Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1998-07-01 Packet (2)
ITEM NO. 3a DATE: July 1. 1998 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: SPECIAL PRESENTATION - RANDY POOLE The Sonoma County Water Agency has filed their Motion to Intervene on the Potter Valley Project. Attached you will find the main body of the filing, which includes a summary of the agency's objections to the way the Potter Valley Project Study was performed. In addition, they outline the general background and historical aspects of the entire project. I have asked Randy Poole, General Manager of the Sonoma County Water Agency, to present to the Council the Sonoma County Water Agency's perspective of the various water issues that are currently affecting both Mendocino and Sonoma Counties. Time is allocated for Council to ask questions and receive further insight into Sonoma County Water Agency's strategies on this project. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council receive report from Randy Poole, General Manager of Sonoma County Water Agency ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1 N/A Citizen Advised: Randy Poole Requested by: N/A Prepared by: Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments Excerpt from Sonoma County Water Agency's Motion to Intervene in the Potter Valley Project APPROVED: "_~ ~/..~~',~ ~ i~'~ Candace Horsley, City\,Manager 4/Can.ASRPoole V ess ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1050 Thomas Jefferson Street N.W. Washington. D.C. 20007-3877 (202) 298 -1800 Telephone (202) 338-2416 Facsimile Seattle, Washington (2O6) 623-9372 (202) 298-1891 June 15, 1998 Mr. David P. Boergers Acting Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory 888 First Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20426 Re: Pacific Gas and Electric Company, FERC No. 77-110. Potter Valley Project - Dear Mr. Boergers: Enclosed for filing are an original and eight copies of the Joint Motion to Intervene, Protest, Motion for Technical Conference, and Comments on FERC Scoping Document of Sonoma County and the Sonoma Counter Water Agency in the above-referenced proceeding. Also enclosed are two copies to be time-stamped and returned in the envelope provided. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. · Sincerely, Michael A. Swiger Counsel for Sonoma County and Sonoma County Water Agency CC: Dr. John Mudre (w/enc.) Service List UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Potter Valley Project Pacific Gas and Electric Company Project No. 77-110 JOINT MOTION TO INTERVENE, PROTEST, MOTION FOR TECHNICAL CONFERENCE, AND COMMENTS ON FERC SCOPING DOCUMENT OF SONOMA COUNTY AND THE SONOMA COUNTY WATER AGENCY James P. Botz, County Counsel Jill D. Golis, Deputy County Counsel County of Sonoma 575 Administration Drive, Room 105A Santa Rosa, CA 95403-2881 (707) 527-2421 David P. Yaffe Michael A. Swiger John A. Hickey Van Ness Feldman A Professional Corporation 1050 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20007-3877 (202) 298-1800 Counsel for Sonoma County and Sonoma County Water Agency Dated: June 15, 1998 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Potter Valley Project Pacific Gas and Electric Company Project No. 77-110 JOINT MOTION TO INTERVENE, PROTEST, MOTION FOR TECHNICAL CONFERENCE, AND COMMENTS ON FERC SCOPING DOCUMENT OF SONOMA COUNTY AND THE SONOMA COUNTY WATER AGENCY Pursuant to Rules 21 1 and 214 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("Commission")l/and the Commission's notice issued April 13, 1998, the County of Sonoma, California ("County"), and the Sonoma County Water Agency ("Agency") (collectively "Sonoma") move to intervene in this proceeding and submit their protest to Pacific Gas and Electric Company's ("PG&E's") proposal, .' submitted on behalf of the Potter Valley Fishery Review Group ("FRG"), to amend the minimum flow release schedule for the Potter Valley hydroelectric project ("Project"). Sonoma also requests a technical conference pursuant to Rules 21 2 and 601~'/to discuss the various instream flow models developed 1/ 2/ 18 C.F.R. §§ 385.211, 385.214 (1997). 18 C.F.R.' §§ 385.21 2, 385.601 (1997). by PG&E, the Agency, and other interested parties.~/ Finally, Sonoma submits its comments on Commission Staff's Scoping Document 1, issued May 22, 1998.~/ I. COMMUNICATIONS The Agency's name and address are: Sonoma County Water Agency 21 50 West College Avenue Santa Rosa, California 95401 The County's name and address are: County of Sonoma County Administration Center 575 Administrative Drive Santa Rosa, California 95403-2881 The names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the persons upon whom service is to be made and to whom communications are to be addressed in this proceeding are: James P. Botz, County Counsel Jill D. Golis, Deputy County Counsel County of Sonoma 575 Administrative Drive, Room 105A Santa Rosa, CA 95403-2881 (707) 527-2421 (telephone) (707) 527-2624 (facsimile) 3,, As discussed below, Sonoma is in the process of developing a flow model and alternative minimum flow proposal, which it expects to complete in the near future. Scoping Document 1, Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., FERC Project No. 77- (May 22, 1998) [hereinafter Scoping Document]. -2- David P. Yaffe Michael A. Swiger John A. Hickey Van Ness Feldman A Professional Corporation 1050 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20007-3877 (202) 298-1800 (telephone) (202) 338-2416 (facsimile) II. ~UMMARY PG&E's proposal on behalf of the FRG would substantially decrease the amount of water diverted to the Russian River through the Potter Valley Project. That water has been relied upon over the past 90 years for irrigation, municipal water supply, recreation, and fisheries on the Russian River. While the FRG proposal acknowledges a reduction in diversions, Sonoma believes that the amount of reduction is understated. A hydrologic analysis of the FRG proposal by the Agencys/shows that, even assuming just today's level of water use on the Russian River, there · would be water shortages in dry years that would not occur under present Project operations. Taking future water demands -- which will be higher-- See Bryan J. Smith & Robert F. Beach, Interim Hydrologic Analysis of the Impact on the Russian River of the Eel River Flow Schedule for the Potter Valley Project Proposed by Pacific Gas and Electric Company on Behalf of the PVP Fishery Review Group (J.u.ne 1998), attached hereto as Attachment C [hereinafter Interim Hydrologic Report]. This hydrologic analysis is preliminary, because Sonoma has not, to date, been granted access to the flow model on which the FRG proposal is based. Sonoma believes the flow model has a number of significant errors which, if corrected, may reveal an even greater adverse impact of the FRG proposal on Russian River water supply. See id. -3- into account, the impacts on the Russian River become more severe, necessitating curtailments on water use in most of the years modeled. Impacts would be most serious in the upper Russian River, which is heavily dependent on Eel River water in the summertime. The FRG's proposed reductions would render the water supply on the Russian River curtailable for California water planning purposes. Because a curtailable water supply does not constitute a reliable and adequate water supply for urban development under California law, the reduced diversions under the FRG proposal would effectively stifle future urban development and economic growth in the upper Russian River basin. The redUced diversions would also cause a decline in agricultural production in the upper and middle Russian River basin, and have indirect negative adverse economic impacts throughout the region. In addition, the FRG proposal contains fatal modeling errors which make it unworkable. As a result of these errors, the FRG proposal would cause the total dewatering of Lake Pillsbury on the.Eel River during the summertime in a critical dry year. Lake Pillsbury provides much of the water used for flow releases from the Project. The dewatering of Lake Pillsbury would mean that PG&E could not meet its own proposed minimum flow -4- requirements in the Eel River, let alone maintain diversions to the Russian River.z/ The FRG proposal also is flawed because it fails to substantiate that the proposed reductions in Russian River diversions are needed to benefit fisheries on the Eel River. A review of the FRG proposal by Surface Water Resources, Inc.,z/shows that the flows recommended by the FRG are not based on sound science. The FRG proposal fails to take into account life- stage specific flow requirements of steelhead and chinook salmon. As a result, during most periods of the year, the FRG proposed flows are unnecessarily high. In other cases, the FRG proposed flows are too Iow. The FRG proposal would result in changes to flow releases from the Project of up to three times daily based on fluctuations in Tomki Creek, a downstream Eel River tributary, with no apparent scientific basis for the changes. Furthermore, the proposal only cursorily considers impacts on the trout fishery in the East Branch Russian River, and does not consider at all the possible impacts of reduced diversions on Russian River anadromous species. See id. at 1, 22. Surface Water Resources, Inc., Comments on the Potter Valley Project Fishery Review Group Joint Recommendation (FERC No. 77, Article 39) (June 1995), attached hereto as Attachment D [hereinafter Fishery Report]. -5- Section lO(a) of the Federal Power Acta/requires the Commission to balance competing interests in waterways, including fisheries, irrigation, water supply, recreation, and other uses. The National Environmental Policy Act~/requires the Commission, in this case, to consider impacts of reductions in Eel River diversions on the Russian River basin and the economy of the affected communities. The FRG proposal does not purport to be a balanced proposal. It fails completely to consider the impacts on Russian River irrigation, recreation, fisheries, and other beneficial uses, as well as the curtailment of economic growth of areas of the Russian River watershed. Sonoma recognizes the need to protect anadromous'fisheries on the Eel River, and appreciates the Commission's obligation to condition PG&E's license accordingly. Recently, Russian River coho salmon and steelhead were listed as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. The Agency, as a government agency of the State of California with water supply and environmental stewardship responsibilities, is developing an extensive habitat restoration program on the Russian River for listed coho salmon and steelhead in cooperation with the National Marine Fisheries Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the California Department of Fish and Game, and others. The FRG proposal could complicate the efforts to restore these fisheries. 