8,962 OCT 17 2001 2:54PM DAVE HULL IMS AGMY OCT 17 2001 I:$2PM HP LRSERJET 3200 ?074626S08 p. lG) p.9 To: Mafl~ D. Edwards FFOm-* ~clmifm L Barmlomci Date: October IS, 2001 Re: Biolo~letl Review For Hull/Plf~ero Subdivision (Psrcei ~0~ Thc proposed Hull/Piffero Subdivision is located southwest ofUkiah, Memiocino County, CA, above Gibson Cr~k. Tho projoot consists of subdividing a 40-aom parcvl into tiro rosid~ntial lots of ~8 a~r¢~ge. A bricfbiologioal review, on October 12, 2001, included ~ for existing wildlife spooie8, spooia], habitat featut~ ami potential ~nvimnmen~al i~acts. R~oommendatio-, are addressed to rooowizc and minim~ pom3ti~-~acts to wildlifo populations, vc~t~i.vc diversity, and special hsbit~ elcmcn~. The project area has ~e wil~fe ~, ~~, ~c ~~r ~c~ ~1 bo by f~g ~ ~e hous~ ~, if~c~, h ~fiofl, ~~p~~g ~-~ of~c ~ ~ lilly ~d o~sfi~ ~o ~~ w~Ic ~6n~ ~~ a 'u~' ~ ~ ~~ mov~. N~ ~~ ~ ~t f~ ~fc ~~~ ~v~ ~~g ~~d ~ of~~ ~~, ~~~ ~i~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~; ~1~ s~p~h ~, n~t ~ ~d p~u~g ~~b~ ~n &e pwj~t ~ ~1~ ~ ~ ~~k~ (~koid~ ~I~), ~~ fli~ (~l~pet~ ~~), ~ifo~, v~l~ q~l (~1~ ~lffom~a), ~ jay ~e~l~L S~l~'s j~ (~~a ~dtm), ~k~ ~ (~a~ ~), b~-~ d~ (~wi~ h~n~ co[~bia~), ~ b~k-~ ~ (~ ~i~o~i~). ' ~ ~'s m~ ~ ~t~i ~ ~t~ ~le ~~ ~!~o~. The projea area ~1~ s m~c ofm~ ~ ~d ~it~ ~, h~l~ Mommo H~~d~~, ~od-~ ~e F~ ~ ~ed ~~. A ~ of~ md ~b ~les ~ p~, ~o~ R~w~, ~ug~ ~, ~o~ono ~, ~a bay, P~c ~, T~ Corn ~w ~ BI~ o~ ~g~ w~te ~, S~ ~ ~~ ~ Ce~~, ~sg ~~ ~d poi~n o~ ~~g ~po~ ~ ~, ~~n~ ~~ prepay is ~~ for ~ ~l~ife ~~ ~e ~ ~~ v~ve ~1~~ ~1 ~~ ~~ ~ v~fivo &v~. OCT l? 200! 2:55PM DAVE HULL IMS AGMY ?0?4626508 u~ ~-/ ~UU~ ~:5~PM HP LRSER3~T 3200 p. lO Sgecatt H~t Elements Special habitat elemeuts noted include: many established ~ trsa'ls; snags and/or lnoken-top trees; large wol~,-limbed and/or highly ~ hadwood and conifer h~es; large.woody d~bria (LWD) of varying decay stag~; and'some rock outcrops w~re observ~l. Retaining and implmmnting special habitat elements caa be beneficial for wildlife and hum~n-dov~lopm~t, by ~:o~ natural "posticid~" to remain fonginS near housinS areas. Wamcoms= proU~on po~lial downstream ~; as well, they provide addilional natural habitat, maimain essential resources, habitat elements, and .wildlife movement corridors. The proposed paving of the t~om any additional sedimentation and/or eromion impacts. Avoiding urm~cessary habitat impl~ Sl~'llial habitat £~litlr~, will facililate mi-imizhmg ad~er;¢ impacls to wildlife · Maintain special habitat ¢laueuts, inclu~g lm'ge/broken-lx~p/highly-~ trees, snags, stmnps, some LWD piles, & wildlife h'ails, wltttin landscaping ard/o~ vegelafion setback areas. · Create rook outcrops, by piling cleared rock for landscaping and/or in vegetation selbazk areas. · ~ ma~ or pe~hing platforms, to encourage raptor foragiag. · Implement bird & bat boxea to provide 'fns~tivores" with an essential habitat el~-ment. · Maintain native vegutation within landscaping and vegetation setback areas. · ~ mulch along roads, on ridge-top bare ground, and wi~ain landscaping. · Coordina~/~.~l~-~ coutrol spotJpatch bums to regulaie fire hazards, and promote · Minim;~.~ fencing needs. Upon ~view of wildlife and biological resources, and implumentation of recommendations, the proposed subdivision is not likely to result In significant adverse impacts ~u wildlife or biological resourc~ ~. Thank you fer your attention te this matt~, please contact me al 485-7211, Ext. 12, ii'lime ar~ auy additional questions o~ infmmaHon r~luirements. Je~mifer L. Bartolomei Private Consulting Biologist//0048 North Coast Resoutr. e Manasenaem P.O. Box 509, Redwood Valley, CA 94570 OCT 17 2001 2:55PM DRVE HULL INS RGNY ?0?4626508 OCT 17 2001 I:S3PH HP LRSERJET 3~00 Date 10/5/01 To: Mark Edwards Fron~ Dean Schlichting, Botanist Subject: Western midition subdivision On Friday, October 1~, 2001, I walked through the proposed "western addition' subdivision. I took notes on the plant species and habitats present on the property, the following is a brief description and list of species present. Area Desorlption The property and surro~ areas a~ vegetated by two nmjor plant cornm~mities: Broadlsaved Upland Forest, in young second growth (Mixed ~vergreen Forest- element code 81100), and Closed-Cone Coniferous Forest (Knobcone Pine Forest - element code 83210XHolland, 1986). The Nor~ Coast Coniferous Forest is dominated by a dense over story of Redwood Sequoia semipr~uen~ and Douglas-Fir Psued~stugg.me~/es~ comprising the conifer component on the prope~y. In some places & thick almost impenetrable sh~b laye~ is d~ted by; Manzanita Arcto~zp/~y~os canescens ss~. canescens, Arctostaphylos manzanitu ssp. g~auceseens and Coyote bruzh Bavcharis pilularuz. The Closed Cone conif~ forsst is domh~ted by fir~ speciss; Kuobc~ne pins Pinus atten~t~ Manzanita; Arcto~taphylos glandulo~ s~p. gl~ndulasa, Arctostaphylos canescens ssp. canescens, Arctost~hylos stanfordiana ssp. stanfordiana, and A~eto~aphy~s manzanita ssp. glaucescens, Wavy leafed ceanothus Ceanothus foliosus, and Chamlse Adenostoma fa~iciculatum. OCT 17 2001 2:56PM DAVE HULL IMS AGMY OCT 17 2001 ]:53PM HP LASERJET 3200 ?0?4626508 p.12 p.13 List of flora observed;. Ihbi~t key; f~Broadlea~sd Upland Ferest, c = Closed cone con~rous forest VASCULAR PlaNTS IN DMS[ON CONIFERO?HYTA GYMNOSPRn~,tq PINACEAE Pou~k,ma pi~ Knobcono piot .Ph~ e~e,~ c BRICACEA~ Madronc ArbutuJ .~e~ f Bl~ck oak ~[~erc~ Ten-oak L/tAoca~us d, msOJono f O,egon White Oak CaHfom~ b~y Uv~e~ular~a ca,fore,ca f,¢ V~CUL~ CLAS~ D~COVYL~I~m srmtms ~ woo]~¥v~ ANACARDIACEAE Poi~l oak To2~codou~ron d~er~iobifm A~IERACEAE CAPR~A~ ~c COUlrflOfl commou common OCT 17 2001 2:56PM DAVE HULL IMS AGMY OCT 17 2001 I:S3PM HP LASER3ET 3200 ?0?4626508 p.14 , p.13 ROSACBAE ?oyon//~r~n~le.z .m6utifo ~a Wood rose · S~iclty Monkey Flowe~ M'tm~ aum,ugacm ~ommon f,c COllRnon ~sC COll21~O~ f,c OOmmDl2 Holland, R.F, 1986. Preliminary Descri_o~ons of the Terrestg~ Plant Oommuni~ies o£Californta, California De~t ofFish and Game, Sacramento. Best C., Howell J.T., Knight W. & J., and Wells M., A_ Flora of Sonoma _County. California Native Plant ~k~iety, Sacramento, CA, Bl¢_],~an, J,C. (ed). 1993. The J _epson Manual of the Hi~_ er plants of ~ University of California press, Berkeley, CA. 10-15-01 Dear City Council members: On Wedneday, October 17t~, you will hold an extremely important Council meeting. We ask, as you listen to public input regarding the Hull/Piffero Project, that you keep in mind the unanimous recommendation by the Planning Commission that the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project be denied and that a focused EIR be required. - We definitely support and applaud the Planning Commission's recommendation. We also point out that an EIR was required for the Ford Street Housing/Apartment Project and also for the proposed bridge connecting Orchard and Brush streets. It is our opinion that a subdivision on the Western hillside has much larger impacts and implications than these two other projects and therefore should definitely require an EIR. The decision/action you undertake on Wednesday night could be this City Council's legacy. It is up to each of you to see what that legacy will be. Sincerely, Ruth & Michael Hunter 1208 West Standley Street Copies to each CC member: Mayor Phil Ashiku, Vice Mayor Phil Baldwin, Eric Larson, Roy Smith, Kathy Libby October 10, 2001 Dr. Phillip AsSr City of Ukich/ c/o City C~rk's Office 300 Se ~ratn~ Avenue CA 95482 Re: HulVPiffero Mitigated Negative Declaration Dear Mayor Ashiku: As you well know, the Planning Commission recently voted unanimously to recommend that you deny the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Hull/Piffero Project and require a focused EIR. The Planning Commission did this because they found that there was not sufficient evidence that the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately reduced the effects of the proposed project. As a member of the public, I provided comments and questions during the comment period that were insufficiently responded to in the Staff response to public comments. Staff's determination that certain issues I raised were insignificant was clearly refuted by what would be considered "expert" opinions given during the Planning Commission hearing. You should be able to read those comments in the record of the heating. Comments made by Commissioners and "experts" during the heating should have caused Staff to re-evalute the adequacy of the information relied upon to determine the appropriateness of the Mitigations and the recommendation being made by Staff to Council to accept the Negative Declaration. I will briefly reiterate some of the issues disputed by "experts" as well as examples of inadequate study: 1. Julie Bacca, who served on the City's Hillside Ordinance Committee pointed out that a Report co-authored by her was incorrectly referenced and relied upon in the Initial Study. She also expressed grave concern about the potential for landslides that may impact the homes near the comer of Standley and Highland Streets, indicating that further study should be done. She also expressed concern about the amount of water that the greywater · systems would be carrying and recommended City Sewer be considered as an alternative. 2. Thomsen, the Geotechnical Engineer, for Hull/Piffero, made the claim that he did not know of any case where a greywater system was the cause of instability or landslides. Planning Commissioner Bob Wallen pointed out that was an incorrect statement and that he himself had been an "expert" witness in several legal cases where that exact problem was involved. I personally know of a case on the Eastern Hills on Watson Road where the greywater system was the direct cause of a hillside failure. Therefore, Staff's responses to my two questions about hillside stability and greywater systems was totally refuted and could be deemed inadequate and inaccurate. 3. The visual analysis prepared by the apphcant clearly did not take into consideration the fire clearances that would be required around the houses and auxiliary structures. The firm's representative that was present at the hearing stated that they did not analyze the canopy make up and therefore · would not be able to comment on what the visual impact would be during the winter when trees and bushes may have lost their fohage. If they can not comment on the seasonal impact because they did not analyze the canopy make up of the trees and bushes, how can they predict with any accuracy what the growth progression will be around the homes? 4. Clearly, the direct contradiction of"experts" should result in a minimum of a peer review. 5. Need I mention FIRE? There are additional considerations when reviewing the record. I would encourage you to pay close attention to those issues brought out during the heating as they are those items that are the most inconsistent with the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration before you. Here are a few CEQA points to consider (from the Governor's website on CEQA): An EIR must be prepared if the cumulative impact may be significant and the project's incremental effect, though individually limited, is cumulatively considerable. "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. Under 15065. Mandatory Findings of Significance: "A lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment and thereby require an EIR to be prepared for the project where any of the following conditions occur: (c) The project has possible environmental effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. "Cumulatively 'considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects as defined in Section 15130. (d) The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. In addition: CEQA requires that decisions be informed and balanced CEQA recognizes that in determining whether and how a project shouM be approved, a public agency has an obligation to balance a variety of public objectives, including economic, environmental, and social factors and in particular the goal of providing a decent home and satisfying living environment for every Californian. I strongly urge the City Council to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation and deny the Mitigated Negative Declaration and require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. In addition, since the City has received information, which can be considered expert opinion, inconsistent with the findings of Staff, there should be peer review of all findings and the Initial Study should not be attached to the EIR to provide the basis for limiting the impacts discussed in the EIR. Clearly the conclusions resulting fi~om the current record have been determined to have significant flaws and the review of and elaboration of previous studies is warranted. Thank you for your consideration of this serious matter before you. I hope that you will make the fight decision and require finther analysis before allowing such a si~ificant project to move forward. Sincerely, Chamise Cubbison P.O. Box 206 Ukiah, CA 95482 A concerned west-side homeowner Cc: Council Members Baldwin, Libby, Smith, Larson, and City Manager Horsley October 1§, 2001 M~mbers of the Ukiah City Council ukiah, California : Dear Council Members, I We have lived in Ukiah since 1963; we raised and educated our three children here. We love this area and are very con- cCrned about Preserving our com~un£t¥'s rural "flavor." ' We also Understand the need for growth and development if our community is to prosper and enjoy a healthy economy. This i~ why we support the Butl~iffero project being proposed for d~veloping a mod~s~.subdivision on the west side hills. We De- l lieve that this project would not have a negative impact on ghe egvironment~.$nd would generate sizeable tax dollars to the city. ! We were present at the Planning Commission ~earing on 9/26/01 w~en this proposed project was discussed. Many'of the comments m~de by local residents seemed concerned with the appearance the ~evelopment wOuld have from the valley floor. In an attempt to c~mpensate for the over-cutting on the property to the north, I! understand that Hull and Piffero plahted over 1400 redwood ~t~ees after cOnsulting a local reforestation firm. ! It appears to us that this 'project has been carefully thought ~ut and is tastefully don~' to preserve the natural beauty of this ~and and its hills. This was clearly demonstrated in the Visual ~nalysis Report. , constantl delays for reasons of needing further reports and ~tudies is ca~sing considerable Cost to Bull and Piffero; dis- ~ouraging tel say the least ~t seems to us that some of the ~equests are ~nreasonable and just a way to drain the financial ~esources of ~hese two men in an effort to keep them from buil~- ~ngo ! I At the ~lanning Commission Bearing, we heard considerable . '!nit picking"I such as comments about noise. Some heard an ATV; ~nother a gun shot; another, a duck quacking. Another complaint t;hat sounded!petty to us was about lights twinkling from windows ~t night. D~stracting? To us, it is charming. i In Summary, we feel that this development, so tastefully p~'Lanned, would, be a wonderful assetAUkiah, both f~nancially in ~ax revenues, 'and in beauty. Please do not continually dela~ t~is project exhausting their resources. This will not only h~ rt Hull and Piffero but discourage others who might want to d~velop in our valley. We urge Your prompt approval of this project. Re~ectfully, Gerald A. Keiffer Marguerite M. Keiffer 275 Lover's Lane Ukiah, CA 95482 fl % % 10/1G/2001 15:82 707-838-4420 BRUNSING ASSOCIATES 8ACE Geotechnical A Division o¢ Brunsing Associates, Inc. October 15, 2001 11674.1 Mr. David Hull 275 West Gobbi Street Ukiah, CA 95482 RE: Engineering Geologic Reconnaissance and Review of Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Reports, Proposed Hull- Piffero Subdivision, West Standley Street, Ukiah, California Dear Mr. Hull: Introduction This letter summarizes the results of our reconnaissance of your proposed Hull- Pfffero Minor Subdivision, West Standley Street, A. P. No. 001-040-45, Ukiah, California. The project site was previously investigated by Thomsen Consulting Engineers (TCE); the resulting reports are listed in the Research and Reconnaissance section of this letter. The subdivision is located on the nose of the ridge west and southwest of Highland Avenue and West Standley Street, respectively, and south of Gibson Canyon. The subdivision is accessed by a rough-graded road off West Standley Street. A seasonal drainage ravine ("Standley Street Canyon") extends downslope to the northeast from the approximate center of the property. We understand that the City of Ukiah Planning Commission has requested an independent, professional opinion of the project feasibility, primarily due to concerns about slope stability and potential impacts to downslope neighbors. We understand that several issues about the project were voiced by Julie Sowma- Bawcom, co-author of California Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 91-16, at a City of Ukiah Planning Commission meeting. Her comments are summarized as follows: · The City sewer system should be extended to serve the planned houses to avoid potential slope instability due to saturation of the hillside from leach field effluent. P.O. Box 749, Windsor, CA 95492 Phone.: (707) 838-0780 Fax: (707) 838-44,2.0 10/16/2001 15'02 787-838-4428 BRUNSING ASSOCIATES PAGE Mr. David Hull October 15, 2001 Page2 11674.1 · No seismic/fault calculations were presented in the (TCE) reports for large fill slopes or water tank foundations. · An "inundation area" should be mapped in the event that the 115,000 gallon water tank should rupture. · · Debris slide/avalanche danger within the anmey Street Canyon". "St - The purpose of our services, as outlined in our Service Agreement dated October 5, 2001, was to evaluate the geologic feasibility of the project, including potential impacts to downslope neighboring properties, Research and Reconnaissance Our Principal Engineering Geologist and Project Geologist met with Mr. David Hull at the site on October 10, 2001, and performed a brief geologic reconnaissance of the five-parcel, approximately 39-acre property. Our reconnaissance included observation of the unpaved roads and t_urnouts,._the planned buildiiig ai'aa'~; and the ci:i-t{ca! si0pes at tl~-e'P~-'0perry. W~ also hiked the entire length of the "Standley Street Canyon", looking for weak soil deposits and unstable slopes. As part of our reconnaissance, we reviewed the following published geologic references and previous consultants reports and plans: · Landslides and Engineering Geology of the Western Ukiah Area, Central Mendocino County, California, 1991, Open File Report 91-16, California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG); · Ukiah Sheet, G~ologic Map of California, 1960, CDMG. · Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report, Proposed House, Hull-Piffero Property, Parcel 3, APN-001-040-45, Ukiah, California, 1999, File No. 9933, Thomsen Consulting Engineers (TCE); Engineering Geology Report, Hull-Piffero Minor Subdivision, APN-001-040- 45, Ukiah, California, 1999, TCE; · Revised Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report, Hull-Piffero Minor Subdivision, APN-001-040-45, Ukiah, California, 1999, TCE. · Tentative map, October 23, 2000; Site Plan, Road Improvement Details, and Roadway Entrance .Plan, revised July 17, 2001; prepared by Franz Engineering. 03 10/i6/2001 15:02 707-838-4428 BRUNSING ASSOCIATES Mr. David Hull October 15, 2001 Page 3 PAGE 11674.1 Site Conditions We understand that the existing roads at, and to, the pr. operty were rough- graded in the early 1970's. A fire trail has also existed for many years before the roads were graded. No landslides were observed on the property, except for the la~dslide encroaching headward into Parcel 1 from the northerly neighbor's property. Franciscan bedrock is exposed in portions of the road cuts, as well as the seasonal creek channel within the "Standley Street Canyon". The "Standley Street Canyon" is a "V'-shaped ravine with a very steep slope gradient. Only one old landslide scarp (very steep slough area), approximately 20 feet kigh by 15 feet wide, was observed within the "Standley Street Canyon"; the landslide debris has been carried away and the scarp is now revegetated. No large colluvial soil deposits were observed within the seasonal creek channel. .The la r gest a cc:u- .mula fion- of-so il*-and-rock-debris--wa-s-a-p-p-r-o-~im-~t-~ yly-l-5- efefefef~t-lb-r/g 'by about 5 feet wide and 4 feet high. This debris pile appears old and partially stabilized by a clump of trees, approximately 8 trunks, 2 to 4 inches in diameter, growing within the lower end of the debris pile. Several other small accumulations of soil and rock debris less than a few feet across, were observed in the seasonal creek channel. The seasonal creek empties into a storm drain with a concrete head wall. We understand that the storm drain crosses Standley Street and empties into Gibson Creek. Sand, gravel,, and cobbles were observed on 'the bottom of the storm drain. Discussion and Conclusions · The subdivision project appears feasible from an engineering geologic standpoint. The TCE reports adequately describe the geologic conditions of the property. The recommendations presented in the TCE reports generally conform to accepted standards of practice. Our responses to specific concerns raised during the project review process are as follows: The ridge slopes at the property are generally stable; we concur that the steep slopes surrounding the drainage ravines should be avoided by structures and leach fields. · Local areas with relatively gentle slopes appear stable and therefore, suitable for leach fields, pending percolation test results. · The Project Geotechnical Engineer/Engineering Geologist should field review the leach field areas once percolation tests are performed to confirm that the leach field effluent will not adversely affect the local slope stability. 10/1G/2001 15:02 707-838-4428 BRUNSING ASSOCIATES PAGE 05 Mr. David Hull October 15, 2001 Page 4 116%~.1 · The Froject Geotechnical Engineer/Engineering Geologist should provide 1997 Uniform Building Code seismic design criteria, as well as site specific seismic response spectra, for the planned water tank(s). · Water tanks and other structures designed in accordance with Uniform Building Code and current seismic standards are well suited to withstand the effects of strong ground shaking from nearby earthquakes; an "inundation area" map in the event of water tank rupture appears unnecessary if the tank is properly designed. · Since no large colluvial soil or landslide deposits were observed in the "Standley Street Canyon", the potential for a catastrophic debris avalanche appears low. The subdivision'project, as currently designed, should not significantly increase this low debris avalanche potential. · The accumulation of organic debris within the seasonal creek channel, especially tree branches as well as minor amounts of soil and rock materials, could clog the City's storm drain, causing'localized flooding at the terminus of the "Standley Street Canyon". 'The storm, drain should be periodically -d caned- out-by-the- City't o- prevent s rrch-fl'o-o-din- .g~Th-is-i-s- awe-~i~h n g 'c-6h--ctf ~ ofib-K that should not be effected by the planned subdivision as currently designed. Limitations This engineering geologic reconnaissance was performed in accordance with the usual and current standards of the profession, as they relate to this, and similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is provided as to the conclusions and professional advice presented in this letter. Our conclusions are based upon reasonable geologic and engineering interpretation of available data. Changes in the conditions of a site can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural events or to human activities on this, or adjacent sites. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate codes and standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, this letter may become invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside of our control. Therefore, this letter is subject to review and revision as changed conditions are identified. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this letter are based on certain specific project information regarding type of construction and building location that has been made available to us. L ?/' 3/2'{qE" ' 5:82 787-~33-4,¢..28 BRUNSIk!G ASSOC]'ATE$ PAGE 06 Mr. Da vid Hull October 15, 2001 Page 5 11674.1 If any conceptual changes are undertaken during final project design, we should be allowed to review them in light of this letter to determine if our recommendations are still applicable. Respectfully submitted, Erik E. Olsborg Bret D. Mclntyre . Engil%e_e_r_i_ng .G_eologis_t _-._ 107.2_ ................................. Pro. ject Geologist EEO/BDM/PRD/mjw CC; Mr. David Hull Mr. Ric Piffero Thornsen Consulting Engineers Soil Engineering and Geology Zice'nsed by the California Bocrrd for Professional E'nginecrs and £and Surveyors 1760 Men'in Road Lakcport, CA 95453 Tel. No. 707.263.8303 FAX: 707.262.1192 etnail: ~b_.er ml~! October 16, 2001 Mayor and Members of the Ukiah City Council 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah, CA 95482 Subject: ~. ,.~ 17' Z01jl CITY OF UKIAfl flANNING DEP[ Response to Comments of Julie Bawcom Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of September 26, 2001 RE: Hull- Piffero Minor Subdivision APN 001-040-45 Dear sirs: I prepared the Soil Engineering and Geology reports for the Hull-Piffero Minor Subdivision which will be on your meeting agenda of October 1.7, 200 I. During the Planning Commission meeting of September 26, 2001, Ms. Julie Bawcom of Ukiah made several comments about my reports. The purpose of this letter is to reply to her comments as recorded in the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting. In general, Ms. Bawcom's comments were unfounded, poorly informed and in some cases complete falsehoods. She made so many statements of misinformation that it is hard to know where to begin. I have provided just some examples of her misinformation in the following paragraphs. Incidentally, Ms. Baweom is not a licensed civil or soil engineer. Yet many of her comments were about these subjects, a field where she is obviously not an expert. 1. Ms. Bawcom stated that the reports did not contain any "seismic/fault calculations and/or information for large filled slopes or for the water tank foundation." This is a complete falsehood. The geology report for the subdivision contains an extensive analysis of site seismieity and faulting including horizontal accelerations for tank foundation design. The design of the tank foundation is further discussed in the soil report. The structural engineer for the tank foundation design has already used this information to design the water tank to withstand a Magnitude 8 earthquake. Secondly, large fill slopes will not be constructed on this project. In any case, the soil report contains several recommendations regarding fill Placement and any knowledgeable civil or geotechnicai engineer would see by simple inspection that these recommendations are commonly used to stabilize fill slopes during seismic events. u~smOM.l.~ l ? ~N ~yor and Cily Council o£ Ukiah Hull - Piffero Minor Subdivision Page 2 Oclobcr 16, 2001 2. Ms. Bawcom "notcd that the greatest problem regarding the Gcotcchnical Keport was the public safcty issue whereby there was no mention of debris slides/avalanche danger." This is also completely untrue. Both the soil report and geology report discuss slope stability issues. As any real expert would know, slope stability investigations include an analysis of the potential for debris slides as well as all other types of landslides. As a matter of fact, therc are about 20 types of landslides not including complex slides which are combination of two or mom landslide types. My investigation considcrcd all types of landslide potcndai, not just the two she mentioned. The simple fact is that exccpt for the one landshde on the .north property boundary, caused by grading on the adjoining property, potential for future landslides is not significant as long as the grading recommendations in my reports are followed. In. particular, the proposed development will not increase the potential for debris slides. 3. Ms. Bawcom referrcd specifically to a canyon which rougMy parallcls Standley Street which flows caStcrly starting in thc Hull-Piffero property. "She stated the Standley Street canyon could potentially give way and there are two existing homes in its path..."As it happens her report of 1991 spccifically discussed this canyon..Her report stated, "Where this ravine crosses Standley, fill has been placed for the road grade, but no storm drain crosses under Standley to convey flood waters to Gibson Creek. Instead the drainagc channel is diverted through two residential backyards where it is abruptly blocked." This statement is complctcly untrue. A culvert carrics the flow from this creek into the storm drainage system. This culvert has been present since the late 1950's. Furthermore, I have traversed this drainage all the way from its beginning on the Hull-Piffero property to the culvert. The stream channel is not filled with debris and therefore, does not represent a debris flow hazard. 4. Ms. Bawcom "questioned whether the proposcd Gcotechnical Study would set high enough standards for the west hills as compared to similar studies prepared for the Bay Area Hillsides." As it happens I have prepared several similar studies in the Bay Area for }argc residential developments in hillside area. The standard used in thc Bay Area studies are exactly the same that I used in this study. Again, Ms. Bawcom is providing misinformation. 5. Ms. Bawcom questioned thc feasibility of using lcach fields to provide onsite sewage disposal. Her statements make it clear that she is largely ign.orant of leach field design. standards. She "noted placement of septic system in the fractured bedrock would not be .. Mayor and City Council of Uki;~h Htfll - ])iffero Minor Subdivision .Page 3 Oclober 16, 2001 feasible." This is clearly untrue. Many leach fields have been successfully installed in fractured sandstone throughout Mcndocino County. Highly fi'acmrcd sandstone can provide excellent disposal and treatment of effluent. I have excavated test pits in the project area and based on my experience dcsigming leach fields in Mendocino County it is my opinion that leach ficlds will perform well at this site. Incidentally, Ms. Bawcom is not authorized to perform leach field investigations in Mendocino County and, therefore, does not have any expert/sc in this subject. 6. Ms. Bawcom suggests that leach fields in the project area w/Il cause landslides. In my 30 years of experience as an soil engineer and engineering geologist I have never seen a landslide which was caused by a leach field, tn the several cases I have investigated whcrc it was alleged that a leach field had caused a landslide it also happened that the landslide occurred during a period of extraordinary rainfall in an area where many other landsl/des-had-°ccu~'ed-which-were-°bvi°aq~t aSs0cmtedwith a leach field. The attempt to blame the leach field for thc landslide was always instigated by a plaintiff's atlomcy trying to obtain insurance coverage or sue some unfortunate contractor. If Ms. Bawcom knew anything about leach fields she would know that the environmental health code prohibits placing leach fields on steep slopes subject to potential slope instability. Furthermore, there arc several alternatives to leach fields such as aerobic systems which reduce thc amount of water which infiltrates into the ground. In conclusion, Ms. Bawcom's presentation at the Planning Commission meeting on September 26, 2001 provided misinformation, factual inaccuracies and uninformed opinions. Ms, Bawcom is not an expert in these issues and her comments should be ignored by the City Council.. Very truly yours, TH~MSEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS Nell A. Thomsen Licensed Civil Engineer, CE 35556 Licensed Geoteclmical Engineer, GE 2044 Registered Geologist, RG 3762 Certified Engineering Geologist, EG 1148 attachment: professional resume ~00 ' d u~smoq£~l !oN Engineering Geologist 1760 Men-itt Road Lakeport, CA 95453 Tel: 707.263.8303 cmail: FAX 707.262.1192 nthomsen~saber, net Education: · University of Minnesota at Duluth, B.Sc. (Geology), 1976 · University of Califom/a, Berkeley, M.Eng. (Geotechrdcal Engineering), 1981 · British Columbia Institute of Technology, Dipl. Technology (Min/ng), .1.974 Professional Re istrations: ' Geotechnical (Soil) Engineer- GE 2044 · Certified Eng/neer/ng Geolog/st - EG 1148 · Licensed Tax Preparer-Califora/a · Civil Engineer - C 3 5 556 · Geologist- RG 3762 Professional Exnerie r~. 1988-1h'esent: Thomsen Consulting Engineers I have provided geotechnical and geolog/cal eng/neer/ng consulting services to governmental agencies, commercial and resident/al developers, farmers, vineyards, homeowners and insurance companies. My areas of expertise include investigation and evaluation of the following: · Slope Stability and Landslides · Groundwater and hydrogeology · Seismic Hazards · Grading and Foundation Design · Construction Inspection · Earthquake Damage · Settlement and Subsidence · Expansive Soil · Soil Science · Agricultural Ponds Resume: Nell A. Thomsen Page 2 1984-1988. DCM/Thomsen Consulting Engineers, Walnut Creek, Califomia, Principal and Senior Engineer. 1982-1984: Kleinfelder & Associates, Walnut Creek, California, Senior Engineer. 1981-1982: Woodward-Clyde Consultants, San Francisco, California, .Project Engineer. '1979-1981' Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeleyl California, Graduate Student Research Assistant while attending graduate school. 1976.1979: Klohn Leonoff conSUltants, Vancouver, Br/tish Colmnbia, Project Geologist 1974-1975: Piteau, Gadsby, MacLeod, Vancouver, British Columbia, Field Geologist and Laboratory Technician. 973' British Columbia Department of Mines, Memtt, British Columbia, Field Geologist while attending Br/t/sh Columbia Institute of Technology. 1971-1972: Silver Standard Mines, Vancouver, British Columbia, Field Geologist. 1969-1971- Evergreen Exploration, Smithers, British Cohtmbia, Field Geolog/st and Geophysical Technic/an. October 15, 2001 To: From: Subject: Board of Directors, Ukiah Valley Fire District Ukiah Valley Fire Volunteer Firefighter's Association J.P.A.- Position Statement The Ukiah Valley Fire Volunteer Firefighter's Association (UVFVFA) has been an integral part of the emergency response capabilities of this District since the contract for services with the City of Ukiah was terminated in 1989. During this time each and every volunteer has served under an effective and enlightened Policy of equality with staff as concerns rank and responsibility. This equality acknowledges the.training and dedication this Association demonstrates by leaving their jobs and families to respond to' emergencies within the community at large. Further, equality among the personnel of this District has been directly responsible for the development of a solid team ethic within this department. This team ethic has served the community on each and every emergency dispatch. The recent barrage of articles on the J.P.A. placed in the local paper and on flyers (example attached) circulated within the Ukiah area by the Ukiah Fire Department's Employee Association serve to discredit each and every member of our firefighting team. In particular, we feel that the J.P.A. would place our members under the charge of Ukiah Fire Department staff personnel who have little to no appreciation of our place and value on an emergency scene. This disparaging treatment would be intolerable and completely foreign to that afforded our members during our tenure with the Ukiah Valley Fire District. A hostile working environment beneficial to none would undoubtedly result in the loss of well-trained and committed volunteers to the community. The UV~VFA has made every effort to maintain a position of neutrality on the subject of the J.P.A. The actions and words of the Ukiah Fire Department Employee's Association reinforce their inability to work with volunteer firefighter's on the basis of equality. The UVFVFA can not support the J.P.A. until such time as this group can demonstrate a genuine acceptance of parity among all firefighter's. Anything less would negate the immeasurable value the volunteer represents to emergency services. Tom Fletcher President, UVFVFA Attachment: cc: Ukiah City Council To: Citizens of Ukiah From:Local 3686 - City of Ukiah Professional Firefighters Date: 10/03/01 Dear citizen, we are talking to you today because we feel the public must know what is being proposed for Fire Department services in your city. A little over two years ago, your city began looking at different service options of Fire service for the entire valley. What has come out of that is the idea to combine the city of Ukiah FD and the Ukiah Valley Fire Dist. into one department. This is a good concept that we fully support. However, what is currently being pushed forward by your city council is placing you, the city taxpaying citizen, at dsk while more than doubling the level of service that residents outside city limits currently receive. The big problem with this is the fact that the city is paying 71.5% of the overall budget of the new combined agency. The UVFD currently operates two stations with one person on duty every day at each station. This means if you live outside the city limits and your house is on fire, the initial response you receive is one person in a fire engine. OSHA demands that a minimum of four people be on scene before an intedor attack on the fire can take place. That means your house, if you live outside of city limits, is guaranteed to sustain heavier damage in the event of a fire than if you lived in the City. In the City, we have a minimum of four people on duty every day. The only exception to OSHA law on entedng a structure with less than four people on scene is a known rescue situation. How effective do you think one person is going to be in rescuing you and your family in a fire situation? Eventually more people will show up, however in critical situations every single Second delayed increases damage to your home and decreases your chances of survival. Anyone who tells you otherwise is completely misleading you. The Ukiah Valley Fire District is currently providing medical service with one person backing up Ukiah Ambulance Service. That one person is allowed to per[orrn medical service on a basic level only. Your city currently operates it's own ambulance transport service staffed at a paramedic level. We put two to four paramedics on the scene' of every call. If you live in the district, you only get one or two' paramedics depending on how many the local private provider has' on duty that day. This becomes extremely important when you consider that over 80% of the calls that fire departments respond to nationwide are medical calls. What is currently being proposed, is to combine the City with the Distdct and contract with CDF to staff the north station. On the surface this may sound like a good idea. We have spent the last three years looking at this plan. The council has been convinced that it is a g°od idea by your city manager and the District fire chief. He conveniently was hired by the city after our last chief retired to help the City decide if a JPA was desirous or feasible. The new level of sen/ice in the District will be two firefighters minimum on every call. CDF will staff the districts north station, two firefighters will be at the District south station, one of which will be a paramedic & be allowed to function at that level. The City's main station will still have four people on duty as a minimum, but · Page 1 !;.ss will be paramedics since some will now be in the District. The Distdct currently has five full time firefighters to cover their two stations. Only one of those is currently licensed as a paramedic, but he is not allowed to work as one. For the last ten years, your City has only hired firefighter/paramedics as an entry-level position. With the addition of Distdct personnel & moving paramedics to cover the District south station, this lowers the amount of paramedics that come to your house in the unfortunate situation that you or your family member needs us. Again, anyone who tells you this new plan does not decrease the level of service responding to your home may be misleading you. Another thing the council is convinced of is that this plan saves money. The initial savings to the City is $70,000. That is nice, but not a very big portion of a $2,000,000 budget. They are convinced the City will save big dollars in the future on shadng apparatus replacement costs. We do not feel the City has to purchase any new fire apparatus for 8 to 10 years. These savings come at an overall reduction of five personnel. This will be done by attrition, not layoffs. However, we do not believe that these services can be provided with fewer people than the two departments currently have. Both your City and the Fire District are understaffed at their current staffing levels. Obviously, the District is severely understaffed. To Suggest or imply we can provide the same service with even fewer personnel shows no regard for the public's or firefighter safety. This plan may look good to accountants in the boardroom, but at what cost? The fact that we are understaffed is not just our opinion, but is based on staffing patterns of the National Fire Protection Agency, which is a nationally recognized agency that puts out guidelines for safety, gear, apparatus, sprinklers, etc. Ail of our apparatus and safety gear we purchase must meet NFPA standards and yet their staffing guidelines are ignored. We do support the idea of a valley wide fire service, but adamantly believe the UVFD must increase their staffing dramatically to make it work. The City is projected to pay 71.5% compared to the Districts 28.5% of the overall budget of this JPA. Yet the JPA board will be split 50/50, which means you pay for, 71.5% of the bill for only a 50% say in how it delivers service. If any of this concerns you please contact your city manager or council member and tell them you will not stand for it. We, your firefighters, would support it if it makes sense. We do not believe your city taxes should be used to increase county services with no benefit to you. We have told the council these things listed above through committee work several times & have been ignored. They choose to believe an individual they hired from the Distdct to analyze this for them rather than listen to their own employees. Most of your city firefighters grew up and continue to live here, still believing this is not a good thing for their families or yours. Please help yourselves & us by contacting the City and telling them this is not acceptable. The information above is factual and true to the best of our knowledge. We are not attempting to confuse or tdck anyone for our own personal gain. Firefighters become firefighters because of a deep need to help others; sometimes this requires the ultimate sacrifice & yet no matter what, firefighters continue to show up for works every day. We thank you for your time and help in this urgent matter. The council would like to put ~.heir plan in place as soon as possible, we believe that it must be reevaluated. Sincerely, Ci.h./of Ukiah Professional Firefighters. Page 2 From The Desk October 15, 2001 Dr. Phillip Ashiku, Mayor City of Ukiah c/o City Clerk's Office 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 CITY CL.r:SK,S DEPARTMENT Re: Hull/Piffero Mitigated Negative Declaration Dear Mayor Ashiku, I am very concemed about the proposed Hull/Piffero project. I have lived in Ukiah for most of my 27 years and have been lucky not to see a major fire in the western hills. This community has not always been so lucky. I remember what it was like when, at the age of 5, I saw Cow Mountain covered in flames. I remember people being scared about the possibility of the fire reaching the valley floor. I was scared because I lived near in the Talmage area. With the winds that this valley gets, if a major fire was to take place in the western hills it could turn into a "Fire Storm" that could destroy xvhat thousands of people for well over 100 years have been xvorking so hard to build. We must remember ~vhat happened in Oakland, Laguna Beach, and Malibu. We live in a time where the seasonal weather can no longer be predicted. Because of "global warming" ~ve have been seeing our patterns of heat and cold, rain and snmv, change over the past few years. Our summers are no longer dry. The Russian River has not flooded for a number of years now. We do not know what the impact of cutting into the hills, building roads, and putting in septic systems ~411 be. We also do not know that the impact ~vill be from removing vegetation. We could be setting ourselves up for disaster. I do not want to live through a "Fire Storm" that could ~5pe out this entire community. I also do not want to see our beautiful hills destroyed because the proper precautions did not take place. I am urging you to require an EIR for this project. Only then can the true dangers be discussed and solutions, if any, can be developed. Sincerely, William D. French, Jr. 756 S. Oak Street Apt. V Ukiah, CA 95482 Cc: Council Members Baldwin, Libby, Smith, Larson, and City Manager Horsley Thomsen Consulting Engineers Soll En~g and Geolo~ 17~ ~ ~ T~ NO. ~7~.~3 F~ 707~.11~2 :---- :- - ..... -- _ -_ il l III · ' d ,, Ootober 1 :~, 2001 M.r. David H~1I 275 West C,-obbi Streo~ UI~ CA 95482 FAX.: 462.6508 : .. Subject: .Seistn~ l)esiKn Criteria Hull-I'i~ero Minor Subdivsion APN APN 001-04045 Dear Mr. Hull: I am provic~g my recommem~ions regarding seismic design criteda for yc~r proposed minor subdivision. These are being provided as suggested by BACE Geoteclmic~ in ~ letter of October 15, 2001. Normally, this information Wo01d be provided during the building permit applic, ation stage of development. · I Thc only known seolo~cal hazard at tl~ site is seis~c shaking caused by' an earthquake on a nearby ~ztlt. Thc site is not crossed by the surface m ot'a known o~. uako fault. Ther~ore,. it isn't likely that sur~ee clisplaoement ~long an active e~e fault w01 ooe~. Tho site is und~nin by bedrock so there isn't a. potential for liquefaction. Tire nearest active fault is Maacan~ Fanlt which is located 2.5 miles to the e~. The San ~ Fault is located 26. 5 reties to the southwest. r~oomm~datiom f~r'~¢ ~ fa~or~ for tl~ ~i~ are ~ in T~ble I ' · In my op'mion, the site will be subjeot to at leas~ one episode ofslrong grotmd shakin,' g d~rins th~ ~ of~ proje~ ..:. . .. uas,,.ot~t t ! eH o, ~~1: Seismic Design Parameters for the Hull - Piffero ~inor Subdivision L __ iii __ _ ii ii i_. ii Soil Profile Type ~ '' ii _ iii ii ii Nm-Sourc razor, N. in Il Il . Nc~r-Some Factor, N,' Il II Iii I o I I III I_ I I II Il . 0.40 i i i iiiii i Sc 0.4o 0.56 Jllll , I II · 1.2 1.6 THOMSON CONSULTING ENGIN~~ NSI A. Thomsen 2001 .I. _, I -. .'i ! AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. 