Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Reso 2018-12 - Ukiah Land Acquisition Project - N of WWTP RESOLUTION NO. 2018 - 12 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH MAKING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ("CEQA") GUIDELINES IN CONNECTION WITH CITY OF UKIAH LAND ACQUISITION PROJECT — NORTH OF AND ADJACENT TO THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT WHEREAS, the City of Ukiah as Lead Agency, has prepared an Initial Environmental Study and a Negative Declaration, dated May 8. 2018 for the City of Ukiah Land Acquisition Project— North of and Adjacent to the Wastewater Treatment Plant; and WHEREAS, the acquisition would involve the acquisition of approximately 45.1 acres of land located on multiple parcels north of and adjacent to the Wastewater Treatment Plant; and WHEREAS, the Initial Environmental Study and Negative Declaration found that the proposed purchase of property in and of itself would not have significant adverse impacts on the environment because no construction or development is proposed and it would not change or alter in any way the General Plan land use designation or zoning classification on the property: and WHEREAS, any future development on the subject parcels would be subject to CEQA analysis to determine, based on the type, size and intensity of development, whether or not it would have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and WHEREAS, the Initial Environmental Study and Negative Declaration were publicly noticed and made available for public review and written comments between May 9, 2018 and May 29, 2018, and no written comments were received. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Ukiah hereby finds as follows: 1. Based on the findings and conclusions contained in the Initial Environmental Study, the Project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment; 2. Based on the findings and conclusions contained in the Initial Environmental Study, the Project would not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable; 3. Based on the findings and conclusions contained in the Initial Environmental Study, the proposed Project would not have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly; 4. The Initial Environmental Study examined areas of potential impacts and it has been determined that the proposed Project to acquire the approximately 45.1 acres of land north of and adjacent to the existing wastewater treatment plant in and of itself would not have significant adverse impacts on the environment because no construction or 1 development is proposed and it would not change or alter in any way the General Plan land use designation or zoning classification on the property. Moreover, any future development, such as an additional percolation pond or sludge pond, would be subject to CEQA analysis to determine, based on the type, size and intensity of development, whether or not it would have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Conclusion: The City Council is able to conclude that the proposed purchase of land north of and adjacent to the Wastewater Treatment Plant in and of itself would not have significant adverse impacts on the environment because no construction or development is proposed and it would not change or alter in any way the General Plan land use designation or zoning classification on the property. The Council is also able to conclude any future development on the subject parcels would be subject to CEQA analysis to determine, based on the type, size and intensity of development, whether or not it would have a significant adverse impact on the environment. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular City Council meeting held on June 6, 2018, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Brown, Scalmanini, Crane, Mulheren, and Doble NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Kevi ble, Mayor ATTEST: v� Kristine Lawler, City Clerk 2 California Environmental Quality Act INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT LAND ACQUISITION (NORGARD PARCELS) J* City of Ukiah Prepared by: City of Ukiah Community Development Department 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482 Table of Contents I. PROJECT INFORMATION 1 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2 1. Project Location 2 2. Environmental Setting 2 3. Background 3 4. Project Description 3 5. Existing Conditions 3 6. Project Objectives 4 7. Project Timing 4 III. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED 4 IV. DETERMINATION 5 V. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 6 1. Aesthetics 6 2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources 7 3. Air Quality 8 4. Biological Resources 9 5. Cultural Resources 10 6. Geology and Soils 10 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 12 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 12 9. Hydrology and Water Quality 15 10. Land Use and Planning 16 11. Mineral Resources 17 12. Noise 17 13. Population and Housing 18 14. Public Services 19 15. Recreation 20 16. Transportation/Traffic 21 17. Tribal Cultural Resources 22 18. Utilities and Service Systems 23 VI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 24 VII. REFERENCES 25 ATTACHMENT A. Exhibit A-Site Map/Aerial Photo City of Ukiah Initial Study and Negative Declaration Wastewater Treatment Plant Land Acquisition(Norgard Parcels) I. PROJECT INFORMATION Project Title: Wastewater Treatment Plant Land Acquisition Lead Agency Address and Phone Number: City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, California 95482 (707) 463-6200 Project Contact Person and Phone Number: Sean White, Water Resources Director City of Ukiah Public Works Department (707) 467-5712 CEQA Contact Person and Phone Number: Craig Schlatter, Community Development Director City of Ukiah Community Development Department (707)463-6219 Project Location: 250, 311, 341 and 361 Norgard Lane and adjacent parcels, Ukiah, CA (APNs 180-120-04, 184- 080-01, 10 (partial), 11, 27 (partial) & 28, 184-090-01 and 07, 184-100-04). Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Ukiah Public Works Department 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, California 95482 Project Description: The City is proposing to purchase property totaling approximately 45.1 acres north of and adjacent to the existing wastewater treatment plant. Currently, there are no plans and no need to expand the facility. The purpose of the project is to bank the land for possible future use. The property is located at 250, 311, 341 and 361 Norgard Lane and adjacent parcels, Ukiah, CA (APNs 180-120-04, 184-080-01, 10 (partial), 11, 27 (partial) & 28, 184-090-01 and 07, 184-100- 04). 