9/ 16 U.S.C. § 803(a) (1994). 42 U.S.C. § 4332 (1994). -6- Sonoma is in the process of developing an alternative Eel River flow proposal for the Commission's consideration in its Environmental Impact Statement in this case, which will attempt to balance and reconcile Eel River fishery needs with Russian River needs. The Agency plans to submit its proposal to the Commission in the near future. For all of these reasons, the Commission must reject the FRG proposal. III. I~ACKGROUND The Project is a multi-basin facility located on the Eel River and the East Branch Russian River ("East Branch") in Lake and Mend0cino Counties in northern California.TM The Project consists of a storage reservoir at Scott Dam/Lake Pillsbury on the Eel River; a forebay at Cape Horn Dam/Van Arsdale Reservoir, also on the Eel River, approximately 17 miles downstream of Scott Dam; a diversion facility, a tunnel, and penstocks that draw a portion of'the water out of Van Arsdale Reservoir and across a natural divide into the neighboring Russian River watershed; and, at the end of the penstocks, a powerhouse with a capacity of 9,040 kilowatts.~/ The tailrace canal of the Project empties into the East Branch, which flows about 12 miles into Lake Mendocino and then converges with the main stem of the ~o~ See Map of the Russian River Watershed, attached heretQ ~8 Attachment A. ~ See Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 25 FERC ¶ 61,010 at 61,066 (1983); Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 70 FERC ¶ 61,045 at 61,136 (1995). -7- Russian River.~3/. From there, the main stem of the Russian River runs south into Sonoma County, where it runs through the cities of Cloverdale, Geyserville, and Healdsburg, and then west through Mirabel Park and Guerneville until it meets the ocean at Jenner. After it enters the Russian River, Project water is used for irrigation, recreation, and municipal and industrial water supply in the Russian River basin. Cape Horn Dam, the diversion tunnel, and the Project powerhouse began operating in 1 908.TM Scott Dam was constructed in 1 922, and that year the Commission issued an original fifty-year license to the Project.~/ · 1970, PG&E applied for a new license for the Project, and, 'in 1983, the In Commission granted a new fifty-year license to PG&E pursuant to a settlement agreement between PG&E; Federal, state, and local agencies; and a number of interveners, including the County and the Agency.w/ Until the grant of the new license in 1983, PG&E historiCally released a minimum flow of only 2 cubic feet per second ("cfs") of water into the Eel See Attachment A. ~3~ See Steiner Environmental Consulting, Effects of Operations on Upper Eel River Anadromous Salmonids, Final Report at 3.2-1, Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., FERC No. 77 (Mar. 31, 1998) [hereinafter SEC Report]. ~--"~ See lst-2nd Annual Report of the Federal Power Commission at 295 (1922). See Pacific Gas & Ele¢. Co., 25 FERC ~ 61,010. -8- River downstream of the Cape Horn Dam.16/ In the 1983 settlement agreement, however, the parties agreed, based on a three-year study of the Eel River fishery, to increase winter-time minimum flows in the Eel River downstream of Cape Horn Dam from 2 cfs to 100 cfs in an effort to restore and maintain the salmonid fishery resources in the Eel River.w/ In certifying the settlement agreement to the Commission, the Presiding Administrative Law Judge rejected arguments from California Trout, Inc., that minimum flow requirements should be even higher, explaining' There is, however, another side to increasing the flow on the Eel below Cape Horn Dam. Whatever benefits such an increase may bring for the anadromous fish, as well as the fishermen who frequent the Eel, it may also have deleterious effects upon PG&E and its ratepayers together with Mendocino and Sonoma Counties .... As for Mendocino and Sonoma Counties, . .. they are dependent upon the Russian River for municipal and industrial water supplies, as well as for agricultural and recreational needs. Over the many years that the Potter Valley project has been in operation, these counties have come to rely upon the diversion from the Eel River at Cape Horn Dam to serve their diverse requirements for water. Even though these Counties themselves have agreed since 1979 to have less water diverted from the Eel, a substantial cutdown in the diversion could have grave effects upon the citizens of these Counties.~s/ Pursuant to the 1983 settlement, Article 39 of the license ("Article 39") required PG&E, in consultation with the California Department of Fish 16/ 18/ See Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 23 FERC ¶ 63,050 at 65,183 (1983). See Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 25 FERC ¶ 61,010 at 61,057. P~cific Gas & Elec. Co., 23 FERC ¶ 63,050 at 65,183. -9- and Game (~CDF&G") and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (''USFWS"), to conduct a ten-year study of the effects of the flow release schedule established under Article 38 of the license (''Article 38") on the salmonid fishery resources of the upper Eel and East Branch Russian Rivers ("Article 39 Study"), and to recommend ''modifications in the flow release schedule or project structures and operations necessary to protect and maintain the fishery resources."~9~ On September 26, 1996, PG&E submitted a draft final report on the Article 39 Study and recommended changes to Article 38. CDF&G, USFWS, and others objected to PG&E's recommendation, however~ 'so in 1 997, PG&E, CDF&G, USFWS, and the National Marine Fisheries Service ("NMFS")2°/formed an informal task force, the Potter Valley Project Fishery Review Group ("FRG"), to develop jointly recommended amendments to Article 38 of the Project license. In September 1997, the Round Valley Indian Tribes ("RVIT") were asked to participate in the FRG. RVIT withdrew ~/ See pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 25 FERC ¶ 61,010 at 61,070. The Article 39 Study was performed for PG&E by Steiner Environmental Consulting, Inc. 2o~ NMFS participated in t'his review because of the threatened status of anadromous fish under the Endangered Species Act. See Article 39 Joint Recommendation Developed by Pacific Gas and Electric Company, California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service at 2, Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., FERC No. 77 (Mar. 31, 1 998) [hereinafter FRG Proposal]. -10- from the FRG in November 1997.z~/ No other interested party, including Sonoma, was invited or permitted to participate in the FRG. On March 31, 1998, PG&E filed with the Commission on behalf of the FRG a final report on the fishery flows at the Project and recommended changes to the Project's flow release schedule ("FRG Proposal") under Article 39 of the Project license.22/ According to PG&E, the FRG Proposal was based on an agreement between PG&E and the resource agencies.23/ On April 1 3, 1 998, the Commission issued a Notice of Application Filed with the Commission and Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.z~/ Public scoping meetings for the Environmental Impact Statement ("ELS") were held on June 3-4, 1998, in Ukiah and Eureka, California. SOnoma is filing this intervention and protest because of the potentially serious impacts of PG&E's proposal on the water supply, 2~/ See Letter from Rhonda Shiffman to Lois Cashell, Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., FERC No. 77 (filed Dec. 12, 1997). 22; See FRG Proposal supra note 20. ~3/ Cf. id. at 2. CDF&G and NMFS each submitted letters supporting the FRG Proposal. USFWS sent a letter to PG&E which cited "outstanding items" regarding the FRG Proposal, but recommended that PG&E submit the FRG Proposal to the Commission nonetheless. See Letter from Cynthia Barry to Terry Morford at 2, Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., FERC No. 77 (filed Apr. 6, 1998). z~/ Pursuant to the Commission's Notice of Extension of Comment Due Date, protests and motions to intervene are due by June 1 5, 1998. See Notice of Extension of Comment Due Date, Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., FERC No. 77-110 (May 19, 1998). -11- irrigation, economic, and recreation interests served by Sonoma in the Russian River basin. IV. MOTION TO INTERVENE IN OPPOSITION Ae Interests of Sonoma County and Sonoma County Water A(~encv -- 1. The CO~jl~tV of Sonoma The County of Sonoma, located in northern California, is home to approximately 450,000 people. The Russian River runs through Sonoma County from the County's northern border to the Pacific Ocean,TM and the economic base and the vitality of the region depend on the river. The Russian River provides the County with essential water Supply, irrigation, recreation, and aesthetic benefits. Total agricultural output in Sonoma, for example, is approximately $570,000,000 annually, and the agricultural sector provides about 10,000 jobs.TM The County's major crops are wine grapes and orchards, with over 12,000 acres planted. Recreation and tourism, mostly related, directly or indirectly, to the Russian River, generate approximately $600,O00,000 in visitor spending.