9a DATE: October 17, 2001 REPORT SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE HULL/PIFFERO SUBDIVISION AND USE PERMIT PROJECT. SUMMARY: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the Hull/Piffero 5-parcel Subdivision and Use Permit project on a 40-acre parcel on the western hillside above Ukiah. This environmental document is intended to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which requires environmental review to be completed prior to final decision-making on development projects. The City Council must discuss the proposed Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, determine if it adequately identifies potentially significant adverse environmental impacts, and decide if the proposed mitigation program adequately eliminates the impacts or reduces them to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. In order to adopt the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Council must use its independent judgment and find that on the basis of the entire record before it, there is no substantial evidence that the project, as mitigated, will have a significant effect on the environment. If the Council is unable to make this finding, it must require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The Subdivision and Use Permit applications will be publicly noticed and scheduled for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council at a later date after the environmental document is certified. (continued on page 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discuss the Mitigated Negative Declaration and determine whether it can be adopted for the proposed project, or if an Environmental Impact Report must be required. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: Do not discuss the document and provide direction to staff. Citizen Advised: Publicly noticed according to the Ukiah Municipal Code / All surrounding and interested persons provided individual notices Requested by: Charley Stump, Director of Planning and Community Development Prepared by: Charley Stump, Director of Planning and Community Development Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager and David Rapport, City Attorney Attachments: 1. Mitigated Negative Declaration (distributed to Council on October 3, 2001) 2. Comment letters and responses to comments (distributed to Council on October 3, 2001) 3. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated September 26, 2001 4. Planning Commission Minutes, dated September 26, 2001 5. Correspondence received from the Urban Creeks Council of California, dated September 25, 2001, and Summary of Responses. candace'r/--Io}sleyl BACKGROUND: Last December, Staff prepared an Initial Environmental Study of the proposed Subdivision and Use Permit project. The Subdivision involves the creation of five parcels on an approximate 40-acre parcel, and the Use Permit is to allow the construction of a single-family residence on one of the parcels. In addition, the Use Permit is intended to "legalize" a number of unauthorized grading and construction activities on the site after-the-fact (see project description in the Initial Study). The December 2000 Study revealed that a number of potentially significant adverse environmental impacts would result from the project, and staff required the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. These impacts included significant effects on the aesthetics and visual quality of the area, soil erosion and other geologically related concerns, and fire protection. In addition, staff concluded that the project was expected to be growth inducing, and have adverse cumulative effects related to visual quality and fire protection. Subsequent to Staff's determination to require an Environmental Impact Report for the project, the applicants contracted with a professional consulting firm specializing in the preparation of visual quality evaluations to prepare a study assessing the potential aesthetic impacts resulting from the project. As a result of the study, the applicants revised the project to limit all homes to one-story in height, and to use colors similar to those in the surrounding natural environment. They also secured additional information from their Geotechnical Engineer to address the concerns in the Initial Study, and they revised the project in response to the City Fire Department's concerns. These revisions included placing a fire hydrant in front of every residence, incorporating sprinkler systems in each residence, and increasing the paving width of the access road from 14-feet to 18-feet. They also hired Franz Engineering to prepare a "Potential Growth Inducement" report. The applicant's goal was to revise the project and prepare additional technical information in an effort to address the concerns raised in the December 2000 Initial Study, reduce potential environmental impacts to levels of insignificance, and avoid having to prepare an EIR. Staff reviewed the revised project and additional technical information, conducted additional fieldwork, and performed additional research to determine if the new project would have a potentially significant adverse impact on the environment. In July of this year, staff prepared an Initial Environmental Study of the revised project, and once again concluded that the project would have potentially significant adverse impacts on the environment. However, as a result of the revisions to the project and the submittal of additional technical information, staff was able to identify mitigation measures to eliminate the impacts, or reduce them to a point where no significant effects would occur. Potentially significant impacts and corresponding mitigation measures were identified for Geology and Soils, Air Quality, Hydrology and Water Quality, Biological Resources, Visual Quality, Historical and Cultural Resources, Growth Inducement, and the impacts resulting from the unauthorized activities. The applicants have agreed to incorporate these mitigation measures into the project. A list of the recommended mitigation measures is included in both the Initial Environmental Study, and as an attachment to the Response to Comments document. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION: The City Planning Commission considered the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration on September 26, 2001. After receiving considerable public testimony, and reviewing and discussing the document and all associated materials, the Commission voted 5-0 to recommend that the City Council require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. The Commission felt the Mitigated Negative Declaration did not adequately address a number of potential impacts. These included impacts associated with geology/soils, air quality, hydrology/drainage, noise, fire protection, plant and animal life, and visual quality/light and glare. They also concluded that based upon these potentially significant adverse impacts, an evaluation of project alternatives was necessary. An alternatives evaluation is not required in a Mitigated Negative Declaration, but is a mandatory component of an Environmental Impact Report. Correspondence Received from the Urban Creeks Council of California (Berkeley): Staff received a letter from the Berkeley based Urban Creeks Council of California the day before the Planning Commission hearing (attachment No. 5). While this comment letter on the Mitigated Negative Declaration was not received during the public review and comment period, staff submitted it to the Planning Commission for its information. Staff also responded verbally to the points raised in the letter (see the Planning Commission meeting minutes - attachment No. 4, and the summary of responses to the letter- attachment No. 6). Staff was able to conclude that the correspondence did not raise any new potentially significant impacts not discussed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Planning Commission did not focus on or discuss these comments or staff's responses in any detail. STAFF RESPONSE TO THE COMMISSION'S ACTION: The Planning Commission meeting was well attended, and the public articulated a number of serious and meaningful concerns about the potential environmental consequences resulting from the proposed project. The Commission evaluated the information, conducted a lengthy discussion of its findings, and arrived at the conclusion that an Environmental Impact Report must be prepared for the project. Staff respects the Commission's decision, but still believes that the comprehensive Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately identifies potential impacts and reasonable mitigation measures related to air quality, hydrology/drainage, noise, fire protection, plant and animal life, and visual quality/light and glare. However, as a result of the testimony at the Planning Commission meeting, staff is concerned about an apparent disagreement between two geology/soils experts. In staff's opinion, the potential impacts related to geology and soils are extremely important on and below the project site. A considerable amount of testimony was provided at the Planning Commission meeting by Ms. Julie Bawcom, a Registered Engineering Geologist, regarding the adequacy of the project geotechnical studies. Ms. Bawcom was of the opinion that the geotechnical information was incomplete and did not provide adequate information regarding such topics as debris slides and runoff into the natural drainage channel above West Standley Street. The project geotechnical engineer responded to these comments (see Commission minutes - attachment no. 4), and expressed the opinion that his work was complete and adequate for the proposed project. Dispute Between Experts: According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(g), in a case where it is not clear whether there is substantial evidence that a project would have a significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency (City) shall be guided by the following principle: If there is disagreement among expert opinion supported by facts over the significance of an effect on the environment, the Lead Agency (City) shall treat the effect as significant and shall require the preparation of the EIR. It is staff's understanding that the project applicants are working with their geotechnical engineer and evaluating Ms. Bawcom's concerns. This issue will be discussed in detail at the City Council meeting. The Council must carefully review the information, listen to the testimony, and determine whether the facts reveal a legitimate disagreement between experts regarding whether or not the project would have significant effect on site soils and geology. Staff's opinion is that if there is a clear disagreement between experts that is supported by factual evidence, the Council must require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. Public Controversy: One of the Planning Commissioners believed that an EIR must be required because of serious public controversy over the project. Until 1997, the CEQA Guidelines, in recognition of previous case law, stated that in "marginal cases" the existence of serious public controversy over a project could tip the scales in favor of requiring the preparation of an EIR. In subsequent years, the Legislature has retreated from this principle. CEQA now states, "The existence of public controversy over the environmental effects of a project shall not require preparation of an Environmental Impact Report if there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment." Once again, the Council must determine that there is substantial evidence in the record that the project will have a significant adverse impact on the environment in order to require the preparation of an EIR. CONCLUSION: After reviewing all the information before it, and receiving considerable public testimony, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend that the City Council require an Environmental Impact Report for the project. It concluded that the Mitigated Negative Declaration did not adequately address all the potentially significant impacts, nor did it identify adequate mitigation measures to eliminate those impacts that it identified. Staff respectfully disagrees with this conclusion, but is concerned about an apparent disagreement between geology/soils experts as to whether or not such things as debds flows and storm water runoff represent potentially significant impacts. Testimony and information presented at the City Council meeting will be crucial for resolving this issue. Based on all the information before it, the Council must use its independent judgment to determine whether these soils and geology impacts are significant, and if so, whether they can be successfully mitigated. It must also use its independent judgment and find that on the basis of the entire record before it, there is no substantial evidence that the entire project, as mitigated, will have a significant effect on the environment. If the Council is unable to make this finding, it must require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. RECOMMENDATION: Discuss the Mitigated Negative Declaration, hear from the public, and determine whether the document can be adopted for the proposed project, or an Environmental Impact Report must be required. Staff Report to the Planning Commission MITIGA TED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Hull / Piffero Subdivision & Use Permit Project ITEM NO. 8-B Meeting Date: September 26, 2001 City of Ukiah SUMMARY: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the Hull / Piffero Subdivision and Use Permit project on the western hillside above Ukiah. The Planning Commission is advisory to the City Council on the disposition of this document because the Council is the decision-making body on the Subdivision application. Staff is requesting that the Commission discuss the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, determine if it adequately identifies potentially significant adverse environmental impacts, and decide if the proposed mitigation program adequately eliminates the impacts or reduces them to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. The Planning Commission must make a recommendation to the City Council as to whether or not the Mitigated Negative Declaration is adequate for the project, or if an Environmental Impact Report must be prepared. The Subdivision and Use Permit applications will be publicly noticed and scheduled for consideration by the Planning Commission at a later date. BACKGROUND: Last December, Staff prepared an Initial Environmental Study of the proposed Subdivision and Use Permit project. The Subdivision involves the creation of five parcels on an approximate 40-acre parcel, and the Use Permit is to allow the construction of a single-family residence on one of the parcels. In addition, the Use Permit is intended to "legalize" a number of unauthorized grading and construction activities on the site after-the-fact (see project description in the Initial Study). The December 2000 Study revealed that a number of potentially significant adverse environmental impacts would result from the project, and staff required the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. These impacts included significant effects on the aesthetics and visual quality of the area, soil erosion and other geologically related concerns, and fire protection. In addition, staff concluded that the project was expected to be growth inducing, and have adverse cumulative effects related to visual quality and fire protection. Subsequent to Staff's determination to require an Environmental Impact Report for the project, the applicants contracted with a professional consulting firm specializing in the preparation of visual quality evaluations to prepare a study assessing the potential aesthetic impacts resulting from the project. As a result of the study, the applicants revised the project to limit all homes to one-story in height, and to use colors similar to those in the surrounding natural environment. They also secured additional information from their Geotechnical Engineer to address the concerns in the Initial Study, and they revised the project in response to the City Fire Department's concerns. These revisions included placing a fire hydrant in front of every residence, incorporating sprinkler systems in each residence, and increasing the paving width of the access road from fourteen to eighteen feet. They also hired Franz Engineering to prepare a "Potential Growth Inducement" report. The applicant's goal was to revise the project and prepare additional technical information in an effort to address the concerns raised in the December 2000 Initial Study, reduce potential environmental impacts to levels of insignificance, and avoid having to prepare an EIR. Hull / Piffero Subdivision & Use Permit Mitigated Neg~ Planning Commission Staff Report Staff reviewed the revised project and additional technical information, conducted additional fieldwork, and performed additional research to determine if the new project would have a potentially significant adverse impact on the environment. In July of this year, staff prepared an Initial Environmental Study of the revised project, and once again concluded that the project would have potentially significant adverse impacts on the environment. However, as a result of the revisions to the project and the submittal of additional technical information, staff was able to identify mitigation measures to eliminate the impacts, or reduce them to a point where no significant effects would occur. Potentially significant impacts and corresponding mitigation measures were identified for Geology and Soils, Air Quality, Hydrology and Water Quality, Biological Resources, Visual Quality, Historical and Cultural Resources, Growth Inducement, and the impacts resulting from the unauthorized activities. The applicants have agreed to incorporate these mitigation measures into the project. A list of the recommended mitigation measures is included in both the Initial Environmental Study, and as an attachment to the Response to Comments document. PUBLIC REVIEW: A thirty (30) day public review period was established from July 19 through August 21, 2001, and notice of the availability of the document for review was published in the Ukiah Daily Journal, distributed to neighboring property owners, provided to all persons expressing an interest in the project, posted on the property, and sent to the County Clerk for posting. On July 31, 2001, the public review period was extended to August 30, 2001 after staff discovered that the County Clerk had not posted the notice. This provided the public with an additional nine (9) days for reviewing and commenting on the document. The Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration were sent to the State Clearinghouse for the distribution to State agencies for a thirty (30) day review and comment period. The following State agencies received a copy of the document from the Clearinghouse: · Department of Fish and Game- Region 3 · Office of Historic Preservation · Department of Parks and Recreation · California Highway Patrol · California Department of Transportation - District 1 · State Water resources Control Board - Division of Water Quality · Regional Water Quality Control Board- Region 1 · Native American Heritage Commission · Public Utilities Commission · State Lands Commission At the close of the review period, none of these agencies submitted comments. In addition, staff sent direct copies of the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration document and Notice to the following agencies: · California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection · Mendocino Fisheries Program · National Marine Fisheries Service · Department of Fish and Game- District 3. · Mendocino County Department of Planning and Building Services At the close of the review period, the only agency to comment on the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was the Mendocino County Department of Planning and Building Services. A copy of the Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration were distributed to the Planning Commission on September 7, and the comment letters and Response to Comments were distributed on September 19, 2001. Hull / Piffero Subdivision & Use Permit Mitigated Negative Declaration Planning Commission Staff Report SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: The majority of submitted comments focused on the philosophical issue of whether or not any development should occur on the western hillside area, rather than on the content of the document. Technically, no response is required to issues or points that are unrelated to the content of the document, but staff chose to provide a response to all the issues raised in the letters. The broader comments not specific to the document are welcomed, and in many respects equally as important as the question of whether or not the Mitigated Negative Declaration is adequate or not. These questions will continue to be asked, and must be addressed throughout the review of project merits, as well as during the final decision-making process. Many of the issues raised regarding the adequacy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration were answered by referring the commentor back to particular sections of the document. It would be unreasonable to expect all reviewers to memorize every aspect of the document given its size and complexity. While many of the comments were opinions without supporting facts, they were, nevertheless, deserving of consideration. Staff addressed these opinions, agreeing with some, and disagreeing with others. Based on the submitted comments, and staff's responses, it is concluded that no new potentially significant adverse impacts have been identified. The new information provided in the responses to comments merely served to clarify or underscore the project or supporting information. In addition, no new mitigation measures or project modifications are recommended as a result of the submitted comments. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AND DECISION-MAKING: The Planning Commission needs to review the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, public comment letters, and Response to Comments, and formulate a recommendation to the City Council. The Commission needs to either recommend that the City Council adopt the document or require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. FINDING TO SUPPORT ADOPTION OF THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION: In order to make a recommendation to adopt the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Commission must find the on the basis of the entire record before it, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. If the Commission is unable to make this finding, they must recommend that the City Council require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission 1) review the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, comment letters submitted by the public, and the Response to Comments; 2) invite the public to participate in the discussion; and 3) formulate a recommendation to the City Council as to whether or not the Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate for the project or if an Environmental Impact Report should be required. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Response to Comments, prepared by Planning Department Staff, September 14, 2001. Hull / Piffero Subdivision & Use Permit Mitigated Negative Declaration Planning Commission Staff Report MINUTES CITY OF UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION September 26, 2001 MEMBERS PRESENT Joe Chiles, Chairman Mike Correll Judy Pruden Gaither Loewenstein Robert Wallen STAFF PRESENT Chadie Stump, Planning Director David Lohse, Associate Planner Brian Keffer, Associate Planner Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary OTHERS PRESENT Listed Below, Respectively DR' T MEMBERS ABSENT None The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Correll at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. Roll was taken with the results listed above. 3. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION Chairman Chiles advised no site visits were required for this headng. However, the Commissioners visited the proposed Hull/Piffero subdivision project site. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. - September 12, 2001 It was the consensus of the Commission to dispense with approval of the September 12, 2001, minutes until the next regular meeting. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS. No one from the audience came forward. 6. APPEAL PROCESS N/A 7. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE Staff reported Hull/Piffero Subdivision and Use Permit Mitigated Negative Declaration was legally noticed in accordance with the provisions as outlined in the City Municipal Code. am PROJECT REVIEWS HUL_L/PIFFERO SUBDIVISION AND USE PERMIT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Review, discussion, and the formulation of a recommendation to the City Council concemin.q the adequacy of the proposed Miti~ateo Declaration for the project (Assessor Parcel No. 003-080-05) MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page ! Planning Director Stump stated a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the Hull/Piffero Subdivision and Use Permit on the western hillside above Ukiah. He noted the project encompasses a 40-acre subdivision, to be divided into five parcels as potential residential sites ranging in size from approximately 5 to 14 acres. Approval of a Use Permit would allow the construction of one home on the site as Well as to retroactively authorize a number of unauthorized grading and construction activities on the site after-the-fact. He subsequently provided background information relevant to the project and noted a December 2000 Study revealed that a number of potentially significant adverse environmental impacts would result from the project, and, therefore, staff required the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. The potential impacts included significant effects on the aesthetics and visual quality of the area, soil erosion, fire protection, and other geologically related concerns. Staff determined the project to be growth-inducing, possessing adverse cumulative effects relative to visual quality and fire protection in response to staffs determination. The applicants contracted a professional consulting firm specializing in the preparation of visual quality evaluations to prepare a study assessing the potential aesthetic impacts resulting from the project and revised their project to reflect the study results. The applicants also provided additional information from their Geotechnical Engineer to address the concerns in the Initial Study and revised their project in accordance with City Fire Department concerns. An engineer for the project also formulated a Potential Growth Inducement Report. The applicants' intent was to revise the project and prepare additional technical information in an effort to address the concerns raised in the December 2000 Initial Study, reducing potential environmental impacts to levels of significance to avoid the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Stump reported in July 2001, staff prepared an Initial Environmental Study for the revised project concluding it would have potentially significant adverse impacts on the environment. Staff was able to identify mitigation measures to eliminate the impacts or reduce them to a point where no significant effect would occur. The potentially significant impacts and corresponding mitigation measures including geology and soils, air quality, hydrology and water quality, biological resources, visual quality, historical/cultural resources, growth inducement, and the impacts resulting from the unauthorized activities. The list of recommended mitigation measures is provided for in the Initial Environmental Study and in the Response to Comments document. The Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration were sent to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to State agencies for review and comment and at the close of the 30-day review period the only agency commenting was the Mendocino County Department of Planning and Building Services. He stated staff received many meaningful comments from the concerned public and he generally described the public concerns to include water run-off, visual impacts, destruction of native fauna and flora, impacts to Mendocino County or area outside of the City limits, use of the proposed cul- de-sac as a private helicopter pad, light pollution, erosion, tree removal, water quality and impacts to Gibson Creek, sudden Oak death, fire hazards, road construction/drainage patterns, landslides, mitigation monitoring program, septic system impacts, water shed concerns, growth inducement, and traffic generation. The aforementioned topics presented by the public raise the concern of whether these potentially significant impacts could be successfully mitigated. Mr. Stump welcomed comments from concerned citizens and noted the questions asked would continue to be addressed throughout review of the project's merits and final MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 2 ~ z~eptember 26, 2001 decision-making process. He added a majority of submitted comments focused on the issues of whether or not any development should occur on the western hillside area, rather than on the content of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Based upon public comments and staffs responses, no new potentially significant adverse impacts have been identified. A recent verbal conversation with an engineering geologist revealed concerns relevant to the technical studies, and it is staffs understanding that she will comment on soil and geology concerns during the public hearing process. Staff received correspondence from the Urban Creeks Council of California addressing the issues of culvert/filling of streams, utilization of certain drainage techniques as a means to control erosion and handle runoff, maintenance of creeks and water quality, potential ground water pumping from the proposed water tank and the possibility of it drawing from other nearby creeks and/or tributaries. Staff noted in response to this concern, the well and tank are located approximately 2000 feet on the other side of the ridge from Gibson Creek and would not create an impact. The Creeks Council recommended vegetative plantings be added to erosion control measures and constructively criticized the proposed mitigation measure requiring an Erosion Control Plan stating that this particular measure is vague, and therefore, unacceptable. Staff noted this agency did not appropriately address the details of the mitigation measure, which, in staffs opinion, are adequately outlined in the mitigation monitoring program. Items A through G in the Erosion Control Plan Mitigation Measure provide the necessary details as well as intent and identification of what items shall be included in the Plan. These are standard engineering practices and requirements. The Creeks Council suggested there could be potential impacts to the Russian River and Gibson Creek as a result of this.project. It is staffs opinion the potential impacts to Gibson Creek can be successfully mitigated thus creating no impacts to the Russian River. The agency expressed concern relevant to the construction of the new 6,000-foot road. Staff noted the road was originally constructed approximately 25 years ago whereby a new road would not be constructed except near the top of hill. The agency commented staffs study on potential impacts to mammals, animals and wildlife was 10 years old and may be an outdated source. In staffs opinion, there has not been a significant change to alter wildlife populations in the western hillsides during the last 10 years. The agency also drew attention to potential impacts to reptiles, amphibians, birds and mammals located near Gibson Creek. Staff noted these issues are unrelated to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Again, staff has concluded that as mitigated, the project would have an adverse impact on the Gibson Creek watershed. The mitigation program would not allow impacts to Gibson Creek and the accompanying wildlife. Staff stated California Department of Fish and Game was notified of the project prior to the CEQA process and there has been no response. Mr. Stump described the Planning Commission's responsibility to act in an advisory capacity to the City Council on the disposition of the Mitigated Negative Declaration because the Council is the decision-making body on' the Subdivision application. Staff recommended the Planning Commission review the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, public comment letters, Response to Comments, and formulate a recommendation to the City Council as the Commission must either recommend the City Council adopt the document or require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. Planning Commission Questions to Staff: Chairman Chiles commented on the Urban Creeks Council comments and noted it appears this organization may be contradicting the mitigated measure regarding the MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 3 September 26, 2001 manner in which the road should be built and maintain drainage and they recommend utilizing the "inboarding" drainage method. Staff replied the applicants intend to "outboard" the road in most locations, which is a standard practice to eliminate erosion, and this concept is supported by City staff as well as by other agencies. Application of an "inboarded" drainage method allows water concentrations to flow into culverts, creating more damage, than application of the "outboard" drainage method allowing water to "sheetflow" and not be concentrated. Commissioner Wallen inquired regarding the zoning status in connection with the minimum parcel/acreage requirement and when the Hillside Zoning requirements were established. Mr. Stump replied the Hillside District Zoning was established in the 1980s and the minimum parcel size vades depending upon the slope of the land. Harry Benke, Applicant's Geotechnical Engineer, provided a computer generated 3- D visual quality analysis overview from data produced with an Auto Cad software program allowing information subject to CEQA requirements to be evaluated and/or information projected that utilizes digital imaging to calculate information. The visual demonstration provided a vadety of views from vadous vantage points, taking into consideration the vicinity of homes in relationship to surrounding vegetation in various area locations, the actual residential prototype for the site in terms of design/size/color, projected land visual images at build-out, various terrain imaging, and other pertinent digital imaging necessary in identifying, projecting, and drawing conclusions regarding potential significant visual impacts subject to CEQA requirements. He noted the information was generated from the project plans. The Planning Commission opened the public hearing for questions to Mr. Benke. Albert Krauss, Ukiah, Considered the aforementioned demonstration to be a very convincing description of how software can manipulate images and project results based upon the information from a ~real condition." He stated no decision was provided for from an aesthetic viewpoint relevant to undisturbed landscape versus disturbed landscaping by human habitation. He noted, however, the process does not adequately provide the clarity necessary as to what the information would be based on. In other words, one set of parameters would be necessary for a pristine hillside view shed and another set of parameters for incorporating human habitation because a pristine view shed would not be created from view changes to the homes. Human habitation would still be visible even though the site has been visually disguised. One can accept the fact that houses would be allowed on the hillside making it possible for such houses to be visible by utilizing vadous aesthetic designs and colors. He noted there has been no discussion addressing potential night visual impacts from the hillside homes unless restrictions were imposed. A determination must be made whether to maintain a pristine hillside view shed by allowing no construction or the whether the view shed can be disturbed by allowing homes to be built since disguising the homes would be an ineffective approach. The homes would be partially hidden but still visible to the public. Commissioner Lowenstein questioned the amount of clearance for combustible vegetation required for safety precautions between the houses as postulated in the 3-D MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 4 ~m~l~ ~.September 26, 2001 model or whether the vegetation component matters if the vegetation demonstrated after 8 or 10 years of growth was not newly planted vegetation. Mr. Benke replied the computer model demonstrated non-newly planted vegetation and was intended to be a growth assumption for vegetative growth around the homes. The vegetation shown on the visual demonstration was common bushes and shrubbery customary to homes and would have very little impact on the representation depicted. He indicated the landscaping demonstrated a trend as to what is actually occurring in the western hillside with the re-growth of the natural forest. Lorie Leaf, Ukiah, inquired whether the visual demonstration accounted for the impacts for new driveways and additional roads for the new homes. Mr. Benke replied the homes were situated relatively close enough to the road and with regard to the most prominent home the driveway virtually exists. The road meanders in such a fashion relative to the other hOmes that the potential driveways, which have not presently been accounted for, would create few impacts to the area. He indicated the construction of driveways and additional roadways would be kept to a minimum for this project. He bdefly elaborated on the visual effects of the driveways/roadways according to his knowledge and professional expertise. Bill Randolf, Ukiah, commended the consultant for his presentation and inquired whether any part of the topographical area adjacent to the building footprints was observable with regard to Gibson Creek on the visual demonstration. He questioned the potential existence of the proposed homes in relation to Gibson Creek. Mr. Benke replied according to project documents, Gibson Creek was not considered a visual impact issue. He noted the existing creeks and tributary for the area were not included as part of the demonstration visual impact criteria. It was noted the Jim Nix project was a visual component of the presentation. Paul Anderson, Ukiah, questioned whether it was possible to manipulate the data presented to observe a nighttime view and examine views in different weather conditions. He also questioned the potential impacts relevant to windows as windows do reflect light and would be a noticeable feature. Mr. Benke responded the windows in the house model actually possess window material properties to include such properties as surface reflection and transparency. He stated reflection and/or glare is directly correlated to angle exactness. Glare is associated with eady morning sunshine and ceases once the sun has passed the angle whereby the window becomes visually dark due to the lack of intedor illumination. He noted the assimilation lacked the benefit of the homes receiving any shadows from the forest or any other type of shadow nearby. He briefly outlined potential glare issues in conjunction with weather conditions and noted good weather and clear days would assist with diffusing the visibility of the homes. He noted windows are more obtrusive when homes possess interior white-backed drapes and/or blinds. He addressed general lighting issues and noted fog/mist conditions allow middle ground lighting to take over. He noted the different types of home/street/commercial lighting features/systems would diffuse fog/mist conditions creating a general high ambient light. Home-lighting would be MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 5 September 26, 2001 most noticeable on very clear evenings and the degree of lighting intensity depends upon the type of lighting system utilized as well as the design of the home. Leif Fart, Ukiah, stated his experience with computer visual analysis presentations depict structural images in a capacity that is acceptable or in mitigation situations allowing them to be acceptable. However, in reality, after construction the images portrayed "stick out like a sore thumb" not possessing the same impact. He questioned the discrepancy between project presentations and reality. He alluded some bias may exist regarding visual analysis presentations and noted it is important for reports and computer presentations to accurately represent the data and/or information. Mr. Benke stated the presentation must accurately demonstrate the link to what is actually being built. Charnise Cubbinson, Ukiah, inquired relative to fire clearance requirements taking into consideration setbacks and normal home walkways. Mr. Benke stated his calculations in the computer model reflected a completely bare hillside. There were no existing landscaping plans when the photograph images were added and the assumption was to incorporate the absolute minimum, which would be clearance around the entire portion of the house with the exception of the vegetation outside the building and below. This clearance did not necessarily include the 30-foot fire setback, but were closer to 60, 70, or 100 feet. Ms. Cubbinson inquired if there was any attempt to model winter conditions when there were no leaves on some of the trees allowing for greater structure visibility. Mr. Benke responded that most the natural vegetation around the proposed home site is evergreen. Daniel De La Peza, Ukiah, thanked Mr. Benke for his presentation and drew attention to the tree models, stating the trees appeared to be much closer than they appeared tall in relation to the home. Mr. Benke replied close-ups often allow images to look smaller whereby the program is not calculating the diminishment of the images at a distance. He noted the tree images still maintained the scaled proportion in relation to the home. Mr. De La Peza stated the proposed square footage of the home is calculated to be approximately 4,400 square feet and noted the total square footage would amount to 22,000 square feet if five of these houses were placed on each of the five lots. He inquired whether this information was accurately represented into the computer program. It was his understanding the County was concerned whether the visual analysis took into consideration the construction of all potential improvements such as leech fields, road widening and realignment. He noted the road is anticipated to be 6,000 feet long and 18 feet wide representing approximately 108,000 square feet, which is 5 times more square footage than the amount of area covered on the surface of the visual representation. He inquired as to how the visual analysis could be accurately reflected if the aforementioned information was not incorporated. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page (~ September 26, 2001 Mr. Benke indicated all proposed improvements were analyzed and that because the road is existing and cannot be seen, paving it would not open it up to view. Mr. Stump replied there would be no proposed helicopter pad, but there would be a cul- de-sac incorporated into the project. He confirmed the 6,000 square foot road lineage that would encompass an 18-foot width. A brief discussion followed regarding the potential necessary measures to diffuse road visibility. Chairman Chiles recommended moving forward to the public hearing proceedings. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED at 7:53 p.m., for Comments on All Aspects of the Mitigation Negative Declaration: Dave Hull, Ukiah, Applicant, addreSsed the issue as to why there were not more road images visible in the presentation and stated the visual analysis took into consideration the visual impact from the valley floor from various locations that were chosen and previously discussed with staff. The majority of the roadway winds up the canyon and is not visible directly from the valley floor and the roadway is concealed for the most part. The visual images depicting the potential houses include approximately 1,500 to 2,000 square feet of roadway representing the amount of roadway that is visual' from the home sites. He stated most of this area is concealed with the exception of a portion as shown in the computer photographs. He noted Gibson Creek is located approximately 3,000 feet from the nearest home site. Paul Anderson, Ukiah, commended the applicants for their planning efforts and/or considerations. He expressed concern relative to public safety and potential fire hazards and noted, in his opinion, the project creates the potential for increased fire hazards in the hillside. This issue must be appropriately addressed as well as sufficient justification provided as to whether or not the Ukiah Fire Department has the equipment necessary to provide an adequate response. He recommended the applicants execute a Hold Harmless Agreement ensuring that the City would not be sued in the event the Fire Department and emergency personnel were unable to adequately respond to a fire in the hillside. He noted, in his opinion, the project is located in a high fire danger area according to his inquiries with various agencies. He stated the proposed homes would exist in a high fire danger area with one way out encompassing various grade levels. He noted there must be a well-defined understanding, which tire/emergency agency would be required to respond. Daniel De La Peza, Ukiah, stated he spoke with Frank Lynch who is responsible for responding to the proposed Negative Declaration and noted Mr. Lynch expressed concern with emergenCY services being able to adequately respond to the area. He reiterated the Ukiah Valley Plan is similar in context to the Ukiah General Plan in terms of emergency response issues. He also spoke with Fire Marshal Yates who also expressed project concerns. Mr. De La Peza disagreed with the former Fire Marshal's comments contained in the Negative Declaration stating it would take longer than approximately 20 minutes to respond to an emergency situation. He drew attention to the Skenfield Study completed in 1991 and referenced in the Negative Declaration, which expresses concern when homes are extended into wild lands where there may be conflicts between deer, mountain lions, pets, and children. The suggested mitigated MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 7 September 26, 2001 measure for this issue would require each development to construct deer fences to keep wildlife out and .pets in. He further stated another impact would be as home development extends into the wild land, deer and their predators are forced to co-exist with homeowners, their pets, and gardens. As a result, deer develop an unnatural diet based on the make-up of the imported landscaping. The mountain lion and bobcat are forced to shift their prey potentially to pets and/or persons thus upsetting the natural balance among wildlife. He stated the mitigated measure should be that each development would be required to either fence against deer entry or include a deer fencing requirement in the Covenants, Contracts, and Restrictions (CC&R's) for the development. He stated this aspect has been overlooked regarding the proposed Negative Declaration. He reported the CDF fire protection and loss documentation specifically outlines the requirement lengths for steep dead-end roads encompassing cluster homes. He recommended further studies be implemented relevant to the proposed subdivision to ensure all potential significant impacts to the environment and public safety issues have been thoroughly identified and successfully mitigated. Julie Bawcom, Ukiah, one of the authors