1 City of Ukiah Initial Study and Negative Declaration Wastewater Treatment Plant Property Acquisition(Norgard Parcels) General Plan Designation: Master Plan Area (MPA) & Agriculture (AG) Zoning District: Planned Development [Airport Industrial Park] - Commercial (PD-C) & Agriculture — 40 acre minimum (AG40) Other Public Agencies Requiring Approval: The Ukiah City Council is the approval authority for the land acquisition project and therefore is the lead agency for the project. No other local or State agency has permit responsibilities or approval authority for the acquisition of the land. Therefore, there are no responsible agencies for the project. Additionally, because the project only involves land acquisition and no site preparation or construction activities, no natural resources would be affected by the project. Therefore review of the proposal by trustee agencies is not required. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. Project Location The wastewater treatment plant is located in the southernmost portion of the City limits. It is adjacent to the Russian River and includes three percolation ponds. Access to the site is off of South State Street via Plant Road and Taylor Drive. The parcels to be acquired are located adjacent to the North Pond (see Attachment A). 2. Environmental Setting The existing wastewater treatment plant and the parcels to be acquired are located west of the Russian River. The property is bifurcated by Highway 101,with approximately 5.8 acres located on the west side of the highway and within city limits (APNs 180-120-04 and 184-080-01) and approximately 39.4 acres located east of the highway and within the unincorporated County of Mendocino (APNs 184-080-10 (partial), 11, 27 (partial) & 28, 184-090-01 & 07 and 184-100-04). The acreage located west of Highway 101 is zoned Planned Development-Commercial(PD-C)and consists of a vacant field at the southernmost end of the Airport Industrial Park. These parcels are surrounded by undeveloped fields zoned PD-C to the north and west, and Highway 101 to the east and south.The acreage located east of the highway is zoned Agriculture—40 acre minimum(AG40) and consists of vineyards, undeveloped fields and riparian vegetation. These parcels are located within the 100-year floodplain. The Russian River flows along the east edge of the parcels. Residential and agricultural uses are adjacent to the north, agricultural lands are adjacent to the west, and the wastewater treatment plant is adjacent to the south. The majority of the property is located within the 131 airport compatibility zone, with some parts located within the C airport zone. An aerial view of the property is provided as Attachment A. 2 City of Ukiah Initial Study and Negative Declaration Wastewater Treatment Plant Property Acquisition(Norgard Parcels) 3. Background The wastewater treatment plant is located on incorporated City-owned property southeast of the airport. It is adjacent to the Russian River(east)and includes three percolation ponds. The Plant was constructed in 1958 with a capacity of 2.5 million gallons per day average dry weather flow and a peak wet weather flow of 10.5 million gallons per day with year-round discharge to the Russian River. State discharge requirements were modified in 1974 to allow only seasonal discharge into the Russian River. Since that time, wastewater effluent has been disposed of by a combination of evaporation and percolation from the evaporation/percolation ponds, and by reuse of treated effluent on site. In 1983, plant capacity was increased to 2.8 million gallons per day average dry weather flow with secondary treatment flow discharge to the Russian River. In 1986, a third percolation pond was constructed to the north of the two existing ponds. In 1989, an effluent pumping station was constructed on the site. In 1995, additional improvements were made, including a perimeter levee system that provided 100-year flood protection for the Plant. Beginning in 2005, the plant underwent a number of improvements to (1) improve the liquid treatment, solids treatment, and advanced waste treatment processes and increase plant reliability to meet existing and possible future regulatory requirements; and (2) through these improvements, restore and increase plant capacity to accommodate planned growth within the City and unincorporated Ukiah Valley area. In 2008 plant capacity was increased to 3.01 million gallons average dry weather flow and 24.5 million gallons peak wet weather flow with advanced wastewater treatment. 4. Project Description The City is proposing to purchase property totaling approximately 45.1 acres north of and adjacent to the existing wastewater treatment plant. Currently, there are no plans and no need to expand the facility. The purpose of the project is to bank the land for possible future use. The property is located at 250, 311, 341 and 361 Norgard Lane and adjacent properties without addresses, Ukiah, CA (APNs 180-120-04, 184-080-01, 10(partial), 11, 27 (partial)&28, 184-090-01 and 07, 184-100-04). 5. Existing Conditions The property to be acquired consists of undeveloped fields and vineyards. Approximately 14.25 acres are planted to vineyard and 20 acres are undeveloped land. The property contains a metal shop building and farm labor camp building(s); there are no other structures. The real estate agreement calls for a Boundary Line Adjustment with two of the parcels (APNs 184-080-10 and 27) so that only the agricultural land on these parcels would be included in the purchase and existing single family homes would be excluded. 3 City of Ukiah Initial Study and Negative Declaration Wastewater Treatment Plant Property Acquisition(Norgard Parcels) 6. Project Objectives The proposed acquisition of 45.1 acres adjacent to the plant is intended to provide land for future expansion if it becomes necessary in the future. Currently, there is no need or plans to expand the plant. The purpose of the acquisition is to take advantage of the available land and bank it for possible future use. 7. Project Timing The property entered escrow on March 21, 2018. Possession of the property will occur after the 2018 harvest is complete or November 1, 2018, whichever is sooner. III. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED Purpose of the Initial Environmental Study: This Initial Study has been prepared consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15063, to determine if the project, as proposed, would have a significant Impact upon the environment. The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. As indicated by the checklist and corresponding discussion on the following pages, none of these factors would be potentially impacted by the proposed purchase and sale of land. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture & Forestry Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use/ Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population / Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Tribal Cultural Resources ❑ Utilities/Service Systems Summary of Findings: Review of the proposed project to acquire approximately 45.1 acres of land adjacent to the existing wastewater treatment plant in and of itself would not adversely impact the environment because no construction or development is proposed and it would not change or alter in any way the General Plan land use designation or zoning classification on the property. Moreover, any future development, such as an additional percolation pond or sludge pond, would be subject to CEQA analysis to determine, based on the type, size and intensity of development, whether or not it would have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Currently, there are no plans and no need for any expansion or improvements to the existing wastewater treatment plant. The purpose of the project is to bank the land for possible future use. 4 City of Ukiah Initial Study and Negative Declaration Wastewater Treatment Plant Property Acquisition(Norgard Parcels) IV. DETERMINATION On the basis of the initial evaluation that follows: X 1 find that the proposed project WOULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made that will avoid or reduce any potential significant effects to a less than significant level. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT will be prepared. SignatureDate Craig Schlatter, Director Community Development Department City of Ukiah cschlatter(c�cityofukiah.com 5 City of Ukiah Initial Study and Negative Declaration Wastewater Treatment Plant Property Acquisition(Norgard Parcels) V. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The purpose of this Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) is to provide an analysis of the potential environmental consequences as a result of the Wastewater Treatment Plant Land Acquisition. The environmental evaluation relied on the following categories of impacts, noted as column headings in the IS checklist. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that the project's effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impacts" for which effective mitigation may not be possible, an EIR will be prepared. "Less Than Significant With Mitigation" applies where the incorporation of project-specific mitigation would reduce an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact"to a"Less Than Significant Impact." "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where the project would not result in a significant effect (i.e., the project impact would be less than significant without the need to incorporate mitigation). "No Impact" applies where the project would not result in any impact in the category or the category does not apply. This may be because the impact category does not apply to the proposed project (for instance, the project site is not within a surface fault rupture hazard zone), or because of other project-specific factors. 1. Aesthetics AESTHETICS: Wou d the project, Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation a)Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ® I b)Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not ❑ 1-1 0 11 limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c)Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality El El D of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which E would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Discussion: The proposed acquisition of property would have a potentially significant adverse impact to aesthetic resources if it would adversely impact a scenic vista, damage a scenic resource, degrade the visual quality of its surroundings, or create substantial light and glare. Potential Impacts: The proposed purchase of the subject property would not adversely impact scenic resources or violate the criteria listed above because it involves land acquisition only, does 6 City of Ukiah Initial Study and Negative Declaration Wastewater Treatment Plant Property Acquisition(Norgard Parcels) not involve any site preparation, construction or development, and there are no plans or need to develop the site. Any future development would be subject to separate environmental review pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The actual size, scope and intensity of any future development project would be analyzed to determine if it would adversely impact aesthetic resources. It would be speculative and unreasonable to assume what size, type and intensity of development might be proposed on the site in the future. No impact. Mitigation Measure(s): None required. 2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES.Would the Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact project: Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation a)Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a El ❑ L] Williamson Act contract? c)Conflict with existing zoning for,or cause rezoning of,forest ❑ 11 land(as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526),or timberland zoned Timberland Production(as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland,to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Discussion: The proposed project would have a potentially significant adverse impact upon agricultural resources if it would convert prime farmland to a non-agricultural use, conflict with a Williamson Act contract, or disrupt a viable and locally important agricultural use. The project would have a potentially significant impact on forestry resources if it would result in the loss, rezoning or conversion of forestland to a non-forest use. The property is not forested or under Williamson Act contract. Potential Impacts: The proposed purchase of the subject property would not adversely impact agricultural or forestry resources or violate the criteria listed above because it involves land acquisition only. No site preparation, construction or development is proposed. There are no plans to develop the site. 7 City of Ukiah Initial Study and Negative Declaration Wastewater Treatment Plant Property Acquisition(Norgard Parcels) Any future development would be subject to separate environmental review pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The actual size, scope and intensity of any future development project would be analyzed to determine if it would adversely impact agricultural or forestry resources. It would be speculative and unreasonable to assume what size, type and intensity of development might be proposed on the site in the future. No impact. Mitigation Measure(s): None required. 