~/ ~5/ The Russian River rises in Mendocino County and runs south to Sonoma County. From Sonoma County's northern border, the river runs farther south through the cities of Cloverdale, Geyserville, and Healdsburg, and then west through Mirabel Park and Guerneville until it meets the ocean at Jenner. z~/ These numbers are derived from the IMPLAN model originally developed for the U.S. Forest Service by the University of Minnesota. zz/ See Eel-Russian River Commission, Summary of Proceedings, Potter Valley Workshop at 129-131 (1995), ettached hereto es Attachment E. -12- e The Sonoma Counw Water Aoencv -- The Sonoma County Water Agency is a special district created by the California State Legislature.TM The Agency is empowered to produce and furnish surface and groundwater for beneficial uses; to control and dispose of flood, storm, and other waters; to generate electrical energy; to provide, operate, and maintain recreation in connection with flood control and water conservation works; and to provide sanitation services. The Agency has historically been the water manager of the Russian River. The Agency has adopted a policy that responsible stewardship of the Russian River water supply requires that Russian River water be made available to help meet the needs of Sonoma County, the Russian River watershed of Mendocino County, and the portion of Marin County that drains to San Francisco Bay.2s/ The Agency regulates the flow of the Russian River for the benefit of agricultural, municipal, and instream beneficial uses in Mendocino and Sonoma Counties and municipal uses in Marin County. The Agency also holds diversion and storage water rights on the Russian River and on Dry Creek, a Russian River tributary, and operates a water transmission system z~ See Cal. Water Code App. § § 53-1 through 53-37 (Deering 1968 & Supp.) (1 949 Cal. Stat., ch. 994, as amended). z~,' See Board of Directors of the Sonoma County Water Agency, Water Policy Statement. (adopted Jan. 29, 1991); cf. Attachment A. -13- that delivers water to a number of public and investor-owned water distribution systems in Sonoma and Marin Counties?°~ The Agency exercises its Russian River storage and diversion rights and regulates the flow of the Russian River pursuant to Decision 1 610 of the California Water Resources Control Board, dated April 17, 1 986.3~/ Decision 1 610 amended the Agency's Russian River water rights and established criteria for the coordinated operation of the two Federal water supply projects that the Agency uses to serve irrigation, recreation, and water supply needs: the Coyote Valley Dam Project on the East Branch (Lake Mendocino)~2/and the Warm Springs Dam Project on Dry Creek (Lake Sonoma).~/ Both of these projects were joint undertakings by the Agency ~o/ See General Location Map of the Russian River Water System, ~ttached hereto as Attachment B. 3~/ In re Application 1 9351, State of Cai. Water Resources Control Bd., Decision No. 1 61 0 (1 986), available in 1 986 Cal. ENV LEXIS 22. 32/ The $5,598,000 local share of the cost of the Coyote Dam project was paid by the Agency in 1956. The Mendocino Flood Control and Water Conservation District reimbursed the Agency $633,000. There is a hydroelectric project located at Coyote Valley Dam, FERC Project No. 2841, that is owned and operated by the City of Ukiah. See City of Uki~h, 19 FERC ¶ 62,011 (1982). ~ The Agency's local share of the cost of the Warm Springs Dam project is approximately $100,000,0.0.0, plus a share of ongoing operation and maintenance and future major replacements. The Agency also owns and operates a hydroelectric project located at Warm Springs Dam, FERC Project No. 3351, for which the Agency is the Commission licensee. See Sonoma County Water Agency, 29 FERC ¶ (continued...) -14- and the Federal government. The Agency controls the water supply storage space of Lake Mendocino and Lake Sonoma under contracts with the federal Government.34/ The Potter Valley Project imports an average of 159,000 acre-feet per year ("AFY") of water from the Eel River into th® Russian River.3s/ The Agency and the numerous agricultural, domestic, and municipal water users directly or indirectly served by the Agency have historically relied on Project water to satisfy the Agency's storage and diversion rights. In fact, from June through September, about 90-95% of the flows in the East Branch3s/ and most of the flows in the main stem of the Russian River'between Lake Mendocino and Dry Creekzz/are from water imported through the Project from the Eel River. The Agency holds no independent water rights in the Eel River. Although the Agency relies on water imported from the Eel River to satisfy 2/ (...continued) 62,31 0 (1984). 3,/ The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers owns and operates Warm Springs Dam and Coyote Valley Dam. 3s/ See Robert F. Beach, The Russian River: An Assessment of Its Condition and Governmental Oversight at 1-VI-4 (Aug. 1996) [hereinafter Russian River Assessment]. · . 3~/ Cf. SEC Report at sec. 3.5. ~/ The confluence of Dry Creek and the Russian River is located near Healdsburg, approximately 54 river miles downstream of Lake Mendocino. See Attachment A. -15- water demand in the Russian River basin, the Agency's rights to that water are contingent upon the diversion of water through the Project.TM In 1997, the Agency estimated the annual water demand in the Russian River basin upstream of Dry Creek to be 41,000-49,000 AFY.3~/ That demand is predominately attributable to vineyards, pear orchards, and other agriculture. Significant additional amounts of water are needed to satisfy the minimum fishery instream flow requirements in the Russian River that were imposed on the Agency by the California Water Resources Control Board in Decision 1610.4°/ The Agency regulates the Russian River to ensure adequate instream flows for coho salmon and steelhead. Coho salmon and steelhead in the Russian River have been listed as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.~/ Water released from Lake Mendocino is 3s/ Dependence on Eel River diversion for the successful operation of Lake Mendocino is expressly acknowledged in a 1 965 agreement between PG&E and Sonoma, attached hereto as Attachment G. Sonoma's applications for Eel River water rights through the Potter Valley Project, referenced on page two of the 1 965 agreement, were denied by the State. 3~/ See Interim Hydrologic Report at app. C, sec. 1, p. 2 (showing water demands for Russian River hydrologic sub-units during normal and dry water years). ~o/ See Russian River Assessment at 1-1-14. Instream flow requirements on the Russian River demand about 90,000 AFY of water during a normal water year and about 61,000 AFY of water during a dry water year.. See id. 4~/ 16 U.S.C. § 1536 (1994); see 62 Fed. Reg. 43,937 (Aug. 18, 1997); 61 Fed. Reg. 56,138 (Oct. 31, 1996). Similarly, coho salmon have been listed as a threatened species on the Eel River under the Endangered Species Act. See 62 Fed. Reg. 24,588 (May 6, 1997). NMFS has proposed to list chinook salmon as endangered on the Eel River, see 63 Fed. Reg. 11,452 (continued...) -16- essential for meeting both agricultural needs and fishery minimum flows in the reach above the Dry Creek confluence. The Agency also relies on Project water to serve recreational interests in the Russian River. The Russian River is one of the most popular canoeing rivers in the country, and the Agency regulates releases from Lake Mendocino to ensure sufficient flows for canoeing in the Russian River.4~/ Project water also provides for Lake Mendocino recreation. At Lake Mendocino, recreational activity includes camping, picnicking, boating, and water skiing. Water diverted from the Eel River is crucial to maintaining lake levels adequate for recreation through the summer.4~/ 4_~/ (...continued) (Mar. 9, 1998), but recently decided not to list steelhead as threatened or endangered on the Eel River, see 63 Fed. Reg. 13,347 (Mar. 19, 1998) (designating Northern California Evolutionarily Significant Unit of steelhead as a candidate species only). Critical habitat for coho salmon has been proposed on the Russian and Eel Rivers. See 63 Fed. Reg. 23,710 (Apr. 30, 1998). ~/ As discussed above, as the local sponsor of the federal Warm Springs Dam (Lake Sonoma) and Coyote Dam (Lake Mendoci.no) projects, the Agency controls releases from the water supply pools in Lakes Sonoma and Mendocino. The Agency is authorized under California law to use Project waters to serve recreational interests. See Cal. Water Code App. § 53-3.8 (Deering 1968 & Supp.). As noted earlier, most of summertime flows in the Russian River between Lake Mendocino and Dry Creek are attributable to water diverted through the Project from the Eel River. ~3/ As noted above, approximately 90-95% of the summer flow in the East Branch is attributable to the Project. Cf. SEC Report at sec. 3.5. Water not diverted from the East Branch for agricultural purposes provides inflow into Lake Mendocino. -17- Bi The Fishery Review Group ProDos;I The FRG Proposal was developed based on a study of the anadromous salmonid fishery resources in the Eel River. PG&E also was supposed to study impacts of Project operations on salmonid fisheries in the East Branch Russian River, but the FRG Proposal only cursorily considered the East Branch, as discussed below. Neither the study nor the FRG Proposal addressed the impacts of Project operations on water supply needs in the Russian River basin. Furthermore, neither the study nor the FRG Proposal addressed impacts on anadromous salmonids in the main stem of the Russian River. The FRG Proposal would modify the existing Article 38 flow schedule in a number of different ways.44~ Under the FRG Proposal, from October 16 until May 31 of each year, minimum flow requirements on the Eel River downstream of Cape Horn Dam would vary in relation to flows in Tomki Creek, a tributary of the Eel River located downstream of Cape Horn Dam. From October 1 6 until March 31, the minimum flow requirement would vary 4.