for the Geotechnical and Engineering Geology Report, commented she participated on a committee for the establishment of a Hillside Ordinancel which prompted her to institute her report. She noted there has been no official background information available for geotechnical persons to do a detailed study noting the importance of providing an Ordinance for future study reference purposes. She reviewed the geotechnical reports and noted the significance of obtaining additional professional opinions relevant to the existing reports as the contents is beyond the Planning Department's expertise due to the concerted technical nature of the data. She recommended City sewer systems be implemented for the subdivision stating the ground may become overly saturated with leech lines, particularly dudng the winter months, thus creating the potential for area landslides. She further addressed the Geotechnical Report and noted placement of a septic system in the fractured bedrock would not be feasible. Her report was not intended to be a slope stability analysis for the west hills as referenced on page 14 of the Engineering Geology Report. She noted the executive summary of her study specifically outlines the purpose of the study, which was to provide cursory mapping of the landslides on the western hills to assist with future planning and adoption of a City Hillside Grading Ordinance as well as to provide geology consultants and geotechnical engineers with sufficient background information to complete a detailed slope stability analysis and geological mapping. She noted in her review of the Report there were no seismic/fault calculations and/or information for large filled slopes or for the water tank foundation and this information is necessary especially for earthquakes encompassing a-magnitude of 7.0 or more. She noted vertical accelerations resulting from earthquakes incorporating a magnitude of 7.0 or more could potentially crumble and rupture a 115,000-gallon water tank. She recommended formulating an Inundation Plan in the event the water tank should fail. She noted the greatest problem regarding the Geotechnical Report was the public safety issue whereby there was no mention of debris slides/avalanche danger. She drew attention to pages 32 and 33 of her report describing the widespread hazard for a landslide in the west hills particularly in the lower and intermediate hill slopes where development is taking place. There was a debds slide that happened in 1986 above Clay Street and only a portion of this slide is shown on the project map. She specifically addressed a canyon shown in the visual analysis, but was unsure whether this canyon borders Standley Street. She stated the Standley Street canyon could potentially give way and there are two existing homes in its path and noted this issue as well as the corresponding drainage/fill issues in the area should be appropriately analyzed and MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page :~ September 26, 2001 mitigated. She provided the geological terminology and testimony regarding debris slides that could potentially occur in the Standley Street canyon, other subdivisions in the area, and the proposed subdivision due to the existing terrain, changes in weather conditions, water/soil accommodations, and changes occurring to the ground as a result of land development. She questioned whether the proposed Geotechnical Study would set high enough standards for the west hills as compared to similar studies prepared for the Bay Area hillsides. She reiterated the importance of reinstating the Hillside Ordinance Committee establishing the guidelines, rules, and/or regulations for development in the west hills. She provided Commissioners with reference materials prepared by the California Department of Conservation Division and Mines and Geology entitled, "Guidelines for Preparing Engineering Geologic Reports" and "Hazards from Mudslides, Debris Avalanches and Debris Flows in Hillside and Wildfire Areas." Jerry Poplawski, Ukiah, expressed concern relevant to the hillside development approval process referencing past unauthorized activity completed by the applicants without City authorization and the resulting visual effects. He questioned whether the City could effectively enforce the proposed mitigated measures outlined in the Negative Declaration should this document be approved. He emphasized the importance of carefully reviewing all necessary studies/reports and having all mitigated measures in place prior to allowing future development in the west hills rather than hastily approving the project thus legitimizing the project based upon improvements and other land maintenance completed by the applicants without the required authorization. Phyllis Curtis, Ukiah, stated subdivision of the west hills is inconsistent with the Ukiah General Plan and supported her statement with Findings. She expressed concern whether this particular project would set precedence for future hillside development in the City and valley especially in the event the County adopts the Ukiah Valley Wide Plan. She referred to the County's Planning Department comments stating that allowance for substantial exceptions should be carefully evaluated. She stated clustering, which is encouraged by the Ukiah General Plan, should be considered as the single most important mitigation measure in reducing impacts to a number of issue areas. She reiterated maintaining adherence to mitigation measures after project approval and construction is difficult to enforce. She further expressed concern as to the City's ability to effectively monitor the 41 existing mitigation measures. She drew attention to the City's initial inability to effectively monitor past unauthorized hillside activities causing land erosion and mud to slide into Gibson Creek. She cautioned the results of implementing poor planning techniques. Bruni Kobbi, Ukiah, addressed the issue regarding the level of document review and the issues of monitoring/enforcing the proposed mitigation measures. She noted the level of review to be inaccurate as previously advocated by other concerned citizens referenced above. She stated lack of project comments should not be construed as the basis for project approval. She noted the importance of extending time for the purpose of actively soliciting other expert opinions. She expressed concern regarding appropriate mitigation/monitoring of public safety issues. She suggested one mitigation measure be listed in the Initial Study, which provides the project be avoided should environmental impacts or a portion of the impacts be clearly defined as significant. Igor Zbitnoff, Ukiah, drew attention to his written project comments directed to the Planning Department and stated, philosophically, the western hills are of considerable importance to the community, offering a place of refuge for individuals desiring a MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 0 September 26, 2001 moment to connect with nature and/or to reflect on life's problems/issues. A community requires outdoor space similar to those displayed by the west hills and, therefore, careful consideration must be given to their preservation and/or protection. He stated the applicants' past activities have not been well received by the community. He also emphasized the importance of effectively being able to monitor/enforce the 41 proposed mitigations, which would be otherwise be empty words. He addressed the visual aspects of the hills during the next 10 years and stated monitoring and enforcement of the mitigations would be essentially a joke. He was not supportive with moving forward on a project on the premise the unauthorized activities have been corrected and he was doubtful whether future activities on the part of applicants would be in the best interests of the community. He questioned why the only favorable scenario was to move forward with the project. He also questioned the City's ability to effectively enforce and/or monitor the proposed 41 mitigations. He addressed the issue of potential light pollution and noted a reasonable standard should be set in this regard providing that those impacts from artificial light never be apparent from the valley floor. Albert Krauss, Ukiah, inquired regarding the access road leading up the Gibson Creek canyon and noted the creek bed could potentially fail dramatically despite the fact the road has been existence for 30 years, which does guarantee its stability subject to earthquakes and/or water over saturation should its footprint be increased and/or altered. He maintained, in his opinion as outlined in his project comments directed to staff, that a very significant portion of the aforementioned road could impact the Gibson Creek canyon in the event it failed during winter conditions due to the construction and/or implementation of a wider footprint. He did not feel this issue was appropriately answered in the proposed mitigation measures. Jan Moore, Ukiah, agreed with Ms. Bawcom's commentaries relevant to the Geotechnical Study and stated the required clearance around a rural home for adequate fire protection would be standard including all flammable vegetation within a 30-foot radius and steep slope areas should be 100 feet. Additionally, a clearance of 10 feet would be required for all propane tanks and all trees should be maintained and set apart 10 feet from one another. She noted the project trees are noticeable and attractively clumped together. Branches are required to be trimmed 6 feet from the ground and no flammable vegetation is allowed within 10 feet of roads and 5 feet from driveways. She inquired regarding the status of the western hills study recommending this study be reviewed and its contents considered prior to approving the Negative Declaration. She recommended further study of the project as well as implementation of a Hillside Ordinance Committee. Mr. Stump anticipates the aforementioned study would be completed in October or November 2001, and this study has been delayed until the City's topOgraphical information was available. Staff will be providing slope calculations from aerial photographs to assist with the study. Leif Farr, Ukiah, commented the City Fire Department was on record, which should be clarified, as stating their equipment could not go up an all-weather road incorporating a slope of 17 percent or more. He noted the existing, road does possess areas containing more than a 17 percent slope. He stated this issue must be appropriately addressed prior to approval of the Negative Declaration. He alluded to the potential problem of landslides in connection with the project and noted a critical factor depends upon the amount of water placed into the ground in addition to natural rainfall. He noted the MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page ]0 September 26, 2001 clearing of vegetation could exacerbate landslide problems despite the fact the hillside is represented as a high fire danger area and these issues must be successfully mitigated so that vegetation is maintained to meet the fire hazard standards as well as to not promote the potential for landslides. He expressed concern whether the mitigated measures could appropriately be monitored and enforced over a long period of time especially when the subject homes could be sold many times involving new owners unaware of the required/complicated mitigation measures. Tom MonPere, Ukiah, stated during his long time residency on the west side of the community, he has observed western hill slides, one occurring recently at the end of Clay Street. He emphasized the importance of thoroughly evaluating the mitigations prior to making a decision incorporating long felt implications for the community. Lora Leaf, Ukiah, commended the participants for their comments, efforts, and valuable input. The western hills represent significant visual beauty for the citizens of Ukiah and, therefore, development in this area is a major decision to consider. Neil Thompson, Applicant's Soil Engineer/Geologist, elaborated on some of the comments raised. He stated in his professional opinion, he has never known a situation whereby a leech line created a landslide, but he has been aware of situations where mudslides were created from broken sewer pipes. If the issue were to reduce landslide potential, then leech fields would be preferred. He stated regarding seismic calculations for the water tank, the tank has been designed to withstand the highest level of seismic activity. He addressed the issue that his report contained no reference to debris flow and/or slides and noted he purposely omitted this information because, in his opinion, this aspect was not a pertinent issue for this particular project. He stated many steps would be implemented to control the flow of surface water and noted this type of development encompasses only a few homes as opposed to many, thus eliminating the need to specifically address debris/mud slide issues for this project. He stated incorporating a few houses on many acres virtually eliminates the conditions for debris flow in comparison to a subdivision containing many homes. He stated another contributing factor to lessen the potential for debris flow would be the existence of minor project cuts and fills. Most importantly, the project water run-off would be dispersed rather than channeled, which reduces the potential for debris flow. He addressed the fact his report could set the standard for the City and noted his report does reflect Bay Area information/data and examples in its final analysis for the west hills. He noted clearing vegetation could create the potential for landslides should this task be done in a timber harvest manner. He reported the clearing of land for this project would be minimal and reported this procedure may even improve the situation. Dave Hull stated the complicated components of the project have made the project determination difficult. He is in possession of a USGS Topographic and digital topographic map on CD ROM for the entire County, which could be utilized for reference material to assist and facilitate the hillside study. He bdefly addressed CDF fire prevention requirements and procedures relative to vegetation and applicants' Geotechnical Report. He stated a soils expert previously engineered the entire road with the exception to the entrance of his proposed 40-acre parcel subdivision. The applicants are not proposing major changes to the existing road. He addressed the hillside unauthorized activities and stated that people do make mistakes and outright denial of the project based upon past mistakes and due to the potential inability to monitor the mitigations would not be a fair and/or reasonable approach. He is also in possession of MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page ! ! September 26, 2001 CC&R's for the area and noted the contents and/or requirements in this document are very stringent. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 9:08 p.m. Planning Commission Discussion: Commission Correll favored the concept of a having a new Hillside Ordinance in place prior to the hearing on the Negative Declaration. He stated the Mitigated Negative Declaration has done a tremendous job in identifying what would normally be an Environmental Impact Report. He stated a decision is necessary whether to allow or not to allow development in the west hills whereby the Ukiah General Plan would be modified to reflect this decision. He briefly described the project area in terms of terrain and existing vegetation. He noted the roadbed, which was constructed many years ago, is in good condition. He stated, from his experience, there would be water and water- related damages to rural roads no matter what precautions were taken to protect it. He addressed the fire safety issue and stated the existing road could be viewed as an access for fire/emergency vehicles provided it was widened. Robert Wallen stated the above-referenced comments are very important, but his main concern was the manner and/or process in which the project has evolved. He does not support the concept that projects are approved in a "piece meal" fashion. He expressed concern the project information submitted could be regarded as site specific whereas the broader West Hills Constraints Analysis and Build-out Study would provide and serve as a structure and format for the information required on any future projects. He stated this process is applying the "cart before the horse" concept whereupon a site study is providing information for a broader study, which should be the reverse. In other words, a decision should be made on how well the broader study coincides with site studies. He stated the aforementioned project should be considered only after the broader context is known and was not favorable of moving the project along too quickly thus creating a poor precedence for development in the west hills without an extensive constraints analysis and build-out study. He was supportive of formulating a new Hillside Ordinance and incorporating this document into the West Hills Constraints Analysis and Build-out Study. He pointed out implementation of leech fields do contribute to the potential for landslides and supported his statement with examples and noted the project possess a lot of misconstrued information requiring accurate clarification. He emphasized the importance of formulating a geological study accurately portraying the location of past, present, and potential future landslide areas. Commissioner Pruden stated the subject matter for this hearing is actually addressing the adequacy of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. She was not supportive of this document due to the extensive environmental impacts this project may cause as well as the unidentified questions generated by the audience and public comments. She commended the public for their high quality questions and presentations. She identified the areas in the Negative Declaration encompassing "loopholes." She supported the concept of small development on the west hills, provided the present issues can be properly mitigated and the environmental concerns managed. She did not possess as many project concerns with the Huli/Piffero subdivision as with another project in the general vicinity. She favored the concept of formulating an Environmental Impact Report prior to moving forward with this project. She expressed concern relevant to the soil instability in terms of erosion, which, in her opinion, has not been adequately mitigated in MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page ]2 September 26, 2001 this area. She stated the geotechnical engineering and hydrology documents should have "peer" review. She noted the Negative Declaration has not addressed the potential air quality aspect should the applicants choose to burn wood or possess open fireplaces and whether the inversion layer would be affected. Commissioner Wallen replied the applicants, in his opinion, would probably be above the inversion layer and that burning wood would probably not be a problem on the valley floor except at night. Ms. Pruden drew attention to the Hydrology and Water Quality Repo. rt and noted thero was only one property owner operating from a well on the west side. However, there are other wells located in the City that are not used because it is cheaper to utilize City water. She expressed concern regarding the project well and identification of the aquifer providing this water supply. She stated the west hills historically possess springs and this aspect is well documented. She. further expressed concern the water stored in the tank could lessen the water supply limiting the supply of water to the valley floor and potentially affecting the flow of the Russia River. She stated the Hydrology and Water Quality Report does not adequately address the above-referenced issue. She reported regarding biological resources that there is some mention of Gibson Creek and accompanying mitigation enforcement requirements, but noted control of the drainage into Gibson Creek does not pertain to the Hull/Piffero project but with their neighbor to the north. She noted the importance of extending the mitigation enforcement measures to off-site areas to ensure compliance. She further addressed her concern for potential project noise impacts and noted the valley acoustics allow for increased magnification of potential undesirable noises. She noted this factor should be appropriately addressed in the Negative Declaration. She addressed the potential human health issue referencing the five septic systems and noted the project document does not adequately mitigate this issue in terms of soil and geotechnical aspects caused from opening trenches on the western slope. She further added the proposed leech fields are potentially very large and must be carefully reviewed pertinent to environmental impact mitigation. She agreed with the subject matter relating to public housing, traffic circulation, public services, energy, and public utilities and bdefly commented on the public recreational issues and proposed limitations created by private ownership and/or development. She was in agreement with the Cultural and Resource section of the document as well as the Evaluation Requested Exceptions. She did agree with the Growth Inducing Impact portion of the document as an engineer rather than a planner prepared the report. She noted the document does not address the fact the applicants could potentially place a second unit on the properties, doubling the amount of people and traffic on the hillside. She expressed confidence in staff as well as with the applicants that enforcement and mitigation would be done appropriately. She expressed regret that no one from the audience supported the project and noted, however, the applicants understood the potential for this corollary prior to the document hearing. She stated the Mandatory Findings of Significance are not acceptable in her opinion, specifically referencing page 49, the Cumulatively Considerable category and noted this box should have been checked "yes" instead of ~no." She did not consider the proposed document to be adequate and recommended an Environmental Impact Report be formulated. She stated the applicants have already identified many of the potential significant environmental impacts and, therefore, the Environmental Impact Report recommended would not have to be as comprehensive. In summary, she recommended additional study be formulated in the areas of hydrology/water quality, air quality, and soil analysis. She supported the concept of requiring an Inundation Plan, related to potential rupture of MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page ]3 September 26, 2001 the proposed water tank. She reported the Negative Declaration does address many project issues/concerns, but many issues remain unclear and/or unidentified and, therefore, she would be unable to support approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, as submitted. Commissioner Correll was also concerned relevant to the process and stated the Commission may be prematurely making a decision without the knowledge' and/or understanding of the broader aspects of the hillside area. He supported the concept of enhancing the Mitigated Negative Declaration prior to making a decision on the above- referenced matter. Commissioner Lowenstein commended those persons who responded to the environmental document and stated the comments were of very high quality. He further commended the applicants for their good faith efforts and submittal of equally high quality study documents. He stated :the letter from the Ukiah Fire Department assumed there was an existing mitigation measure in connection with the 100-foot clearance of flammable vegetation requirement, which Mr. Lowenstein did not recall seeing in the document. He further stated should the