3. Air Quality AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact established by the applicable air quality management or air Significant Significant Significant pollution control district may be relied upon to make the Impact with Impact following determinations.Would the project: Mitigation a)Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air ❑ quality plan? b)Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to ❑ an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any ❑ criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant F-1 11 ❑ concentrations? e)Create objectionable odors affecting a substantia' number ❑ ❑ El of people? Discussion: The proposed project would have a potentially significant adverse impact to air quality if it would conflict with an air quality plan, violate any air quality standard, result in cumulative air quality impacts, expose people to air pollutants, or create significant odors. Potential Impacts: The proposed purchase of the subject property would not adversely impact air quality or violate the criteria listed above because no site preparation, grading, or actual construction is proposed or required, and there are no plans to develop the site. Any future development would be subject to separate environmental review pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The actual size, scope and intensity of any future development project would be analyzed to determine if it would adversely impact air quality. It would be speculative and unreasonable to assume what size, type and intensity of development might be proposed on the site in the future. No impact. Mitigation Measure(s): None required. 8 City of Ukiah Initial Study and Negative Declaration Wastewater Treatment Plant Property Acquisition(Norgard Parcels) 4. Biological Resources BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation a)Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b)Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including,but not limited to,marsh,vernal pool,coastal,etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Discussion: The proposed project would have adverse impacts on biological resources if it disrupted or altered animal and plant habitats, disrupted animal migratory patterns, impacted wetlands, or conflicted with any habitat conservation plans. Potential Impacts: The proposed purchase of the subject property would not adversely impact biological resources or violate the criteria listed above because no site preparation, grading, or actual construction is proposed or required. There are no plans to develop the site. Any future development would be subject to separate environmental review pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The actual size, scope and intensity of any future development project would be analyzed to determine if it would adversely impact biological resources. It would be speculative and unreasonable to assume what size, type and intensity of development might be proposed on the site in the future. No impact. Mitigation Measure(s): None required. 9 City of Ukiah Initial Study and Negative Declaration Wastewater Treatment Plant Property Acquisition(Norgard Parcels) 5. Cultural Resources CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation a)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a ❑ historical resource as defined in§15064.5? b)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of D 0 El an archaeological resource pursuant to§15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological El D resource or site or unique geologic feature? d)Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Discussion: The proposed project would adversely impact cultural resources if changed, destroyed or disturbed any historic or pre-historic resources. Figure V.3-DD contained in the Historic and Archaeological Resources Element in the Ukiah General Plan indicates areas of high sensitivity for cultural resources. The subject property is not shown as an area of high sensitivity for historic or archaeological resources. Potential Impacts: The proposed purchase and sale of the subject property would not adversely impact cultural resources or violate the criteria listed above because no site preparation, grading, or actual construction is proposed or required. There are no plans to develop the site. Any future development would be subject to separate environmental review pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The actual size, scope and intensity of any future development project would be analyzed to determine if it would adversely impact cultural resources. It would be speculative and unreasonable to assume what size, type and intensity of development might be proposed on the site in the future. No impact. Mitigation Measure(s): None required. 6. Geology and Soils GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation a)Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,including the risk of loss,injury,or death involving: i)Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the El 11 E most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42? 