~4/ In addition, the FRG includes a list of non-flow measures: (1) PG&E would give $20,000 annually towards a scientific aide position at Van Arsdale Fishery station; (2) PG&F would fund annual chinook carcass surveys; (3) PG&E would pro.vide $10,000 annually for P~ychoche//us grand/s ("squawfish") "suppression"; (4) PG&E would provide up to $30,000 annually for a chinook and steelhead stock rescue program; (5) PG&E would release warm water from Scott Dam to promote timely downstream migration of chinook; (6) the Tomki Creek flow gauge would be upgraded; and (7) Cape Horn Dam would be modified to allow accurate regulation of minimum flows. -18- (based on flows in Tomki Creek) between a floor of 35 cfs and a ceiling of . 140 cfs. From April 1 until May 31, the minimum flow requirement would vary between a floor of 35 cfs and a ceiling of 200 cfs. From June 1 until July 7, the minimum flow requirement would ramp down from winter/spring levels to summer levels. From July 7 until September 30, the minimum flow requirement would remain constant at 5 cfs. From October 1 until October 1 5, minimum flow requirements would ramp back up from summer levels to winter/spring levels. The FRG Proposal would reduce diversions to the Russian River by 25% during dry years, as compared with the current Article · 38 flow schedule,4s/and would reduce diversions by 15% On an average annual basis.~/ This is a substantial reduction. Minimum 'flow requirements in the Eel River would be adjusted up to three times every day from November 1 through January 31. Minimum flow requirements would be adjusted daily between October 1 and October 31 and between February 1 and July 7. PG&E would reserve a block of 5,000 acre-feet of water in Lake Pillsbury for release at the discretion of CDF&G between December 1 and January 31. This would represent an increase of 2,500 acre-feet over the block of water that PG&E now reserves for CDF&G under Article 38. See Interim Hydrologic Report at app. A, tbl. 1. See Potter Valley Project Fishery Review (Mar. 1998), reprinted in FRG Proposal at app..B. -19- When storage levels in Lake Pillsbury drop below the ~emergency" levels specified in the FRG Proposal, minimum flow requirements in the Eel River and diversion requirements to the Russian River would be cut by 50%.2/ This proposed 50% reduction in diversions from the Eel River during dry and critically dry years would be a further reduction in addition to the reductions that apply under the current Article 38 minimum flow schedule in such years. C. Substantial Adverse Impacts of the FRG Proposal on Sonoma The FRG's proposed flow reductions would directly and substantially damage the irrigation, recreation, and municipal and industrial water supply interests served by the County and the Agency. Together, the County and the Agency represent the interests of Sonoma County. Under the Agency's stewardship of the Russian River, the Agency has a further .interest in protecting the irrigation, recreation, and water supply interests of the people it serves in Mendocino and Marin Counties. The interests of the County and the Agency cannot be adequately represented by any other party. The County's and the Agency's participation in this proceeding would serve the public interest, and the motion of the County and the Agency to intervene should be granted. 47/ See FRG Proposal at 7, 24, fig. 4. -20- Sonoma recognizes the importance of anadromous fishery protection on the Eel River. However, PG&E has failed to show that any benefits that might accrue to the Eel River fishery from the FRG Proposal outweigh the biological, social, and economic costs of the proposal.M/ The SEC Report itself states that the factors most critical to the survival of anadromous salmonids populations in the Eel River are oceanic conditions and Ptychocheilus grandis ("squawfish"),~9/not changes in the Project flow schedule. In fact, the analysis underlying the FRG Proposal demonstrates that implementing the FRG Proposal would have little impact'on the restoration or maintenance of the anadromous fishery in the Eel River. Analysis conducted by the Agency indicates, however, that the FRG Proposal would result in substantial water supply shortages in the Russian River basin. These reductions could significantly damage the agriculture- and recreation- dependent economy in the upper Russian River basin. The reductions are ~ See. e.g., Pacific Gas & Elec. Co,, 80 FERC ¶ 62,002 at 64,008 (1 997) (rejecting resource agencies' requests for increased instream flow requirements where it was unclear whether the increase in flows would provide any real benefit to the fishery and the increased flow requirement would have caused a significant loss of power generation); Southern Cal. Edison Co., 81 FERC ¶ 61,162 at 61,715-16 (1997) (rejecting request by environmental intervenor to increase minimum flow requirements, despite possible benefits of increased flows to fishery resources, holding, "lO]ur goal is not to maximize one single aspect of the resource to the detriment of all others, but to balance all uses in the most comprehensive fashion, consistent with our mandate in section 10(a)(1) of the FPA"). See SEC Report at 5.1 8-3, 5.1 9-2. -21- likely to curtail future growth and development in Mendocino and Sonoma Counties. They may also endanger the already-threatened anadromous fishery resources in the Russian River. In addition, the FRG Proposal is fatally flawed because it would dewater Lake Pillsbury during a critically dry year. Under such conditions, PG&E would be unable to meet its instream flow requirements in the Eel River; and diversions through the Project to the Russian River would cease. The Agency is currently developing a proposed Potter Valley Project minimum flow schedule which it will submit to the Commission in the near · future. Although the Agency has considerable experience in'hydrologic modeling, it has been hampered in its development of an alternative flow schedule, because the Agency was not invited to participate in the FRG discussions and PG&E has refused to provide the Agency with PG&E's Eel River hydrology model. Unlike the SEC Report and the FRG Proposal, the Agency's flbw proposal will recognize and address the needs of both the Russian River and Eel River basins. Al The Federal Power Act Reouires the Commission to Consider the Imoacts of the Pro~)osed Amendment on Irri_oatiQrt, Recreation. and Water Section lO(a) of the FPA requires the Commission to balance numerous competing interestS'in the waterways on which hydroelectric projects are built. Specifically, section lO(a) requires licensed hydroelectric projects to be -22- best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway or waterways for the use or benefit of interstate or foreign commerce, for the improvement and utilization of waterpower development, for the adequate protection, mitigation, and enhancement of fish and wildlife (including related spawning grounds and habitat), and for other beneficial public uses, including irrigation, flood control, water SUDDIv. and recre~ti0nal and other DurDoses referred to in . . section 4(e); .... so/ Similarly, the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") and the Commission's regulations require the Commission to consider the economic, social, cultural, health, fishery, and other environmental impacts of the FRG Proposal.~/ Because the Project diverts water from the Eel Rive~ into the Russian River, and has done so for the past 90 years, section lO(a) of the FPA requires the Commission to assess the impacts of the Project in both watersheds. PG&E, however, limited the scope of the Article 39 Study to so/ § 803(a) (emphasis added). Section 4(e), which is incorporated by reference in section 10(a)(1 ), states: In deciding whether to issue any license under this Part for any project, the Commission, in addition to the power and development purposes for which licenses are issued, shall give equal consideration to the purposes of energy conservation, the protection, mitigation of damage to, and enhancement of, fish and wildlife (including related spawning grounds and habitat), the protection of recreational opportunities, and the preservation of other aspects of environmental quality. 