aforementioned provision exist within the mitigated document, he questioned the visual analysis presented by Mr. Behke in terms of the projected growth for the existing vegetation some of which is located 50 or feet from the proposed homes. Should this vegetation be cleared, this vegetation would not be around in 8 or 10 years to mitigate the visual impacts. He was not sure whether the visual impacts are going to be significant, which is a subjective aspect of the project, and he could not appropriately evaluate the project without a visual analysis based on what vegetation presently exists or would exist in 8 to 10 years. He stated some vegetation would have to be removed to meet the Fire Code requirements and the projected growth of this vegetation would not give him an accurate view of the visual impacts. The record refers to the willingness of the owners to donate 30 adjacent acres to the City for open space and this aspect is not included as a mitigation measure. He did not support the concept of the City accepting property as a donation and he recommended the owners formulate an Open Space Easement on the property as a partial mitigation measure, which would address some of the public recreational issues purported by Commissioner Pruden in her discussion above. He was familiar with Open Space Easements on adjacent properties to partially mitigate impacts. He stated the section on Growth Inducement regarding road use was, in his opinion, narrowly focused and should be reevaluated. He stated the Mitigation Monitoring Plan focuses mainly on construction impacts, which could potentially function and/or serve as a template to address such issues as effectively monitoring impacts to fish and wildlife and water quality subsequent to the project being developed and whether this monitoring device actually works. He further stated should the monitoring devices not comply, implementing a mechanism to identify the accompanying impacts would be necessary. He suggested implementing a bonding provision to ensure that if there are adverse impacts they are significantly mitigated. CEQA provides that if there exists significant disagreement among experts, then an EIR should be prepared. He noted the project does implicate disagreements among experts particularly in relation to the effect on fish/wildlife, advocated by the Urban Creeks Council as well as geotechnical issues. CEQA also provides that if significant public controversy exists relevant to a project, an EIR should be prepared. He recommended formulating a focused EIR whereby much of the work for this report has already been completed. The proposed focused EIR should attentively focus on the geotechnical aspects, fire safety, water quality, drainage, and wildlife, especially fish in Gibson Creek. Another advantage associated with completing an EIR would be the MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page ]4 September 26, 2001 allowance of reviewing various alternatives, particularly a reduced project alternative so that if there are one or more homes that encompass more severe impacts these issues could be addressed. He stated unlike a Mitigated Negative Declaration, an EIR would allow subsequent evaluation of project alternatives, whether focused or extensive, or the alternative of allowing no project to proceed. He was not supportive of recommending certification of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration to the City Council. He elaborated on the concept of legalizing the unauthorized grading that has already occurred for this project and stated he could not support this concept advocating the lack of City Code enforcement. He noted it is very difficult to get nuisance abatement proceedings completed in this community and for the City to enforce the law relevant to nuisances or Use Permits. He was not supportive of "post hoc" legalization of unauthorized activity. He stated the property improvements are immaterial to the initial violation. Chairman Chiles supported the comments of the above-referenced Commissioners and recommended securing a second opinion on the geology report. He indicated that the fire access issue needs to be appropriately addressed. He recommended formulating a focused Eli:{ for the project allowing for a qualified basis for a final decision on the project. Commissioner Wallen recommended a focused EIR be completed in sequence by first having the West Hills Constraint Analysis and Build-out Study in place prior to completion of the EIR incorporating the broader picture of the project pdor to the individual evaluation of the proposed project. He also supported Commissioner Lowenstein's comment relative to hastily approving the project because the applicants previously violated and later corrected the violations, providing that individuals should be held accountable for their mistakes. Mr. Stump stated the reason the applicants have been required to secure the necessary permits for the unauthorized grading, after the fact, is because permits are necessary for such matters. He noted, for example, without a building permit, the City Building Inspection would red tag a project, and the violator's would be required to secure a Building Permit before proceeding with their construction. He stated the applicants did some unauthorized grading and were stopped in the process to obtain the requisite permits. He stated the issue was not to condone working without a permit, but for the situation to be appropriately corrected, which should not be construed as an opportunity to legalize the project indicated by the Commissioner comments above. He stated the City presently has no fine system for the above-referenced infractions and noted the decision makers may desire to discuss this issue in the future. It was noted such permits referred to above are always conditioned. A general discussion following regarding the unauthorized grading events and the correlated significance these activities have generated for discussion. ON A MOTION by Commissioner Lowenstein, seconded by Commissioner Pruden, it was carried by an all AYE voice vote of the Commissioners present to recommend a Focused Environmental Impact Report be prepared for the project relevant to the areas of additional geotechnical information, fire safety, water quality, drainage, effects on wildlife and fish in Gibson Creek, air quality, potential noise impacts to the valley, aesthetic visual quality and/or light, a discussion of project alternatives, and referencing MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page ] 5 September 26, 2001 the visual analysis recommended another view be added to include the Safeway parking lot. 8A. DISCUSSION OF USE PERMIT REVOC PROCEDURES Associate Planner Lohse reported staff's was to present relevant Ukiah Municipal Code sections to assist with a understanding of the Use Permit revocation process. There was not sufficienl ime to notice the Ukiah Recycle project and accompanying proposed revocation as ion would have had to be completed the last hearing date of September 12, 20( to remain within the time specifications of the public noticing requirements. The a appealed the project and staff anticipates the matter would be heard by City CounCil on October 17, 2001. Staff recommended that revocation proceedings be delayed pending the outcome of the City Council's decision on the appeal of the Temporary Use Permit. He noted the City Council, staff, or Planning Commission could initiate the-revocation process. A brief discussion followed regarding whether the applicant would be given a second chance to clean up his operation and speculated whether the applicant would follow through with this opportunity. It was noted revocation requires a hearing by the Planning Commission and it was further noted this being the case, the Commission may be obligated to revoke the original' Use Permit as well as the Temporary Use Permit depending upon whether the City Council grants a Temporary Use Permit and the applicant does not comply with the conditions. 9. PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORTS Planning Director Stump bdefly elaborated on other planning projects. He noted the Planning Department may.utilize the applicants' topographic maps in the Hull/Piffero project to assist with geotechnical studies. Commissioner Wallen stated public access is important to the west hill, but he was not in favor of allowing this issue to become a part of the project in connection with future public access involving recreational activities via' subsequent easements or land purchases from the applicants. Staff noted Quimby Fees are collected for park and recreation purposes as a result of subdivision applications and would be collected for the Hull/Piffero project. Staff noted in order to utilize a conservation easement or land purchase, as a mitigation measure would require an impact to be associated with this aspect and noted the Hull/Piffero project may not be applicable. 10. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS Commissioner Wallen will be absent for the October 2001 meetings. Commissioner Pruden commented on her progress regarding Airport Overlay Zoning relevant to Airport Land Uses. She also announced the Housing Forum would be held on October 18, 2001. Chairman Chiles commented the grounds have been neglected on the City's temporary homeless shelter located on North State Street. 11. ~ ADJOURNMENT MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 1(~ ,f-Ii, September 26, 2001 09/25/2001 14:57 URBAN 5188482219 CREEKS UC ~~ ~~ PAGE 01 OF CALIFORNIA FAXED TO (707) 463-6204 September 25, 2001 Mr. Charley Stump Director, Planning and Community Development City of Uldah 300 Seminary Avenue Lrkiah, CA 95482 Re: Hull/PltTero Major Subdivision 98-37 and U~e Permit '00-37 Dear Mr. Sttmap: The Urban Creeks Council of California would like to offer our comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the above property. We realize that there was an August deadline for commenting; however, we were not notified of this project until late last we~k and only received documentation on it yesterday. You indicated in our phone conversation yesterday that you were happy to receive as much feedback from the public as possible, and would be willing to consider our input. We appreciate that, It is our opinion that the Mitigated Negative Declaration does not offer sufficient mitigation measures to render the impacts of this project less than sigmficant. Our concerns are set forth below, 1250 Addison Street, Suite 107 · Berkeley, CA 94702 , Tel- 510 540 6669 · Fa=;; 510 84'8 2219 89/25/2881 14:57 5188482219 UC PA6E 82 Mr. Cl~arley Stump September 25, 2.001 Page 2 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY Pag~ 16, Paragraph 4, Discussion and Analysis of Potential Environmental Impacts In this paragraph you state that the "submitted plans show considerable filling and culvert extension work on two of the three main drainages, which drop off very steeply from the property..." You go o~a to say that these activities represent a "potentially significant adverse impact in terms of erosion and geologic stability.." I As you undoubtedly are aware, it is illegal under the federal Clean Water Act as well as various state laws to fill creeks, as such an activity constitutes a net loss of wetlands (riparian). Extending culverts is also considered "fill" in that you are destroying natural streams and their associated habitat and replacing them with a pipe. There are no mitigation measures listed that could bec_n_ ~o reduce this impact to a less than significant level, and we strongly object to any culverting and filling of streams on this property. Pag, 17 You state that, as mitigation for potential environmental impacts and water quality problems, "surface drainage from and around the future re. sidences should be directed around cut and fill slopes with riprap-lined ditches or underground pipes to natural watercourses, gullies, or swales." We have found that "riprap-lined ditches" and underground pipes directed into natural watercourses, gullies, or swales te~ld to exacerbate erosion problems rather than mitigate them. These engineered solutions tend to increase the velocity of runoff and i cause problems at their ouffalls, instead on allowing for slower, on-site infiltration. PiPes often fail in major storm events, causing blowouts. Gullies are a problem that should not be increased by directing additional runoff into them. Pipes and "riprap-lined ditches" should not be allowed to discharge into natural waterways,, where they cause erosion, destabilize banks, and impact water quality. The mitigation measures described in this section will not prevent significant, adverse environmental impacts and in fact may create addl~o~l significant impacl, v. 09/25/2601 14:57 5108482219 UC PAGE 03 Mr. Charley Stump September ZS, 2001 Page 3 If this site must be developed, the City should require thc usc of vegevated swales and on- site filtration. Vegetated swales and ditches can filter runoff and provide wildlifc habitat. They are easy to create using the techniques of soil bioengineering with native plants, particularly native species of willow, dogwood, and others. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Page~ 26-28, Creeks and Water Quality As mitigation for potentially Significant impacts from erosion during road widening and paving and utility trenching as well as future impacts from road runoff, you state that the applicant "will submit an erosion control ~ t_qo khe city." Under CEQA, mitigation measures are supposed to be described in a manner that is thorough and detailed enough for members of thc public and interested parties to evaluate them. This mitigation measure hardly provides the opportunity to do so. It is our understanding that threatened steelhead make their way all the way up the creek into these western hills. Headwater streams like Gibson Creek are among the most important remaining spawning ~eas for stcclhead. The mitigation'measure in your report does not begin to show that it can reduce impacts to water quality and threatened fish to a less-than-significant level. Your report also does not address potential significant adverse affects that may occur downstream of this project. It is our understanding that Gibson Creek is a tributary to the Russian River. Damage to instream habitat and water quality will ultimately impact the river as well, and your report does not address those potent/al impacts at all. If the new, 6,000-foot road is built, it should be constructed in such a way that drainage will be directed inward, rather than outward and across the hillsides, which are already prone to erosion and landslides. Additional runoff will only add to those problems. Vegetated swales using native plants should be created along both sides of the road if it is built. 09/25/2001 14'57 5108482219 UC PAGE 04 Mr. Charley Stump September 25, 2001 Water Supply (Response to Comments, Page 13) Despite your assurances that the well that will serve this residential development is 2,000 feet from the "primary watershed," we remain concerned that groundwater pumping could impact the streams in this area. It appears that no one has done a thorough study of the connections between the groundwater and the streams in the vicinity. If groundwater is overpumped, instream habitat could be hating, whether in Gibson or another nearby creek , BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: PLANT AND ANIMAL LIFE Your mitigated negative declaration relies on a 10-year old report. An updated report should be undertaken as wildlife populations may have changed during the past decade. Reliance on this report calls into question the conclusions you have arrived at in this section. As your own report paraphrases, "roads may be the most significant impact of urbanization on streams, creating sediment input, stream channelization, and increm'ed runoff, sedimentation, oils. and hydrocarbons." As mitigation for these impacts, you again refer to a vague and non-specific "erosion control plan" to be submitted to the city, The reference to this plan is hardly an adequate mitigation. Even if a plan for erosion control dtuing grading and construction is submitted and implemerited, a paved and widened road will cause significant, ongoing, long.term, cumulative effects to the water quality of Gibson Creek--impacts that mere reference to an "erosion control pian'' cannot and doe~ not address. We also have serious questions also about the lack of listing of any amphibians and reptiles in the Gibson Creek Canyon. Even creeks in extremely urbanized areas often support at least some reptiles and amphibians. We believe your report thus has a very important omission. Was a reptile/amphibian survey done of this area, and if so, what methodology was used? Your own report (page 29) describes this area as Montane Riparian habitat with "diverse populations of amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals." 09/25/2001 14:57 5188482219 UC PAGE 05 Mr. Charley Stump September 25, 2001 Page 5 It is difficult to believe that there are no reptiles or amphibians alo~ the riparian comdor of Gibson Creek, and thus wc believe that you have not adequately mitigated for this potential impact and that potential serious, adverse environmental impacts remain unaddressed. Your report states that a significant impact of this project would be one that "interferes with the movement of native resident or migratory wildlifc species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors." A wider, paved, more-frequently used road is just that--a major impediment to wildlife passage--and is again, a significant impact that has not been adequately addressed. Your report also states that a significant impact is one that would have "substantial direct or indirect effect on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species...by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service .... "Again, we find it difficult to believe that there, are no such species in this canyon, particularly threatened reptiles and amphibians. We believe that, at the Very least, a more current and comprehensive survey should be performed to de~ermine whether or not any threatened species are present. Additional concerns It is our understanding that when thc City of Ulciah armexcd these western hills, they were to be preserved in perpetuity for their aesthetic and habitat values. Is tlxis true? Did the City rezone this area without allowing for public comment? Please clarify. We note that Ulaah has prepared a Gibson Creek Habitat Enhancement and Public Access Study. We commend you for this effort, which too few cities have undertaken. However, if you are going to prepare such a plan, you should also observe the guidelines stated therein--that "The headwaters should be protected to continue to provide a diverse wildlife habitat close to the City of Ukiah" (page 30; emphasis added). You have the opportunity now to avoid causing the habitat destruction that so many cities have allowed, and to preserve the headwaters of this stream for fish and other wildlife as well as an important natural resource/public trust benefit for future generations of human 89/25/2881 14:57 5188482219 UC PAGE 86 Mr. Charley Stump September 25, 2001 Page 6 residents. Not allowing any development on this hillside would be a step in the fight direction. If limited development is allowed, you need to come up with better mitigations than those described in the document we have reviewed, or habitat will be destroyed, fish and wildlife will be harmed, and water quality will be degraded. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. We look forward to your response and ask that we please be added to your mailing list. Sincerely, Conservation and Ou~ach Coordinator cc: John Short, Regional water QualiTy Control Board, and Santa Rosa Rob Florae, California Department of Fish and Game COMMENTS TO THE CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FROM THE URBAN CREEKS COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA The following text summarizes the comments and Staff responses provided to the Planning Commission on September 26, 2001' Comment 1' The commentors objected to the culverting and filling of streams on the property. Response: The project applicants are not proposing to culvert or fill any streams on the property. Comment 2: The commentors suggested that the proposed riprap-lined ditches should not be allowed to discharge into natural waterways, and that the ditches should be lined with native vegetation. Response: While the project engineers suggest that properly designed and constructed riprap-lined ditches will successfully control erosion, staff agrees that planting native vegetation in the ditches would help to filter runoff. Comment 3: The commentors criticize the recommended hydrology mitigation measure indicating that it lacks specific details. Response: The recommended hydrology mitigation measure lists items a through g, which provide details for the content of the required Erosion Control Plan. Staff noted to the Planning Commission that the Erosion Control Plan is a standard and routine requirement and would be prepared according to commonly practiced engineering principles. The commentors do not mention items a through g. Comment 4: The commentors express the opinion that the project the Mitigated Negative declaration does not address downstream impacts to the Russian River. Response: The Mitigated Negative Declaration concludes that the project, as mitigated, will not have a significant adverse impact on Gibson Creek, and therefore it will not adversely impact the Russian River. Comment 5: The commentors indicate that the new 6,000-foot road will have a significant adverse impact on soils and geology. Response: The 6000-foot long road is an existing road that will be improved to specifically control and eliminate existing erosion problems. Comment 6: The commentors express concern about the pumping of ground water and its potential impact on the streams in the area. Response: Staff responded to this concern in the Response to Comments document. We noted that the primary watershed is situated approximately 2000 feet from the well location, and the project site does not drain into the watershed. We also noted that the water that would fill the storage tank is not being extracted from the primary watershed in the area (Gibson Creek). Additionally, the groundwater pumping would not impact other streams in the area, because no other streams exist on or near the subject property. Comment 7: The commentors opine that the 10-year old Skenfield wildlife General Plan report was outdated and should not be relied upon. Response: The setting of the project site has not changed drastically in the past 10 years, and therefore the study is still valid. Comment 8: The commentors suggest that amphibians and reptiles could be significantly impacted by the project. Response: Staff concluded in the Mitigated Negative Declaration that the project, as mitigated, would not have a significant adverse impact on Gibson Creek or on its riparian vegetation, and therefore it would not impact amphibians or reptiles. Comment 9: The commentors contend that the paving of the road will present a barrier to migratory wildlife species. Response: The commentors do not indicated what species of animals they are talking about, and provide no factual evidence as to how or why paving material will inhibit an animal from crossing the road. AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. DATE: REPORT 91) October 17, 2001 SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF NEW DEVELOPMENT PERMIT COORDINATOR POSITION AND SALARY CLASSIFICATION Many Planning, Building, and Public Works Department functions are inter-related by virtue of the development permit procedure. This important and necessary process creates an enormous amount of documentation that requires monitoring for timely processing, organization for tracking and coordination between several city departments, and final documentation via database to preserve the records and provide historical resources. As discussed during the fiscal year 2001-2002 budget hearings, a new position has been proposed jointly by the Planning and Public Works Departments for the specific purpose of facilitating and coordinating the permit process, thus eliminating these duties from our current Planning, Building, and Public Works staffs. This position would replace the now vacant secretarial position which was formerly assigned to these departments. The proposed job description (Attachment #1) defines the Development Permit Coordinator position in detail. The Public Works and Planning Departments determined the need for a more streamlined permitting process in order to benefit contractors and developers, and to monitor the process for better efficiency. In addition, the proposed position would provide technical and administrative support to the Planning and Public Works staffs by responding to public inquiries regarding the permit process, providing technical zoning, engineering, and building code information to developers, architects, contractors, and assisting with zoning and building code enforcement duties. The creation of this position would thereby free the professional planning, building, and engineering staffs from performing routine recordkeeping, monitoring, and customer service, which would enable them to focus on their professional responsibilities, thus allowing the departments to function more efficiently. If approved by Council, this new classification would result in an 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. The salary classification is 13% (or $4,700 per year) above the formerly budgeted secretarial position, though the actual increase to budget for the remainder of the fiscal year would only be approximately 5%. A mid-year budget amendment will be required for this adjustment to full-time salaries and corresponding benefit increases, to accurately reflect the date the position is filled. Staff requests City Council approval of the proposed job description and salary classification for the Development Permit Coordinator position. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Approve "Development Permit Coordinator" job description and salary classification. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Do not approve Development Permit Coordinator job description and salary classification. 2. Refer to Staff for additional information. Requested by: Planning, Building, and Public Works Departments Prepared by: Melody Harris, Personnel Officer Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager; Charley Stump, Planning Director; and Diana Steele,.P~blic Works Director Attachments: 1. Development Permit Coordinator Job Description / Candace Horsley, Cit~Manager 3:~per\asrdevpermitcoord JOB DESCRIPTION DEVELOPMENT PERMIT COORDINATOR DEFINITION: Under general direction of the Director of Planning and the Director of Public Works/City Engineer, responsible for tracking the progress of development permits and providing status information to applicants; provides technical and administrative support facilitating the integration and coordination of permitting activities among various City departments; and performs other related duties as assigned. EXAMPLES OF DUTIES: (These examples are intended only as illustrations of the various types of work performed. The examples of work performed are neither restricted to nor all-encompassing of the duties to be performed under this job title.) (E=Essential Duty; M=Major Portion of Time) - Provide basic building, engineering, planning and permit information to the public over the telephone and in person concerning zoning regulations. (E,M) - Maintains all applications and files associated with the building inspection function, and screens building permit applications for completeness. (E,M) - Coordinates all phases of the plan check review process, including review by other City departments, and review by the structural engineering firm under contract to the City. (E) - Coordinates planning and engineering permit"tracking" process. (E,M) - Schedules appointments with contractors and builders for field inspections. (E-M) - Assists the Building and Planning Departments with zoning and building code enforcement duties, including responding to citizen complaints, recommending alternatives for effectively abating zoning and building code violations throughout the City. (E,M) - Responds to public inquiries received by telephone or personal contact in matters providing technical zoning, engineering, and Uniform Building Code information to developers, architects, contractors, and the general public. (E,M) - Research, develop, and organize permit information in a database and maintain for use in reports and special projects. (E, M) - Organize, maintain, and coordinate the Planning and Public Works permit filing systems. (E,M) - Maintain parcel books; update and maintain copies of forms and documents for public information. (E) - Perform special Public Works and Planning projects. (E) - Assist with the maintenance of various Public Works database systems. (E) - Performs other duties as assigned. QUALIFICATIONS Knowledge of: _ - Basic construction methods and materials, engineering principles and practices, and building safety standards. - Local ordinances pertaining to planning and zoning. - Office practices and procedures, including business correspondence, filing techniques, and correct English usage. - Computer software applications and data base management, including Access, Word, Excel and Power Point software, and GIS. Ability to: - Follow oral and written directions. - Organize work and establish priorities. - Read and interpret building codes, and regulations. - Communicate building and development permit requirements to contractors and the public in a professional, articulate, and courteous manner. - Establish and maintain effective and cooperative working relationships with builders, contractors, the general public, and City officials and employees. - Gather information and compile database/catalog of technical planning & building information and permit processes. - Communicate clearly and concisely, orally and in writing. - Compute building permit fees, as derived from the Uniform Administrative Code and Building Valuation data. EXPERIENCE Any combination of experience and training that would likely provide the required abilities and skills to perform essential duties. Some experience in current planning and experience working in public agency planning, building, or engineering is desirable. Knowledge of database software and other computer applications necessary. EDUCATION AND CERTIFICATIONS - Equivalent to graduation from high school, and A.A. degree required. A Bachelor of Arts degree, with emphasis in planning, building, engineering, architecture or related field, is desirable. SPECIAL REQUIREMENT Possession of a valid Class C California Driver's License. PROBATIONARY PERIOD Employees serve a six-month probationary period. If performance is not satisfactory, an employee may be terminated without cause or recourse during this period. APPLICATIONS Applications must be filled out completely and received by the Personnel Department by 5:00 p.m. on the final filing date. Resumes are encouraged, but cannot be accepted in lieu of an official application unless specified. All statements made on applications are subject to investigation and verification. False statements will be cause for disqualification, removal from the Eligibility List, or discharge from employment. SELECTION Applications will be reviewed by a screening committee and those applicants who appear to be among the best qualified will be selected for the examination process. This process may include a variety of techniques designed to test applicants' knowledge, skills, and abilities to perform the duties and responsibilities of the job. An Eligibility List will be established by ranking candidates by their overall score and a selection will be made from the candidates on this list. Employment offers may be subject to a City-paid physical examination. SALARY $2,748 - $3,340 per month, plus medical, dental, vision, life insurance coverage, and paid holidays, vacation, and sick leave. Flex plan dollars and a monthly health insurance contribution are provided by the City. The City is a member of the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS), 2% at 55 plan. The 7% employee's contribution is included in the employee's base salary and is paid by the employee. Deferred compensation programs and credit union membership are available. FILING DATE Submit a completed City of Ukiah application form to the Personnel Office, 300 Seminary Avenue, no later than 5:00 p.m. on . Applications received after the deadline or incomplete applications will not be considered. 3:RECRUIT/PERMITCOORD AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. 9c. DATE: October 17, 2001 REPORT SUBJECT: AWARD OF BID TO MASTERSON COMMUNICATIONS, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $78,561 FOR THE INSTALLATION OF THE RADIO COMMUNICATIONS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, APPROVAL OF BUDGET AMENDMENT, AND REPORT TO COUNCIL REGARDING EMERGENCY PURCHASE OF SERVICES Award of Bid At the May 16, 2001 City Council meeting, a public hearing was conducted regarding the proposed use permit for the replacement of the existing City of Ukiah radio communications tower with a new tower built in partnership with Edge Wireless. The public hearing was continued to the June 6, 2001 City Council meeting, where staff presented the City Council with a detailed research report relative to: a) the alternatives to the existing communications system, remote locations, and cost basis for each of these alternatives, and b) technological enhancement requirements and alternative designs to the proposed communications tower. (Continued to page 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Award bid for the installation of the radio communications improvement project to Masterson communications, Inc. in the amount of $78,561. 2. Approve amendment to the 2001/02 budget decreasing expenditures in account 698.2101.800.000 by $25,000, authorizing expenditures in account 698.2101.800.002 (Radio Communications Improvement Project-Fire) of $25,000, increasing revenue in account 698.0900.905.201 by $28,561, authorizing a transfer from the General Fund (account 100.283.698) to the Equipment Reserve Fund (account 698.281.100) of $26, 561, and authorizing expenditures in account 698.2001.800.002 (Radio Communications Improvement Project-Police) of $53,561. 3. Receive report regarding emergency purchase of services from Masterson Communications, Inc. in the amount of $5,723.43. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: Reject bids and budget amendment and provide direction to staff with alternative action. Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Ukiah Police Department Prepared by: Chris Dewey- Police Captain Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager and Attachments: 1. Opening Bid Analysis 2. Budget Amendment Worksheet APPROVED: (~~i~-~~l~ Canda'c~ H~)rsl~y,~ci~ Manager John Williams, Police Chief Award Of Bid To Masterson Communications, Inc. In The Amount Of $78,561 For The Installation Of The Radio Communications Improvement Project, Approval Of Budget Amendment, And Report Regarding Emergency Purchase Of Services October 17, 2001 Page 2 of 4 In that report, staff advised the Council of the current state of our existing facilities and the need to replace and improve our radio communications components. As stated then, our goals for this project were three fold: 1 ) to recycle and use as much of our existing equipment as possible to reduce costs, 2) replace our current antenna system with an antenna combining system, which will reduce our number of antennas from 11 to 5 and allow for additional radios to be added in the future without adding additional antennas to the radio tower, 3) and upgrade our Fire Department communications abilities which currently do not fully support the use of portable radios within buildings. Following the June 6 City Council meeting, the Police and Fire Department staff prepared a Request for Proposals (RFP)for the Radio Communications Improvement Project, which was distributed to five radio service vendors. The RFP was extremely complex in nature, requiring each vendor to design and engineer a complex radio antenna combining system, within the guidelines specified by the City of Ukiah. In addition, the system had unique design problems that needed to be resolved due to the radio frequency's licensed to the City of Ukiah and the likelihood that these frequencies could easily interfere with each other. Two vendors responded to the RFP, Williams Communications, Inc., in Santa Rosa, and Masterson Communications, Inc., in Ukiah. Both vendors provided excellent bid responses, including engineering plans and specifications for their proposed systems. Williams Communications bid the project at $56,259.32 and Masterson Communications bid the project at $78,561.00. Upon receiving the two bids, the Radio Communications Improvement Selection Committee (comprised of Police and Fire Department representatives) reviewed the proposed bids, and found that the price difference between the bids was in the design of the antenna combining system. To evaluate the engineering differences between the bids, the Selection Committee contacted Telecommunications Engineering Associates (T.E.A.), an independent radio communications-engineering firm located in San Carlos, CA, and requested an evaluation of both proposals. Telecommunications Engineering Associates evaluated both bid proposals from the vendors, and provided the City of Ukiah with a written evaluation of the proposals. T.E.A. stated in part "...Neither bidder offered any criteria by which performance of their system design could be measured. Both bidders correctly identified potential interference problems and have articulated some of the steps that they will take to address the problems. The radio frequencies used by the City are very closely spaced. This presents a difficult set of radio engineering issues and it is likely that interference between the City's base station radios will be a problem." After receiving T.E.A.'s evaluation and its noted concern with performance criteria and interference problems, the Selection Committee elected to provide each vendor with the written evaluation and a set of performance related criteria questions about their engineered design proposals. Each vendor was asked to answer the issues raised by T.E.A., address the potential interference issues and their engineered designed systems to mitigate these concerns, and provide the City of Ukiah with actual performance specifications of power levels for the transmit and receive radio signals. Both Williams Communications and Masterson Communications provided timely engineering specifications and responses to the questions asked by the Selection Committee. These responses and engineering specifications were then sent to T.E.A. for its review and evaluation. T.E.A. reviewed the responses from both vendors and responded to the Selection Award Of Bid To Masterson Communications, Inc. In The Amount Of $78,561 For The Installation Of The Radio Communications Improvement Project, Approval Of Budget Amendment, And Report Regarding Emergency Purchase Of Services October 17, 2001 Page 3 of 4 Committee that each vendor's system engineering and performance specifications were accurately reflected in their responses. The Selection Committee then reviewed and evaluated each of the responses and submitted bid proposals for over all cost and for system suitability. Within the original RFP, system suitability evaluation was specified with the following criteria: 1. Does the system meet all the functional needs of the City? 2. Does the system meet the requirements of durability and high quality for 24-hour use? 3. What is the bidder's experience in building and maintaining a system of these specifications, and its response time to system problems and failures? The Selection Committee found that the performance specifications of the transmit portion of each of the vendors designs was similar to each other. The Williams Communications system design however did not incorporate the Fire Department Multi- Agency State Fire Frequency into its antenna combining system because of interference issues and elected to have that frequency positioned as a stand-alone transmission and receive antenna. This step was done as a cost saving measure to reduce overall cost of the system. This frequency though is critical to the Fire Department, and is used in all multi- agency fire responses within our community. The positioning of this frequency as a stand- alone system could create interference issues in the future for our Communications Center and Fire Fighters. Reviewing the receive performance specifications of each of the proposed systems from both vendors, the Selection Committee found that the Williams Communications system performance specifications are much lower than the performance specifications of the Masterson Communication system. The most significant difference is to the Police and Police Mutual Aid frequencies. Williams Communications reports a 7.5db signal strength loss for these two channels, while Masterson Communications reports a 2.0db gain for these channels. The Selection Committee believes these performance figures will significantly impact handheld radio transmissions to the Communications Center. If the Williams Communications proposal was selected, our transmission strength and transmission range from handheld portable radios would be decreased. The performance specifications from both vendors vary directly related to the cost of their proposals. The Masterson Communications proposal while more expensive, provides for more equipment in the antenna receiving system to filter out and amplify radio signals received at the Communications Center. Though more expensive, the Selection Committee feels this cost is justified to ensure acceptable handheld portable radio communications to the Communications Center. After careful evaluation of both proposals by the Selection Committee, staff believes that the Masterson Communications proposal best fits the needs of the City. Staff reviewed costs of all items from both proposals, and found that Masterson Communications costs were actually lower in the areas where both vendors bid the same or like components, and that the added capabilities of the Masterson Communications proposal make it the best overall proposal for the City. Award Of Bid To Masterson Communications, Inc. In The Amount Of $78,561 For The Installation Of The Radio Communications Improvement Project, Approval Of Budget Amendment, And Report Regarding Emergency Purchase Of Services October 17, 2001 Page 4 of 4 Budget Amendment This project was not included in the adopted budget, as actual costs were not known at the time of budget consideration. A budget amendment is therefore required to account for the expenditure. The City Manager requested the Public Safety Departments to participate in the funding of this project due to the increased costs of the equipment. Since this is such a critical project, the Fire Department is financing $25,000 of the cost by foregoing the replacement of a vehicle budgeted in the Equipment Replacement Fund (698). The Police Department is committing $25,000 from authorized grant funding in the Supplemental Law Enforcement Service Fund (No. 205) and the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Fund (No. 207). The remaining $28,561 is proposed to be taken from the available fund balance of the General Fund (No. 100). Thus the actual new expense to the General Fund is only $28,561 Emergency Purchase Report to Council As part of the original construction contract, Edge Wireless had agreed to mount all of the City's antennae and antenna cabling on the new radio tower as it was being constructed at no cost to the City of Ukiah. This agreement was significant, saving the City the labor costs associated with the installation of these components on to the new tower. Construction of the tower commenced before final evaluation of the antenna bids was completed and it was critical to order the antenna systems prior to the final evaluation of both proposals to take advantage of the labor savings. Staff reviewed both proposals and found that Masterson Communications bid for the antenna components of the system were lower. Based on this need, Masterson Communications was awarded a bid of the antenna portion of the system for $5,723.43. Pursuant to City Code section 1522, which requires a report to be filed with the Council regarding purchases between $5,000 and $10,000, this expense is being reported to the City Council here since it is associated with the Radio Communications Improvement Project. mfh:asrcc2001 Radiolmprovement CITY OF UKIAH 300 SEMINARY AVENUE UKIAH, CA 95482-5400 (707) 463-6217 (City Clerk's Office) BID OPENING FOR: Radio Antenna System, moving the communication system to a new tower and reconfiguring and relocating the radio system DATE: ,--Ju~, 2000 / TIME: Noon i 1 COMPANY WILLIAMS COMMUNICATION 400A EAST TODD ROAD SANTA ROSA, CA 95407 MASTERSON COMMUNICATIONS AMOUNT Marie Ulvila, City Clerk Police Bids: PD Radio Antenna etc ~o ,,9 z MEMO Agenda Item: 9d TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers City Clerk Marie Ulvila ~~_.