10 City of Ukiah Initial Study and Negative Declaration Wastewater Treatment Plant Property Acquisition(Norgard Parcels) GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation ii)Strong seismic ground shaking? El ❑ ❑ iii)Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? ❑ 0 iv)Landslides? E] ❑ b)Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? El ❑ 1 c)Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that El El El 11 would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide,lateral spreading, subsidence,liquefaction or collapse? d)Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to Ini life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Discussion: The City of Ukiah is located within the Russian River Valley, which is within the northern portion of the Coast Ranges of California, which trend to the northwest. The mountain range that lies west of the Russian River Valley and extends to the Pacific Coast is commonly called the Mendocino Range. The Ukiah Valley is a subarea of the Russian River Valley. The Ukiah Valley is approximately 22 miles long, averages 3 miles wide, and occupies an area approximately 65 square miles. The altitude of the valley floor ranges from approximately 500 feet at the southern end to approximately 700 feet in the northern end. The valley floor at the City of Ukiah is approximately 600 feet above sea level. The proposed project would adversely impact geological and soil resources if it exposed people to seismic risk, liquefaction, or soil/slope failures and erosion. Potential Impacts: The purchase of the property would not in and of itself result in a physical change in or impacts to the geology or soils of the property, because it does not involve any site preparation, construction, or development activities. There are no plans to develop the site. Any future development would be subject to separate environmental review pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The actual size, scope and intensity of any future development project would be analyzed to determine if it would adversely impact geological and soil resources. It would be speculative and unreasonable to assume what size, type and intensity of development might be proposed on the site in the future. No impact. 11 City of Ukiah Initial Study and Negative Declaration Wastewater Treatment Plant Property Acquisition(Norgard Parcels) Mitigation Measure(s): None required. 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or 0 ❑ indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b)Conflict with an applicable plan,policy or regulation adopted F-1 El EJ M for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Discussion: The proposed project would adversely impact greenhouse gas emissions if it were to generate substantial greenhouse gas emissions or conflict with an adopted plan, policy or regulation intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Potential Impacts: The purchase of the property would not result in an increase in greenhouse gas emissions because no site preparation, construction or development is proposed, it would not change the existing General Plan designation or zoning classification, and the use of the property would not change. There are no plans to develop the site. Any future development would be subject to separate environmental review pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The actual size, scope and intensity of any future development project would be analyzed to determine if it would result in an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. Accordingly, it is concluded that the proposed property acquisition in and of itself would not alter the way future development would contribute or not contribute to global climate change. No impact. Mitigation Measure(s): None required. 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact project: Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation a)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 12 City of Ukiah Initial Study and Negative Declaration Wastewater Treatment Plant Property Acquisition(Norgard Parcels) HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact project: Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation b)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment El El through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c)Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d)Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result,would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, El ❑ 1 injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wikllands? Discussion: Ukiah is generally regarded as a healthy City with relatively clean air and water. While there are some known toxic"spots" resulting from the past storage of hazardous materials underground, the City is not regarded as having a highly contaminated environment. The project would result in hazardous and hazardous materials impacts if it exposed people to hazardous materials or placed them into hazardous situations. Potential Impacts: The purchase of the property would not involve site disturbance, grading, excavation, construction or development, and therefore would not directly expose people to hazardous materials or put them in hazardous circumstances. Any future development would be subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, and an Initial Environmental Study would be required to determine if future development would expose people to hazardous substances. It would be speculative and unreasonable to assume what size, type and intensity of development might be proposed on the site in the future. No impact. Mitigation Measure(s): None required. 13 City of Ukiah Initial Study and Negative Declaration Wastewater Treatment Plant Property Acquisition(Norgard Parcels) 14 City of Ukiah Initial Study and Negative Declaration Wastewater Treatment Plant Property Acquisition(Norgard Parcels) 9. Hydrology and Water Quality HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ❑ ❑ ❑ requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site El or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site 1:1 E] or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the E capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f)Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h)Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury or death involving flooding,including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j)Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow El El E Discussion: The subject property is located adjacent to the Russian River and portions of the property lie within the floodway and 100-year flood zone. The project would adversely impact hydrology and water quality if it violated water quality standards, disrupted drainage patterns, involved