1 6 U.S.C. § 797(e) (1994). ~/ See 42 U.S.C. § 4332; 18 C.F.R. § 380.7 (1997); 40 C.F.R. § § 1502.10, 1502.16, 1508.8, 1508.14 (1997). -23- the Eel River and the East Branch.s~/ similarly, the FRG Proposal is based on PG&E's analysis of the impacts of its proposed Article 38 amendments on the fisheries in the Eel River and East Branch only. PG&E did not analyze, and the FRG Proposal does not take into account, the impacts of the FRG Proposal on the fishery in the Russian River downstream of the East Branch.s3/ Moreover, the FRG Proposal does not consider or address the impacts of the proposed flow schedule on other beneficial public water uses in the Russian River Basin, including irrigation, water supply, power production,k/and recreation. Bi The FRG Prooosal Will Have a Substantial Negative Impact on Irrigation, Recreation. Water Supply. and the Economy in the Russian River Basin The Agency has identified significant negative impacts on the Russian River basin that would result from PG&E's proposed amendments to ~2/ Article 39 required PG&E, in consultation with CDF&G and USFWS, to "determine the effects of the flow release schedule provided for in Article 38 on the salmonid fishery resources of the upper Eel River and the East Branch of the Russian River" and to file recommendations for modifications in the flow release schedule necessary to protect and maintain the fishery resources. See Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 25 FERC ¶.61,010 at 61,070. However, Article 39 did not and could not eliminate the Commission's statutory obligation to consider all of the factors identified in section lO(a) and NEPA. s3/ Moreover, the SEC Report and the FRG Proposal give only cursory attention to the East Branch. See FRG Proposal at 6, 19, app. H; Fishery Report at 7; SEC Report at xi, sec. 3.5. ~/ As noted above, the City of Ukiah operates a FERC-licensed power plant at Coyote Dam. That project could be affected by reduced diversions to the Russian River from the Eel. -24- Article 38. in addition, the FRG Proposal is not based on sound science and 'would not accomplish its purpose of restoring Eel River salmonids. Further, the FRG Proposal is fatally flawed as a result of certain erroneous assumptions regarding storage levels in Lake Pillsbury. The Agency's analysis of the FRG Proposal can only be preliminary at this time, however, since PG&E has refused to provide the Agency with the hydrologic model and input files on which PG&E relied in developing the FRG Proposal. The FRG Proposal is vague in its particulars, and the implementation plan remains undefined,ss/ The Agency will be able to provide a more definitive analysis of the impacts of the FRG Proposal once it receives the necessary information from PG&E. 1. - Water Suoolv _ _ - In response to PG&E's March 31 filing, the Agency has conducted a preliminary analysis of the hydrologic impact of the FRG Proposal dn the East Branch, Lake Mendocino, and the main stem of the Russian River downstream of the East Branch. According to the preliminary hydrologic analysis, attached hereto as Attachment C ("Interim Hydrologic Report"), the FRG Proposal would reduce flows in the Russian River and cause water shortages in the upper and middle Russian River basin during dry See/nfra section V.B.4. -25- years,ss/even under current water demands.~/ Under estimated future water demands, with the FRG Proposal, flows in the Russian River would be reduced and water shortages would occur in the upper Russian River basin during eleven of the sixteen vear-~ modeled. Furthermore, these impacts may be understated because of modeling errors in PG&E's Eel River model. To analyze the impacts of the FRG Proposal, the Agency: (1) modeled Russian River hydrology under the existing Article 38 flow schedule; (2) by using the Project powerhouse flow data provided by PG&E, modeled Russian River flows under the FRG Proposal; and (3) then compared the results. The Agency ran this comparison under two different scenariosi Current water use demands on the Russian River, and projected future demand. Under the existing Article 38, given current levels of consumptive water use on the Russian, no water shortages would occur during any of the modeled years. .Under the FRG Proposal, however, water shortages would occUr during three of the modeled years, even with current water use demands. In particular, the middle and upper Russian River basin would-suffer a total water shortage of over 9,000 AFY during a critically dry year like 1977. The Agency also modeled the impacts of the FRG Proposal under anticipated future water demands, as developed by the Agency based on ~/ The Interim Hydrologic Report was developed using water data from 1977-1992. The Agency chose these years so that PG&E's model and the Agency's model would model the same set of years. See Interim Hydrologic Report at 10, tbl. 2. -26- estimates from the California Department' of Water Resources, existing and pending water rights applications, and local city and county development plans. Even under existing Article 38, water shortages would occur during three of the modeled years. Under the FRG Proposal, however, water shortages would occur in eleven of the sixteen modeled veers. The average water shortage would be almost 6,000 AFY during those eleven years, and the most severe shortage would leave over 21,000 acre-feet of demand unsatisfied.~ Moreover, there is a risk that the FRG Proposal will render the Project uneconomic. Reduced diversions from the Eel River mean'less generation and revenue for PG&E or a future buyer of the Project.ss~ This reduction in generation may be the difference between a marginally economic and an uneconomic project, particularly in light of generally anticipated lower future power prices due to increased competition in the electric industry. If the Project becomes uneconomic, PG&E or a future owner might seek to See id. at 12, tbl. 4. ~ PG&E has informed the California Public Utilities Commission that it intends to divest itself of all of its hydroelectric facilities, including the Project, in the near future. See Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company to Report Assessments of Inventory Balances and to Address Appraisal of Retained Generation Assets, Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., California Public Utilities Commission Application No. 98-05 (May 1, 1998). This leaves the Agency uncertain about PG&E's level of interest in maintaining the Project, as well as about how the FRG Proposal will affect PG&E's plans for disposing of the Project. -27- surrender the Project license, and diversions through the Project to the Russian River might cease entirely,so/ The Agency's review of the assumptions used by PG&E to develop the hydrologic model for the FRG Proposal indicates that PG&E's model is flawed in several critical respects that are not reflected in the Agency's preliminary analysis.~/ For example, PG&E's model does not properly account for the significant sedimentation that has reduced and will continue to reduce the storage capacity of Lake Pillsbury.r~/ Furthermore, PG&E's model assumes an initial storage level in Lake Pillsbury of 50,000 acre-feet in · 1977. Never in the subsequent fifteen modeled years did the initial storage level in Lake Pillsbury reach as high as 50,000 acre-feet. This appears to be a totally arbitrary assumption. Strong evidence of PG&E's arbitrarily inflated estimate of Lake Pillsbury storage is that both 1976 and 1977 were very dry years. Accordingly, initial storage in Lake Pillsbury in 1977, the first year modeled by' PG&E, was probably much lower than the 50,000 acre-feet level ~o~ The Project currently operates under a must-run agreement with the California Independent System Operator ("Cai ISO"). The Cai ISO purchases only a portion of the Project's power, however, and PG&E does not recover all of its Project. operating costs under the agreement. Moreover, the Cai ISO may terminate the agreement upon 90 days notice. 6~ See Interim Hydrologic Report at 16-22. ~2~ PG&E assumed that the storage capacity of Lake Pillsbury would remain constant at 1959 levels through the modeled 1984 year, and that the storage capacity would remain constant at 1984 levels for the remaining modeled years; See id. at 17-18. -28- that PG&E assumes,s3/ As a result of these modeling errors alone, under the FRG Proposal Lake Pillsbury would be totally dewatered in a Critically dry year, meaning that PG&E would be unable to meet either its minimum flow requirements for the Eel River or diversion requirements to the Russian River (such as PG&E's contractual obligation to the Potter Valley Irrigation District). Because of these and other flaws, PG&E's model exaggerates the amount of.water that would be available for instream flows and for diversions to the Russian River under the FRG Proposal.n/ The Agency expects further analysis of the model to reveal that the FRG Proposal would cause shortages in the Russian River more frequently and Of 'greater severity than indicated in the Agency's preliminary analysis. The eXtent and timing of PG&E's proposed reductions in diversions to the Russian River are particularly troublesome in light of the reliance on Russian River water by communities in the Russian River basin. In fact, Redwood Valley, located in the upper Russian River basin, is already constrained by the existing flows in the Russian River. Since 1989, the Redwood Valley County Water District's ability to serve customers has been ~3/ See id. at 1 8-1 9. ~' As noted earlier and discussed infra, PG&E has not been willing, to date, to make its Eel River hydrologic model available to Sonoma. Thus, Sonoma has been unable to quantify the additional Russian River water reductions which would result if the model were "corrected" to account for Lake Pillsbury sedimentation and a more realistic initial storage, among other factors. -29- limited by a court-ordered moratorium on any net increase in domestic service connections.~s/ Redwood Valley currently relies on approximately 2,000 AFY of water from the Lake Mendocino and the Russian River.r~/ As noted, most of the water in Lake Mendocino and the reach of the Russian River on which Redwood Valley relies depends on diversions through the Project from the Eel River. A reduction in the amount of water available to Redwood Valley through the Project would severely impact any prospects for domestic or commercial development. Communities in the Ukiah, Potter, Hopland, and Alexander Valleys~Z/would face similar restrictions under the FRG Proposal.n/ Under section lO(a) of the FPA, the Commission must carefully consider and avoid such severe impacts on water-dependent communities,r~/ In Virginia Electric & Power Com_Darly, for example, the Commission approved an application to construct a water supply project from Lake r~ See Residents for Adeauate Water v. California De.