~_~, ~~~~/~ FROM: SUBJECT: Resolutions Authorizing Applications to the RZH Urban Open Space and Recreation Grant Programs DATE: October 17, 2001 During the copying process of the Council packets for the October 17, 2001 City Council meeting, the Resolutions related to item 9d, Adoption of Resolutions Approving Applications for State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Grants for Various Park Improvement Projects, were not copied with Staff's Agenda Summary Report. Staff apologizes for this error. Attached for your consideration are six Resolutions: one Resolution approves filing of an application for local assistance funds under the Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000 (Per Capita), and five Resolutions authorizing applications to the RZH Urban Open Space and Recreation Grant programs for the five projects identified in the Staff Report. Community Services Supervisor Sangiacomo will be available at the Council meeting to discuss this agenda item in further detail. Memos: CC101701 item 9d RESOLUTION NO. 2002- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FOR THE PER CAPITA GRANT PROGRAM UNDER THE SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, CLEAN WATER, CLEAN AIR, AND COASTAL PROTECTION BOND ACT OF 2000 WHEREAS, the people of the State of California have enacted the Per Capita Grant Program which provides funds to meet the urgent need for safe, open and accessible local park and recreational facilities for increased recreational opportunities that provide positive alternatives to social problems; and WHEREAS, the California Department of Parks and Recreation has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the grant program, setting up necessary procedures; and WHEREAS, said procedures established by the California Department of Parks and Recreation require the Applicant's Governing Body to certify by resolution the approval of the Applicant to apply for the Per Capita Allocation, and WHEREAS, the Applicant will enter into a Contract with the State of California: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Ukiah . . . . Approves the filing of an Application for local assistance funds from the Per Capita Grant Program under the Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000; and Certifies that the City of Ukiah has sufficient funds to operate and maintain the project(s); and Certifies that the City of Ukiah has reviewed, understands and agrees to the General Provisions contained in the Contract shown in the Procedural Guide; and Appoints the City Manager as agent to conduct all negotiations, execute and submit all documents including, but not limited to Applications, agreements, payment requests and so on, which may be necessary for the completion of project(s). PASSED AND ADOPTED on the 17th day of October 2001 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Phillip Ashiku, Mayor Marie Ulvila, City Clerk Resolution No. 2002- Part 1 of 1 RESOLUTION NO: 2002- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FOR THE ROBERTI-Z'BERG- HARRIS URBAN OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION PROGRAM UNDER THE SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, CLEAN WATER, CLEAN AIR, AND COASTAL PROTECTION BOND ACT OF 2000 For the Ukiah Skate Park Development WHEREAS, the people of the State of California have enacted the Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000 which provides funds for the Roberti-Z'Berg-Harris Open Space and Recreation Program; and WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of California has enacted the Roberti- Z'Berg-Harris Open Space and Recreation Program, which provides funds to certain political subdivisions of the State of California for acquiring lands and for developing facilities to meet recreational needs; and WHEREAS, the California Department of Parks and Recreation has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the grant program, setting up necessary procedures; and WHEREAS, said procedures established by the California Department of Parks and Recreation require the Applicant's Governing Body to certify by resolution the approval of the Application before submission of said Application to the State; and WHEREAS, the Applicant will enter into a Contract with the State of California for the Project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Ukiah City Council hereby: . Approves the filing of an Application for local assistance funds from the Roberti- Z'Berg-Harris Urban Open Space and Recreation Program under the Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000; and . Certifies that the City of Ukiah has sufficient funds to operate and maintain the Project; and , Certifies that the City of Ukiah has reviewed, understands and agrees to the General Provisions contained in the Contract shown in the Procedural Guide; and . Appoints the City Manager as agent to conduct all negotiations, execute and submit all documents including, but not limited to, Applications, agreements, payment requests and so on, which may be necessary for the completion of the Project. Resolution No. 2002- Page 1 of 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED on the 17th day of October 2001 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Phillip Ashiku, Mayor Marie Ulvila, City Clerk Resolution No. 2002- Page 2 of 2 RESOLUTION NO: 2002- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FOR THE ROBERTI-Z'BERG- HARRIS URBAN OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION PROGRAM UNDER THE SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, CLEAN WATER, CLEAN AIR, AND COASTAL PROTECTION BOND ACT OF 2000 For the Anton Stadium Rehabilitation Project WHEREAS, the people of the State of California have enacted the Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000 which provides funds for the Roberti-Z'Berg-Harris Open Space and Recreation Program; and WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of California has enacted the Roberti- Z'Berg-Harris Open Space and Recreation Program, which provides funds to certain political subdivisions of the State of California for acquiring lands and for developing facilities to meet recreational needs; and WHEREAS, the California Department of Parks and Recreation has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the grant program, setting up necessary procedures; and WHEREAS, said procedures established by the California Department of Parks and Recreation require the Applicant's Governing Body to certify by resolution the approval of the Application before submission of said Application to the State; and WHEREAS, the Applicant will enter into a Contract with the State of California for the Project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Ukiah City Council hereby: . Approves the filing of an Application for local assistance funds from the Roberti- Z'Berg-Harris Urban Open Space and Recreation Program under the Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000; and . Certifies that the City of Ukiah has sufficient funds to operate and maintain the Project; and . Certifies that the City of Ukiah has reviewed, understands and agrees to the General Provisions contained in the Contract shown in the Procedural Guide; and . Appoints the City Manager as agent to conduct all negotiations, execute and submit all documents including, but not limited to, Applications, agreements, payment requests and so on, which may be necessary for the completion of the Project. Resolution No. 2002- Page 1 of 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED on the 17th day of October 2001 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Phillip Ashiku, Mayor Marie Ulvila, City Clerk Resolution No. 2002- Page 2 of 2 RESOLUTION NO: 2002- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FOR THE ROBERTI-Z'BERG- HARRIS URBAN OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION PROGRAM UNDER THE SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, CLEAN WATER, CLEAN AIR, AND COASTAL PROTECTION BOND ACT OF 2000 For the Clay Street Property Acquisition WHEREAS, the people of the State of California have enacted the Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000 which provides funds for the Roberti-Z'Berg-Harris Open Space and Recreation Program; and WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of California has enacted the Roberti- Z'Berg-Harris Open Space and Recreation Program, which provides funds to certain political subdivisions of the State of California for acquiring lands and for developing facilities to meet recreational needs; and WHEREAS, the California Department of Parks and Recreation has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the grant program, setting up necessary procedures; and WHEREAS, said procedures established by the California Department of Parks and Recreation require the Applicant's Governing Body to certify by resolution the approval of the Application before submission of said Application to the State; and WHEREAS, the Applicant will enter into a Contract with the State of California for the Project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Ukiah City Council hereby: , Approves the filing of an Application for local assistance funds from the Roberti- Z'Berg-Harris Urban Open Space and Recreation Program under the Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000; and , Certifies that the City of Ukiah has sufficient funds to operate and maintain the Project; and , Certifies that the City of Ukiah has reviewed, understands and agrees to the General Provisions contained in the Contract shown in the Procedural Guide; and . Appoints the City Manager as agent to conduct all negotiations, execute and submit all documents including, but not limited to, Applications, agreements, payment requests and so on, which may be necessary for the completion of the Project. Resolution No. 2002- Page 1 of 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED on the 17th day of October 2001 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Phillip Ashiku, Mayor Marie Ulvila, City Clerk Resolution No. 2002- Page 2 of 2 RESOLUTION NO: 2002- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FOR THE ROBERTI-Z'BERG- HARRIS URBAN OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION PROGRAM UNDER THE SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, CLEAN WATER, CLEAN AIR, AND COASTAL PROTECTION BOND ACT OF 2000 For the Ukiah Softball Complex Rehabilitation Project WHEREAS, the people of the State of California have enacted the Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000 which provides funds for the Roberti-Z'Berg-Harris Open Space and Recreation Program; and WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of California has enacted the Roberti- Z'Berg-Harris Open Space and Recreation Program, which provides funds to certain political subdivisions of the State of California for acquiring lands and for developing facilities to meet recreational needs; and WHEREAS, the California Department of Parks and Recreation has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the grant program, setting up necessary procedures; and WHEREAS, said procedures established by the California Department of Parks and Recreation require the Applicant's Governing Body to certify by resolution the approval of the Application before submission of said Application to the State; and WHEREAS, the Applicant will enter into a Contract with the State of California for the Project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Ukiah City Council hereby: . Approves the filing of an Application for local assistance funds from the Roberti- Z'Berg-Harris Urban Open Space and Recreation Program under the Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000; and . Certifies that the City of Ukiah has sufficient funds to operate and maintain the Project; and , Certifies that the City of Ukiah has reviewed, understands and agrees to the General Provisions contained in the Contract shown in the Procedural Guide; and , Appoints the City Manager as agent to conduct all negotiations, execute and submit all documents including, but not limited to, Applications, agreements, payment requests and so on, which may be necessary for the completion of the Project. Resolution No. 2002- Page I of 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED on the 17th day of October 2001 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Phillip Ashiku, Mayor Marie Ulvila, City Clerk Resolution No. 2002- Page 2 of 2 RESOLUTION NO: 2002- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FOR THE ROBERTI-Z'BERG- HARRIS URBAN OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION PROGRAM UNDER THE SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, CLEAN WATER, CLEAN AIR, AND COASTAL PROTECTION BOND ACT OF 2000 For the Observatory Park Rehabilitation Project WHEREAS, the people of the State of California have enacted the Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000 which provides funds for the Roberti-Z'Berg-Harris Open Space and Recreation Program; and WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of California has enacted the Roberti- Z'Berg-Harris Open Space and Recreation Program, which provides funds to certain political subdivisions of the State of California for acquiring lands and for developing facilities to meet recreational needs; and WHEREAS, the California Department of Parks and Recreation has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the grant program, setting up necessary procedures; and WHEREAS, said procedures established by the California Department of Parks and Recreation require the Applicant's Governing Body to certify by resolution the approval of the Application before submission of said Application to the State; and WHEREAS, the Applicant will enter into a Contract with the State of California for the Project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Ukiah City Council hereby: , Approves the filing of an Application for local assistance funds from the Roberti- Z'Berg-Harris Urban Open Space and Recreation Program under the Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000; and . Certifies that the City of Ukiah has sufficient funds to operate and maintain the Project; and . Certifies that the City of Ukiah has reviewed, understands and agrees to the General Provisions contained in the Contract shown in the Procedural Guide; and . Appoints the City Manager as agent to conduct all negotiations, execute and submit all documents including, but not limited to, Applications, agreements, payment requests and so on, which may be necessary for the completion of the Project. Resolution No. 2002- Page I of 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED on the 17th day of October 2001 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: A'I-i'EST: Phillip Ashiku, Mayor Marie Ulvila, City Clerk Resolution No. 2002- Page 2 of 2 9d ITEM NO DATE: October 17, 2001 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS APPROVING APPLICATIONS FOR STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION GRANTS FOR VARIOUS PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Due to the most recent funding of a State of California Parks Improvement Bond, the State Parks and Recreation Department has notified the City of Ukiah of funding availability under the General Allocations and Roberti-Z'Berg-Harris (RZH) Urban Open Space and Recreation Grant Programs. Total funding availability for the Non-Urbanized Need-Basis (Competitive) component of RZH, for which Ukiah qualifies, is approximately $28,000,000. Individual grant applications must be a minimum of $30,000 and may not exceed $500,000, and require a local match of approximately 40%. Eligible projects include the categories of Acquisition, Development/Rehabilitation, and Special Major Maintenance. The deadline for applications is November 1,2001 and applicants may submit more than one application. In addition to the RZH funds, the City of Ukiah is entitled to apply for its General Allocation Grant funds, which are being dispersed statewide on per-capita basis. The City of Ukiah's allocation is projected to be approximately $90,000. It is anticipated that these grants will be very competitive as the $28,000,000 is intended to cover the entire State of California. Staff has identified five projects, which meet the criteria for application in their respective categories. Listed in this report are the five projects staff is recommending be included in the application process, amounts requested in the grants, and estimated local match requirement. (Continued on Paqe 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve projects as proposed and adopt resolutions authorizing applications to the RZH Urban Open Space and Recreation Grant Programs. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Determine proposed project list requires revision, move to approve with revisions and adopt appropriate Resolutions. 2. Determine applications to State for Park Bond funds are inappropriate at this time and do not move to adopt Resolutions Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: N/A State of California Parks and Recreation Department Larry W. DeKnoblough, Community Services DirectorzL.k)~ Candace Horsley, City Manager and Sage Sangiacomo, Community Services Supervisor Attachments: 1. 2. Clay Strpet'l~roperty Acqu APPROVED:',,~~ '¥~:....~ ~. Candace Horsley, Cit~Manager LD/ZIP1 Proposed Application Resolutions isition Site Map Parksbond.asr Skate Park Development The development of a skatepark in Ukiah has been a long time goal of the City Council and a strongly stated desire of many residents in our community. Staff is estimating the cost of construction at $300,000 for a 10,000 to 12,000 square foot park. This estimate is based upon an average cost of $25 to $30 per square foot, which is subject to fluctuation based upon design. Staff is recommending applying for $200,000 for this project with the remaining amount being raised through private fundraising efforts by the Skatepark Committee to provide a local match of $100,000. Staff recognizes that issues remain with respect to the proposed Low Gap site, however, as the timeline to complete projects funded by the grant is 2009, staff believes the application for use of Park Bond funds for construction of the park is appropriate, and due to the percentage of private funds being leveraged, will be a very competitive project. Anton Stadium Rehabilitation Project This project consists of the renovation of the Anton Stadium grandstands and is among the list of Capital projects discussed by the Council during budget hearings; at that time the Council designated $75,000 for repairs and ADA upgrades. The current grandstands are experiencing serious structural failure, are in need of a new roof, and do not comply with handicap access requirements. In addition the attached building and locker rooms are no longer habitable. Due to funding limitations staff's original proposal to the Council was limited to the structural renovation of the grandstands and improving the access issue. With the availability of park bond funds, staff is proposing to expand the project and rather than simply renovate the grandstands it is possible to remove the old structure and construct new stands along with constructing new locker rooms and a small team room. This room could also double as recreation room for day camp and hold small recreation classes. Staff is recommending a $300,000 grant application for this project, which would require a local match of approximately $128,000; of which the City would be responsible for a minimum of $86,000. Clay Street Property Acquisition There are three parcels included in this proposal, which are identified for the Council in Attachment #2. The subject properties are adjacent to north boundary of the Grace Hudson Museum and Carpenter Park. Parcels #2 and #3 on the site map had previously contained the Fullerton Equipment Rentals building and equipment yard. The rental business closed with the death of Mr. Fullerton and is now vacant. Parcel #4 was previously the site of several sub-standard Iow income housing units known as "Cohen's Cabins", which were removed several years ago and the property is now undeveloped. All three properties are now in the control of Mr. Trenton Fullerton who has indicated a desire to sell the properties. This project has not been discussed by the Council in the past as the owner has only recently indicated his desire to sell. Staff is proposing the property acquisition due to the location, which provides an opportunity to reassemble properties comprising the original boundaries of the Carpenter- Hudson estate and provide future opportunities for expansion of the Museum and park grounds as a cultural and historical center. The existing, on site structure would also provide a much needed location for Parks operations, which are currently housed jointly with Golf operations at Anton Stadium. Staff is currently experiencing security issues at Anton Stadium as this location is inadequate to house the equipment belonging to both divisions. As a result, it is often necessary to leave various pieces of equipment parked in the open parking lot overnight and therefore subject to vandalism. The Fullerton building and property is centrally located in respect to the various park sites and designed for equipment storage and maintenance. 2 Staff believes the relocation of parks operations to this site offers an opportunity to improve the security and efficiency of parks maintenance operations. The Sun House Guild has expressed an interest in participating in the purchase with the City in order to secure a portion of parcel #2 for a future patio and garden adjacent to the new Museum wing. Although no commitments have been made by the Guild, it is staff's goal to secure the private component of the local match through the Guild. In addition to the above uses, parcel #4 is approximately 21,500 square feet and vacant, which would provide the City with several options for park development including a backup site for the skatepark should either of the Low Gap locations fall through. The total square footage of all three properties is approximately 57,000 square feet. No appraised value is available at this time, however, staff has estimated a valuation between $250,000 and $300,000 for grant application purposes only. Based upon this estimate, staff is recommending a grant application in the amount of $275,000 with a local match requirement of $117,857. Ukiah Softball Complex Rehabilitation Project The Ukiah Softball Complex, east of the freeway, was originally built several years ago with park bond funds and was intended to include three fields for multi-sport use. Due to a lack of funds the third field has never been built and the primary use of the fields has been limited to softball. These fields are used extensively by the City's recreation program for Softball and with the addition of a third field, have the potential for greater community use as a multi-sports complex. Staff is recommending applying for $100,000 in RZH grant funds in order to complete the third field and upgrade the lighting and grandstands. Observatory Park Rehabilitation Project The remaining landscape improvements are scheduled and budgeted for Fiscal Year 2001/02. Additional improvements and maintenance upgrades will be necessary for the Observatory house and outbuildings. While the specific use of these buildings has not been determined, the RZH grant funds present an excellent opportunity to complete much needed and potentially expensive renovation of the structures. As the timeline for expenditures approved in the grant program extends to 2009, the City will have adequate time to develop a use program, such as historical exhibits relating to the Observatory or other cultural/recreation activities for the site. Staff is recommending a grant application in the amount of $75,000, which will require a local match of $32,143. Per Capita Allocation As stated previously in this report, these funds are automatically allocated to the City of Ukiah based on population. It is estimated that the City will receive approximately $90,000 through this program. These funds were placed in the Park Development Fund of the current budget in anticipation of receipt and are targeted for landscape improvements to Observatory Park and playground upgrades throughout the parks system. No local match is required to apply for these funds. As each project application is required to be submitted individually, staff has attached five separate resolutions, one for each project. The Council may adopt all five resolutions, or should the Council determine not to apply for all five projects as recommended by staff, Council may adopt only those resolutions relating to approved projects. I ~ .l~d ..tod I I I I ~ .1~d yod ITEM NO. DATE: October 17, 2001 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: DISCUSSION OF CANCELLATION OF NOVEMBER 21,2001 CITY COUNCIL MEETING After polling each of the Directors relative to any critical items of business for their Departments, I am requesting Council's consideration of canceling the November 21, 2001 Regular City Council meeting due to the Thanksgiving holiday. At this time, it appears there are no pressing items that cannot be scheduled for either the November 7 or December 5, 2001 City Council meetings. Therefore, staff is recommending cancellation of this meeting to avoid conflicts surrounding this busy holiday where individuals on the City Council as well as staff may be traveling out of town. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Cancel November 21,2001 City Council meeting ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Determine meeting is necessary and take no action. 2. Determine alternate date and time to conduct City Council meeting and advise staff. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: As appropriate City Manager Candace Horsley, City Manager Department Directors None. Candace Horsley, Cly Manager 4:Can:ASRCan 1121.01