placing houses within the 100-year flood zone, or exposed people to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding. 15 City of Ukiah Initial Study and Negative Declaration Wastewater Treatment Plant Property Acquisition(Norgard Parcels) Potential Impacts: The purchase of the property would not cause increased flooding, redirect flood flows, or expose people to flood hazards, because no site preparation, construction or development is proposed. There are no plans to develop the site. Additionally, any future development would be subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, and an Initial Environmental Study would be required to determine if future development would adversely impact hydrology and water quality, violate water quality standards, disrupted drainage patterns, involve placing houses within the 100-year flood zone, or expose people to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding. At this time, it is premature and would be speculative and unreasonable to assume what size, scale, type, and intensity of any future development. No impact. Mitigation Measure(s): None required. 10. Land Use and Planning LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation a)Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or ❑ E] El regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or ❑ E natural community conservation plan? Discussion: If the proposed project were to conflict with any locally adopted planning documents, policies, or strategic planning goals of the City, it would be regarded as a potentially significant adverse impact. Potential Impacts: The proposed purchase of the subject property would not conflict with any goals or policies contained in the Ukiah General Plan because the purpose of the purchase of the site is to land bank property for possible future use if needed. General Plan Policy CF-6.1 states "Maintain an adequate level of service in the City's sewage collection, treatment and disposal system to meet the needs of existing and projected development and all State and Federal regulations." Acquisition of the 45.1 acres for possible future use associated with the wastewater treatment plant is consistent with this policy. Currently, there are no plans to develop the site. Any future development would be subject to separate environmental review pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The actual size, scope and intensity of any future development project would be analyzed to determine if it would adversely impact land 16 City of Ukiah Initial Study and Negative Declaration Wastewater Treatment Plant Property Acquisition (Norgard Parcels) use planning goals and policies. It would be speculative and unreasonable to assume what size, type and intensity of development might be proposed on the site in the future. No impact. Mitigation Measure(s): None required. 11. Mineral Resources MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation a)Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b)Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral D resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Discussion: If the proposed project were to result in the loss of mineral resources or violate any of the criteria listed above, it would be regarded as a potentially significant adverse impact. Potential Impacts: The proposed purchase of the subject property would not adversely impact mineral resources because no site preparation, construction or development is proposed. Moreover, resource material maintained by the Ukiah Department of Planning and Community Development reveals that no mapped or important mineral resources exist on or in close proximity to the site. There are no plans to develop the site. Any future development would be subject to separate environmental review pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The actual size, scope and intensity of any future development project would be analyzed to determine if it would adversely impact mineral resources. It would be speculative and unreasonable to assume what size, type and intensity of development might be proposed on the site in the future. Mitigation Measure(s): None required. 12. Noise NOISE: Would the project result in: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies? 17 City of Ukiah Initial Study and Negative Declaration Wastewater Treatment Plant Property Acquisition(Norgard Parcels) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundbome noise levels? c)A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in ❑ the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient D noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, D where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the 1:1 0 project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Discussion: The project would have a significant adverse impact if it created very loud noise, noise that violated the local noise statutes contained in the Ukiah City Code, noise that conflicted with the General Plan goals and polices for noise, excessive noise from airports or violated any of the criteria listed above. The property is located within the 131 and C airport compatibility zones. Potential Impacts: The proposed purchase of the subject property would not result in very loud noises or create any noise at all because no site preparation, construction or development is proposed, and the current fallow use of the property would not change as a result of the purchase of the property. There are no plans to develop the site. Any future development would be subject to separate environmental review pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The actual size, scope and intensity of any future development project would be analyzed to determine if it would create loud noise or expose people to excessive airport noise that would violate the City Code or General Plan. It would be speculative and unreasonable to assume what size, type and intensity of development might be proposed on the site in the future. Mitigation Measure(s): None required. 