~t. of Health Servs., Case No. 55595 (Cal. Super. Ct., Mendocino Cty. Jan. 25, 1989) (peremptory writ of mandate), attached hereto a~ Attachment F; see alsg Residents for Adeouate Water v. Redwood Valley Water Dist,, 41 Cal. Rptr. 2d 123 (Ct. App. 1 995). See Interim Hydrologic Report at app. C, sec. 1, p. 2. ~z/ Redwood Valley, Ukiah Valley, Potter Valley, and Hopland Valley are located in Mendocino County, .Alexander Valley is located in Sonoma County. See Interim Hydrologic Report at 16. r~ See Virginia Elec. & Power Co., 72 FERC ¶ 61,283 at 62,215-18 (1995). -30- Gaston to the city of Virginia Beach, despite objections from environmental 'interests and the State of North Carolina.zg/ As required by section 10(a), the Commission recognized the city's need for adequate water supply, citing, inter a/ia, the moratorium on new water service connections that had been imposed on Virginia Beach for a number of years,z-t/ In the case at hand, Redwood Valley has been constrained by'a similar moratorium since 1989. Any further reduction in Redwood Valley's water supply would impose severe hardship on the community. Under the FRG Proposal, the Ukiah, Potter, Hopland, and Alexander Valleys would also suffer substantial shortages and curtailments in the future.' 'Under California state law, the risk of shortages and curtailments would effectively preclude any future development in these communities as well.TM 2. Socioeconomic~ One of the direct impacts of the water shortages and curtailments associated with the FRG Proposal would be a reduction in the economic output of Sonoma and Mendocino counties,za/ Based on the Agency's Interim Hydrologic Report, impacts would be most severe in the See id. See id. 7_2~ See Interim Hydrologic Report at 15-16; See alsg Cal. Health & Safety Code § 116525, 116540 (Deering 1997); Cal. Gov't Code § 65302.2, 65352.5 (Deering 1997); California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines § 15083.5. See Interim Hydrologic Report at 16. -31- upper Russian River basin, but would also extend to the middle Russian. The impacts would include reductions in agricultural production, and an effective halt to future domestic and commercial development because of potential restrictions on additional water service connections,z~/ Without urban growth, the Redwood, Ukiah, Potter, Hopland, and Alexander Valleys would lose the opportunity for economic expansion and would risk long-term economic decline. There are currently about 33,891 acres of crops planted in the middle and upper Russian River basin in Sonoma and Mendocino counties that rely on water from the Russian River.~/ Of these, approximatelY'26,000 acres are planted with wine grapes, an economically~/and culturally valuable crop for the region.' The efficiency of irrigation for most of these wine grape acres is high, leaving little opportunity for further conservation, and the impacts of :water shortages would be felt quickly and severely. The FRG Proposal would adversely affect recreational activities in the Russian River basin, as well. Recreation and tourism generate a large amount of economic activity within the Russian River basin. The California Department of Tourism estimated visitor spending in Sonoma and Mendocino See id. 75/ 76/ See supra note 26. The current total agricultural output on land in Sonoma and Mendocino counties irrigated with water from the Russian River is approximately $150,000,000. See id. -32- Counties to be approximately $750,000,000 in 19937-z/ As noted supra, the Agency regulates releases from Lake Mendocino to support recreational activities along the Russian River. The Interim Hydrologic Report indicates that the FRG Proposal would interfere with the Agency's ability to maintain Russian River flows for recreation and would harm recreation at Lake Mendocino. This would necessarily reduce recreation-related economic output in Sonoma and Mendocino. The Agency has not yet quantified the expected socioeconomic impacts of the FRG Proposal. However, based on the size of the affected economies and the degree of hydrologic impacts, direct and indirect economic losses in Mendocino and Sonoma Counties would clearly be on the order of millions of dollars per year. 3. Environment The Agency's biological analysis of the FRG Proposal, attached hereto as Attachment D ("Fishery Report"), identifies several flaws in the proposal that could interfere with the recovery and maintenance of the Eel River salmonid fishery or that would provide little or no benefit to the Eel River salmonid fishery. First, the Fishery Report notes that the FRG Proposal fails to address the needs of chinook salmon and steelhead during key stages of their life cycles. For example, the FRG Proposal would improperly-delay 77/ See id, -33- both the start and the finish of upstream chinook migration flows.78/ The Fishery Report found that chinook migrating upstream would probably benefit from earlier increased flows (i.e., beginning October 1 of each year rather than October 15), and that upstream chinook migration flows are not needed after December 15 of each year.z~/ In addition, the FRG Proposal does not recognize that flows of up to 140 cfs to support upstream chinook migration are not necessary to support chinook alevin or upstream steelhead migration,so/ Second, PG&E's proposal to establish a minimum flow of only 35 cfs would be inadequate during certain times of the year.Et/ From December until late May, flows of 35 cfs would provide inadequate spawning habitat, lead to dewatering of salmon redds, and may not provide adequate flow for chinook and juvenile steelhead emigration.~2/ Third, the FRG Proposal recommends a ramp down to summer flows that is unne'cessarily complex and, in some cases, may cause daily reduction increments up to 50% of the remaining flow in the last day of the transition 78/ 79/ See Fishery Report at 3. See id. at 3-4. See id. at 4. See id. See id.- -34- period,s3/ The proposed ramping system to increase flows during early October is also complex and unnecessary, since increasing flows do not adversely affect fish.m/ In addition, the FRG Proposal threatens the survival of the fishery resources in the Eel River by potentially dewatering Lake Pillsbury during critically dry years. Under such conditions, PG&E would not be able to meet the instream flow requirements for the Eel River, and the river would potentially dry up. The Agency agrees, however, with the FRG Proposal with respect to the proposed flow schedule from July 7 through September 30. Summertime flows in excess of 5 cfs would not assist in the recovery of the salmonid fishery, since the water would become too warm too quickly to allow for salmonid survival,ss/ Furthermore, summertime flows in excess of 5 cfs would probably increase the squawfish population, which already presents one of the largest obstacles to the recovery of the Eel River steelhead population.-~/ Neither the SEC Report nor the FRG Proposal addresses the needs of the fishery resources on the main stem of the Russian River. It appears, See id. at 5-6. See id. at 6. ss/ See id. 86/ See SEC Report at xxvi, 5.11, 5.19-2. -35- however, that the reduced diversions resulting from the FRG Proposal could jeopardize populations of coho salmon and steelhead in the Russian River and its tributaries that have been listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act ("ESA"). Section 7 of the ESA prohibits the Commission from taking action that would jeopardize these threatened populations of coho salmon and steelhead.~/ Accordingly, the Commission must not grant PG&E's application for a license amendment if doing so would jeopardize coho salmon and steelhead in the Russian River. 4. Effects from Non-Project Factors The SEC Report clearly indicates that recovery and maintenance of the anadromous Eel River fishery depends primarily and necessarily on several factors beyond the control or scope of the Project. Most importantly, the SEC Report concludes that ocean conditions play a major role in determining the viability of chinook salmon and steelhead populations in the Eel River. In discussing salmonid escapements during the period of the Article 39 Study, a key indicator of the viability of the Eel River salmonid populations, the SEC Report "identif[ies] ocean productivity as the predominant factor driving trends.''ss/ With respect to the chinook population during 1 987-88, the SEC Report, in discussing the significance of Iow ocean productivity during those years, states, "Virtually no fish returned from the 16 U.S.C. § 1536. 88/ SEC Report at 5.17-1. -36- 1987/88 brood despite record-high juvenile production in Tomki Creek, · excellent survival to Outlet Creek, and ample spring migration flows."~ With regard to the Eel River chinook population generally, the SEC Report concludes, "[O]cean productivity appears to be the largest source of variability in chinook return rates."~°/ Similarly, the SEC Report concludes with regard to the Eel River steelhead population, '[V]ariation in ocean productivity has the potential to influence steelhead escapements by nearly two orders of magnitude.''~/ The SEC Report also identifies Ptychoche#us grandis ("squawfish") as a major non-Project determinant of Eel River salmonid populations. The SEC Report states, "Even with the implementation of various management options [to control squawfish populations], it is questionable whether salmon and steelhead living sympatrically with P. grandi$ in the Eel River would be capable of attaining the level of reproductive success present before the introductidn of P. grand/s."~ With regard to steelhead in particular, the SEC Report states, "The establishment of P. grandis between [Cape Horn and Scott Dams] is now believed to be the primary factor that severely limits juvenile production.., and subsequent adult wild returns to Van Arsdale ~" Icl, at 5.18-2. ~o~ Icl, at 5.18-3. Icl, at 5.19-2. Icl. at xxi-xxii. -37- [Reservoir], even in years when ocean conditions are conducive to high return rates."~3! In addition to ocean conditions and squawfish predation, the SEC Report identifies other significant factors that have contributed to the decline and would prevent the recovery of the anadromous Eel River fishery: sport fishing and poaching, logging, mining, and droughts and floods.