13. Population and Housing POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either El F-1 ❑ directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 18 City of Ukiah Initial Study and Negative Declaration Wastewater Treatment Plant Property Acquisition (Norgard Parcels) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ❑ E] 0 necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Discussion: The proposed project would adversely impact the local population or housing stock if it induced substantial population growth or displaced people from their homes. Potential Impacts: The proposed purchase of the subject property would not adversely impact population and housing because no site preparation, demolition, construction or development is proposed. There are no plans to develop the site. Any future development would be subject to separate environmental review pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The actual size, scope and intensity of any future development project would be analyzed to determine if it would adversely impact the local population and the local housing stock. It would be speculative and unreasonable to assume what size, type and intensity of development might be proposed on the site in the future. Mitigation Measure(s): None required. 14. Public Services PUBLIC SERVICES: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? Discussion: The project would cause significant adverse impacts to public services if it resulted in a requirement for increase public service facilities or staffing. The property is located within a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) with fire protection services provided by the Ukiah Valley Fire 19 City of Ukiah Initial Study and Negative Declaration Wastewater Treatment Plant Property Acquisition(Norgard Parcels) Authority. Potential Impacts: The proposed purchase of the subject property would not adversely impact public services resources because no site preparation, construction or development is proposed, and no immediate change in the use of the property would result. There are no plans to develop the site. Any future development would be subject to separate environmental review pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The actual size, scope and intensity of any future development project would be analyzed to determine if it would adversely impact public services. It would be speculative and unreasonable to assume what size, type and intensity of development might be proposed on the site in the future. Mitigation Measure(s): None required. 15. Recreation RECREATION: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation a)Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b)Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Discussion: If the project results in an increase in the use or need for recreation facilities or in the need for additional recreation personnel to care for or provide recreation facilities and services, it would constitute a significant adverse impact on local recreation. Potential Impacts: The proposed purchase of the subject property would not adversely impact recreation resources because no site preparation, construction or development is proposed, and no increase in the local population/recreational needs would result. There are no plans to develop the site. Any future development would be subject to separate environmental review pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The actual size, scope and intensity of any future development project would be analyzed to determine if it would adversely impact recreational resources. It would be speculative and unreasonable to assume what size, type and intensity of development might be proposed on the site in the future. Mitigation: None Required. 20 City of Ukiah Initial Study and Negative Declaration Wastewater Treatment Plant Property Acquisition(Norgard Parcels) 16. Transportation/Traffic TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC: Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways,pedestrian and bicycle paths,and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management 0 program,including,but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established I by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c)Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in E] Inj substantial safety risks? d)Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses E] El El LnJ (e.g.,farm equipment)? e)Result in inadequate emergency access? o a o f)Conflict with adopted policies,plans or programs regarding D E public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Discussion: The project would have a significant adverse impact on transportation facilities and traffic if it resulted in a substantial increase in vehicle trips to and from the site, substantially altered streets and roadways, significant parking issues, or conflict with local General Plan goals and policies for transportation and traffic. Potential Impacts: The proposed purchase of the subject property would not adversely impact transportation facilities and services or traffic congestion and safety because no site preparation, construction or development is proposed and no immediate change in the use of the property would result. There are no plans to develop the site. Any future development would be subject to separate environmental review pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The actual size, scope and intensity of any future development project would be analyzed to determine if it would adversely impact transportation/traffic. It would be speculative and unreasonable to assume what size, type and intensity of development might be proposed on the site in the future. Mitigation Measure(s): None required. 21 City of Ukiah Initial Study and Negative Declaration Wastewater Treatment Plant Property Acquisition(Norgard Parcels) 17. Tribal Cultural Resources TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project cause Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal Significant Significant Significant cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section Impact with impact 21074 as either a site,feature,place,cultural landscape that is Mitigation geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe,and that is: a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of ❑ E] E Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k),or b)A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision(c)of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Discussion: AB 52 was signed into law on September 25, 2014, requiring lead agencies to evaluate a project's potential to impact tribal cultural resources and establishes a consultation process for California Native American Tribes as part of CEQA. Tribal cultural resources include sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe that are eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) or included in a local register of historical resources. The project would have a significant adverse impact on tribal cultural resources if it were to significantly reduce the significance of a tribal cultural resource. Potential Impacts: The proposed purchase of the subject property would not adversely impact tribal cultural resources because no site preparation, construction or development is proposed and no immediate change in the use of the property would result. There are no plans to develop the site. Any future development would be subject to separate environmental review and consultation with the appropriate tribe(s) pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The actual size, scope and intensity of any future development project would be analyzed to determine if it would adversely impact tribal cultural resources. It would be speculative and unreasonable to assume what size, type and intensity of development might be proposed on the site in the future. Mitigation Measure(s): None required. 22 City of Ukiah Initial Study and Negative Declaration Wastewater Treatment Plant Property Acquisition (Norgard Parcels) 18. Utilities and Service Systems XVIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact project Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mibgation a)Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d)Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment ❑ ❑ provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to El 0 accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g)Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations ❑ El 0 related to solid waste? Discussion: A project would have a potentially significant impact on utility systems if it resulted in new construction that would substantially diminish the capacity of a wastewater treatment facility, substantially increase the need for water resources, or require the increased capacity of any utility system. Potential Impacts: The proposed purchase of the subject property would not adversely impact utility systems because no site preparation, demolition, construction or development is proposed. There are no plans to develop the site. Any future development would be subject to separate environmental review pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The actual size, scope and intensity of any future development project would be analyzed to determine if it would adversely impact local or regional utility systems. It would be speculative and unreasonable to assume what size, type and intensity of development might be proposed on the site in the future. Mitigation Measure(s): None required. 23 City of Ukiah Initial Study and Negative Declaration Wastewater Treatment Plant Property Acquisition(Norgard Parcels) VI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The analysis contained in this Initial Environmental Study reveals that the proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant Property Acquisition would not result in potentially significant adverse impacts on the physical environment. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation a)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, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited. 1:1 E but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a 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)? c)Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? Impact Analysis: a) No impact. Based on the findings and conclusions contained in the Initial Environmental Study, the project does not have the potential to significantly 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 or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. b) No impact. Based on the findings and conclusions contained in the Initial Environmental Study, the project would not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. c) No impact. Based on the findings and conclusions contained in the Initial Environmental Study, the proposed Project would not have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. 24 City of Ukiah Initial Study and Negative Declaration Wastewater Treatment Plant Property Acquisition(Norgard Parcels) VI1. REFERENCES 1. A History of the Salmonid Decline in the Russian River, Steiner Environmental Consulting, August, 1996. 2. City of Ukiah Citywide Traffic Circulation Study, prepared by Omni Means Engineers and Planners, February 27, 2007. 3. City of Ukiah General Plan and EIR, 1995, 2014-19 (Housing Element Update). 4. City of Ukiah Historical and Architectural Resources Inventory Report, 1984-85, 1999. 5. City of Ukiah Initial Environmental Study and Negative Declaration for Wastewater Treatment Plant Land Acquisition, June 2011, revised July 14, 2011. 6. City of Ukiah Redevelopment Plan and EIR, 1989. 7. City of Ukiah Zoning and General Plan Land Use Maps, 2004 8. Google Earth Aerial Imagery, 2018. 9. Greenhouse Gas, Climate Change, and Energy, National Energy Information Center (NEIC) - Energy Information Administration). 10. Mendocino County Economic and Demographic Profile, 2010. 11. Mendocino County Property Search (etrackit), March 13, 2018. etrackit.co.mendocino.ca.usetrakit3/Search/parcel.aspx 12. Soil Survey of Mendocino County, Eastern Part, and Trinity County, Southwestern Part, California, U.S. Department of Agriculture- Soil Conservation Service, January, 1991. 13. Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan Compatibility Zoning Map, July 1996. 14. Ukiah Redevelopment Agency 5-year Implementation Plan 2007-2012. 15. U.S.G.S. Topographical Map, Ukiah Quadrangle, 1958(photo inspected 1975). 16. Vacant Land Purchase Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions prepared March 13, 2018. 17. Wastewater Treatment Plan Improvement Project initial Environmental Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, Scheidegger&Associates, 2004. 25 City of Ukiah Initial Study and Negative Declaration Wastewater Treatment Plant Property Acquisition(Norgard Parcels) CI1 Y OF UKIAH MAP - EXHIBI "A" 'w IF i•r t 5.7 ACRES 1801.2004 s 1 8005 08001 1 4 8 O 184 8013 TIT#802 A Z, 8 11 1 Oil0 840802 39.4 ACRES -"J�PG40 - 18410004 �r ! t^ yr Property This map s e Qtede. Every reasonable \ effort has been made b ensue the accuracy^\\1 of the map and data prodded. Parcel linea arenotmtendedtorepresent surwyedd". N 500 1,000 PubllcWorks