~/ None of these factors would be removed or addressed by PG&E's proposed amendments to Article 38. Finally, the FRG Proposal, as submitted by PG&E to the Commission, outlines a general flow schedule but does not reveal a detailed implementation plan. For example, the FRG Proposal does not define the relationship between actual flows in Tomki Creek and instream flow requirements on the Eel River.~/ Diversions to the Russian River through the · Project could vary substantially depending on how the FRG ultimately chooses to implement its proposed flow schedule, and impacts on the fisheries in the Eel and Russian Rivers therefore could vary as well. Icl. at 5.19-2. See id. at xxiii-xxiv. 9s/ The FRG Proposal includes a graph that, according to PG&E, shows the empirical correlation betwe'en Tomki Creek and the Eel River. See 'FRG Proposal at 22, fig. 2. PG&E does not provide a formula to describe the relationship, however. Moreover, the FRG Proposal would apply a scaling factor of 0.7 to the relationship between Tomki Creek flows and Eel River flows, but PG&E does not explain the basis for this scaling factor in the description of the FRG Proposal. See id. at 4. -38- C. Aaencv's Prooosed Modifications to Article 38 -- The Agency is currently developing an alternative flow proposal and will submit the proposal and an appropriate analysis of its fishery and water supply impacts to the Commission once the proposal and the analysis have been completed. VI. PETITION FOR A TECHNICAL CONFERENCE AND REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF PG&E'S HYDROLOGIC MODEL AND INPUT FILES The Commission Should Convene a Technical Conference in This Pro~eedin_o Pursuant to Rule 21 2 and Rule 601 ,ss/Sonoma moves the Commission to convene a technical conference in this proceeding to discuss and to develop a process to ultimately reconcile the various models and studies that have been developed by interested parties regarding the FRG Proposal and the existing Article 38 flow schedule. The Agency has been authorized by PG&E to state PG&E's concurrence with the request for a technical conference.2z/ To date, interested parties have not had an adequate opportunity to compare, evaluate, and discuss their respective studies and models. Although PG&E, NMFS, CDF&G, USFWS, and RVIT have convened as the FRG to discuss the Article 39 Study and proposed amendments to Article 18 C.F.R. §§ 385.212, 385.601. Personal communication with Alice Reid, counsel for PG&E (June 2, 1998). -39- 38, FRG has not invited the Agency or other interested parties to participate in its meetings. Moreover, PG&E has declined to allow the Agency to evaluate the model on which PG&E relies in the FRG Proposal.~ California Trout and RVIT have also developed a hydrologic model which they have shared only in part with the Agency.'~ A technical conference would provide an opportunity for interested parties and Commission Staff to evaluate the various models and studies and identify and address any gaps and flaws that exist in them. Ideally, discussions would facilitate agreement on common assumptions and methodologies that the parties could use to develop alternative flow proposals and that Commission Staff could use in preparing the ElS. To that end, it is critical that the technical conference occur prior to the development of the draft ElS. PG&E Must Provide Its Eel River Hvdroloaic Model and InPut -- Files to Interested Parties Sonoma respectfully requests that the Commission require PG&E to provide its Eel River hydrologic model and input files to the Commission and parties to this proceeding, so that the model on which the FRG Proposal is based can be reviewed and evaluated by interested parties. See infra section VI.B. ~9~ The California Trout/RVlT model relies on the PG&E input files that neither PG&E nor RVIT will provide to the Agency. -40- Without PG&E's Eel River hydrologic model and input files, neither the Agency nor the Commission can fully analyze the FRG Proposal. PG&E's Eel River hydrologic model contains algorithms and computer coding that reflect PG&E's assumptions and inputs to the model. The Agency, the Commission, and other interested parties must have access to this information before they can evaluate completely the impacts of the FRG Proposal on the Russian River or even understand all of its elements. As noted above, the Agency has already identified several seriously incorrect assumptions that PG&E made in developing its model, and the Agency is concerned that there may be additional flaws in PG&E's model which the Agency has' insufficient information to identify.Too/ The Agency has repeatedly asked PG&E to provide its Eel River hydrologic model and input files, but PG&E has refused to do so. On March 1 O, 1998, the Agency requested four items from PG&E that Were necessary for the Agency's review and analysis of PG&E's proposed amendments to Article 38, including a request that PG&E provide a copy of its Eel River hydrologic model and input files for the proposed flow schedule.~t~ The Agency repeated its request to PG&E on several subsequent occasions,~°2~ See supra section V.B. 1. ~--~/ See Letter from Randy Poole to Terry Morford (dated Mar. 10, 1998), {~ttached hereto as Attachment H. ~o2/ See Letter from Randy Poole to Terry Morford (dated Mar. 20, 1998), attached hereto as Attachment H; Letter from Randy Poole to Terry Morford (continued...) -41 - and PG&E committed to provide any information the Agency needs "that might serve the public interest."~°3/ On April 2, 1998, PG&E provided three of the four items that the Agency had requested.~°~/ PG&E did not provide Steiner Environmental Consulting Inc.'s ("SEC's") hydrologic model and input files, however, citing "concerns about data tracking and ensuring consistency in the configuration of the model's algorithms."~°s/ PG&E instead offered the Agency a draft copy of a "third party audit" of the SEC model, but indicated that PG&E had "concluded it was not advisable to release the model to anyone outside of SEC.''~°s/ On April 6, 1998, the Agency again requested tliat PG&E provide the actual SEC hydrologic model and input files. To date, PG&E has not provided the model or the input files. ~o2/ (...continued) (dated Mar. 30, 1998), attached hereto as Attachment H. ~o3~ Letter from John Newman to Paul Kelley, et al. (dated Mar. 19, 1998), attached hereto as Attachment H. ~-~ PG&E provided Steiner Environmental Consulting Inc.'s hydrologic model daily Eel river flow output for PG&E's proposed flow schedule; unimpaired daily flow estimates for the Eel River; and the Tomki Creek and Eel River data set used to develop the regression equation for the flow conversion factor. ~os/ Letter from Terry Morford to Randy Poole at 1 (dated Apr. 2, 1998), attached hereto as Attachment H. -42- As an initial matter, Commission decisions must be supported on the 'record by substantial evidence,z~z/ The Commission therefore may not rely on the assertions in the FRG Proposal without reviewing the hydrologic model on which the FRG Proposal is based. Moreover, the Commission may not rely on PG&E's hydrologic model when it renders a decision regarding amendments to Article 38 unless the Commission has previously made the hydrologic model available to the other parties in this proceeding, including Sonoma. Although Sonoma is not requesting formal discovery procedures at this stage of the proceeding, the Commission has a policy of affording interested parties a meaningful opportunity to comment on aspects of the record on which the Commission relies.~°s/ In this case, the public interest would be best served by allowing the Commission and interested parties to review and evaluate the model prior to the technical conference requested herein by the Agency~°9/and prior to the development of a draft ElS.z-L~/ PG&E should provide its hydrologic model See 16 U.S.C. § 825/(b) (1994). ~-~ Cf. Northern Mindanao Power Cor_D., 65 FERC ¶ 61,373 at 63,01 7 (1993); Central Nebraska Pub. Power & Irrig. Dist., 61 FERC ¶61,206 at 61,775 (1992), modified, 62 FERC ¶ 61,057 (1993). In addition, the Commission's ex.parte rules require that information submitted by one party be served on all parties. See 18 C.F.R. § 385.2201 (1997). ~--~/ See supra section VI.A. ~o/ Similarly, the Commission may not expressly rely on PG&E's hydrologic model and input data when developing an ElS for the proposed amendments to Article 38 unless the model and the input data are "available (continued...) -43- to the Commission and interested parties now so that the Commission and interested parties can evaluate the model as early as possible in the proceeding, at a time when such evaluation will be most meaningful and helpful. PG&E has completed its development of the model, so the Commission need not be concerned about reviewing a model still under development. VII. COMMENTS ON SCOPING DOCUMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT A. Prooosed Scooe of the ElS Sonoma agrees with and supports the general scope of the Commission's ElS, as outlined in the Commission's Scoping Document I ("Scoping Document"). As reflected in the Scoping Document, the scope of . . the ElS should include an analysis of the impacts of each proposed alternative on both the Russian River and Eel River basins, including impacts on fisheries and other aspects of the environment, water supply, irrigation, recreation, and the regional economy. Moreover, Sonoma is pleased to note that the Commission intends to analyze fully and equally the Article 39 alternatives proposed by other interested parties.~-~-~/ ~_m~ (...continued) and accessible" to the public. See 18 C.F.R. § 380.9 (1997); 40 C.F.R. § 1506.6 (1997); California v. Block, 690 F.2d 753, 765 (1982). ~/ As indicated supra, the Agency plans to file its Article 39 proposal in the near future. -44- Sonoma requests the Commission to clarify and expand the scope of the ElS in several specific respects. First, with respect to fishery resources, the Commission should clarify that the analysis of instream flows for fish will address both the Russian River and the Eel River. In addition, the ElS should analyze the impacts of each alternative flow proposal on predatory species, such as squawfish, and determine the extent to which each flow proposal would inadvertently undermine attempts to restore and maintain anadromous salmonid fishery resources by promoting predatory species.~2~ Second, the ElS should consider the impacts of each flow proposal on all recreation, not just fishing and boating. Other recreational activities, such as hiking and picnicking, could be substantially affected. For example, reduced diversions to the Russian River could result in lower lake levels at Lake Mendocino, which in turn could deter nearby hikers and picnickers. The Commission should consider all possible recreational activities in both its qualitative analyses and its socioeconomic analyses of the impacts of each proposed alternative on recreation. In addition, the Commission should consider the impacts of each flow proposal on recreation at Lake Pillsbury. Third, the Scoping Document's statement that the Commission will consider the economic impacts of reduced water availability on municipal and industrial activities in the service area should be expanded. The Commission should clarify that the ElS must consider the socioeconomic impacts of each ~_z~ Cf. SEC Report at 5.16-1 to 5.19-2. -45- flow proposal on the economy in the entire Russian River basin, both the main stem and the East Branch. The Commission .should specifically clarify that this entire region is included within the "service area.® In addition, the ElS should address the socioeconomic effects of each proposed alternative on recreation, tourism, and agriculture, not just municipal and industrial activities. In particular, the Commission should analyze the impacts of each proposed alternative on the substantial agricultural interests that rely on the Russian River throughout the Russian River basin, not just in the Potter Valley Irrigation District. The Agency requests that the Commission issue a ~evised scoping document that addresses the issues raised herein, in addition to the issues identified in Scoping Document 1. Bi Schedule for Develor~ino the ElS -- Sonoma is concerned that the Commission's proposed schedule for developing the draft ElS is so accelerated as to preclude meaningful or thoughtful analysis. Sonoma recognizes the need to resolve the flow schedule issue as rapidly as reasonably possible but believes it is inappropriate to allow only two and a half months for the development of a draft ElS. Sonoma strongly recommends that the tentative due date for the completion of the draft ElS be-extended until after the technical conference, 113/ Compare Scoping Document at 5. -46- and that the tentative due date for the final ElS be extended commensurately. The completion date for the draft ElS should be extended for several reasons. First, PG&E has not submitted detailed operational or implementation plans to support the proposed flow schedule. In the absence of such plans, neither the Commission nor any other interested party can fully and proPerly analyze the impacts of the proposed flow schedule. It may be that the implementation plans will disclose different impacts than indicated in the FRG Proposal. If the Commission were to develop the draft ElS prior to reviewing the operational and implementation Plans, the ElS would be inadequate, and the Commission would risk being required to develop a seCond draft ElS. Second, the rushed schedule leaves interested parties little time in which to review the final report on the Article 39 study, review PG&E's proposed flow schedule, and develop alternative flow proposals. Since the time PG&E submitted its flow schedule to the Commission on March 31, 1998, other interested parties have had only about ten weeks both to analyze PG&E's proposal and to develop alternative proposed flow schedules. By contrast, PG&E took two years from the end of the Article 39 study to develop its current flow proposal,~-t~/requesting extensions of time in the process. 1 1._.54/ See SEC Report at i. -47- Third, PG&E has refused to share' its Eel River hydrologic model with the Agency and other interested parties, thereby interfering with Sonoma's ability to understand and offer timely comments on PG&E's proposal.~J-~/ The Commission's rushed schedule for developing the draft ElS inappropriately rewards PG&E for its refusal to share its hydrologic model. Fourth, neither the SEC Report nor the FRG Proposal analyzes the impacts of the current flow schedule or FRG's proposed flow schedule on the Russian River and the Russian River basin, analysis that is critical for the development of the Commission's ElS. The Agency is continuing to analyze the impacts of various flow scenarios on the Russian River~ but has been hampered in doing so by not having PG&E's Eel River model. Of all the interested parties, the Agency is in the best position to assist the Commission in evaluating and documenting these impacts on the Russian River. ~-~/ As discussed supra, Sonoma requests that the Commission require PG&E to make its Eel River hydrologic model available to all participants in this proceeding. -48- VIII. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Sonoma respectfully requests that the Commission grant the Agency's and the County's motion to intervene and motion for a technical conference~ .--i~sue a revised scoping document, and reject the FRG Proposal. '~' Respectfully submitted, James P. Botz, County Counsel Jill D. Golis, Deputy County Counsel County of Sonoma 575 Administration Drive, Room 105A Santa Rosa, CA'95403-2881 (707) 527-2421 June 15, 1998 David P. Michael A. Swiger John A. Hickey Van Ness Feldman A Professional Corporation 1050 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20007-3877 (202) 298-1800 Counsel for Sonoma County and Sonoma County Water Agency -49- MINUTES OF THE UKIAH CITY COUNCIL Special Meeting -June 17, t998 A special meeting of the Ukiah City Council, the agenda for which was legally noticed and posted, convened at 5:55 p.m. in the Ukiah Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. Roll was taken and the following Councilmembers were present: Kelly, Mastin, and Mayor Malone. Absent: Councilrnembers Chavez and Ashiku. Staff present: Assistant City Manager Harris, City Manager Horsley, City Attorney Rapport, Fire Chief Sandelin, Police Chief Williams, Recording Secretary Giuntoli, and various other members of the City staff in attendance to observe the ceremony and participate in the congratulatory reception. 2. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEM? No one came forward to address the Council. ,~ ~:~' 3. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINES-~ 3,. Adoption of Resolution Makin_a-Cit7 Clerk.~:~:Jntm~ ! aM.a?~or M,a. lo, ne thanked .Colleen Hen.derson for her ~,ce tO~'"City, job well aone auring ner year ana a half as City ~i~i~,?...~i? ..... .... City Manager Horsley introduced Marie Ulvila, and ~~..upon the experience and expertise Marie will bring to her new position as C.~C'i~?!ii!i!iiiiii!i;?~ .... M/S Masfin/Kelly to adopt Resolution No. 9~?~king Ap'~i~~i' to Fill The Vacant City Clerk Position, carried by the following~li!~ii ~0~. AYl=S?.iii~Uncilmembers Kelly, Mastin, and Mayor Malone. NO~~:~''' N~i~iiiiiiii!i~TA!~: None. ABSENT: Councilmembers Chavez and Ashiku..?' ,~ii?~' '~ii~iiiiiiiiiiii!iiiiiii!!iiiiiiiiiiii!~ .... 3b. Swearin_a in of Police Ch~'~~ Fire Chief. anti'City Clerk .:!ii:!.i:[:~ ':i;i:: ' '"'" - Mayor Malone swore in Marie~.!:Ulvila as?~newC~'~ Clerk for the City of Ukiah. City M~r'H0rsley ~i~ ~hn Wili'J~:~ the new Police Chief for the City of Ukiah, and Roe"~l~as the:~W;iE~e?Chief for the City of Ukiah. Mayor ~i~:~e invit~i~~.to participate in the reception in the foyer, in order to say good~bYe to Ms. Hen~r~:iahd congratulate the others on their new positions $.~i!!?iiii!i: ADJOURNMENT ::~i:i::i::: ::!;. '"' .~med the special meeting at 6:03 p.m. to the Regular City Council ting~'.~.~7, 1998 to be held at 6:30 p.m. b:ccmin98~t061798.~pe Marge Giuntoli, Recording Secretary Special Meeting. June 17,1698 4b MINUTES OF THE UKIAH CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting. June 17, 1998 A regular meeting of the Ukiah City Council, the agenda for which was legally noticed and posted, convened at 6:30 p.m. in the Ukiah Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. Roll was taken and the following Councilmembers were present: Kelly, Mastin, and Mayor Malone. Absent: Councilmembers Chavez and Ashiku. Staff present: Public Utilities Director Barnes, Community Services Director DeKnoblough, Finance Director Elton, City Manager Horsley, Public Works Director Kennedy, Associate Planner Lohse, City Attorney Rapport, Planning Director Sawyer, Senior Planner Stump, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer Tuliback, Police Chief Williams, and Marge Giuntoli, Recording Secretary. 2. Plecl_oe of Alle~_ien_e~ Councilrnernber Mastin led the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. .Special Order of Buslne_e~ 3a. Presentation. Ukiah Fire Deeartment. Exelorer Pest 21~rd~ Uk ah F~re Department Explorers reported on their e~ at ~i:.i~f~ia Fire Explorer Academy in Napa ~is past spring. ~:~iiiiiiiiiii::~=~ ..... -Aonroval/Correction Minute- M/S Mastin/Kelly ,o approve the minutes of the regular~i::~!~!!~. June 3,199~N,' ~ submitted, carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilme~b~S!i~l~;:.:.Mastin, and Mayor Malone. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Council~'i~r~~:~ Ashiku. 5. RIGHT TO APPEAL DECISION ~!ili!i!!ii~ii!!i!!!!!iiiiiii~:. Mayor Malone rewewed the appeal proce~?" 6. CONSENT CALI~NDAR ~i?'"' .~!~I:' ..... iii~ii[:: ii i ii~i:i" .... · .i:ii:.' .,~?:" ~[i~ii!:':~*:~':''' Councilmember Kelly requeste~:'!~ Itam!~', Aooro~'of Letter Oooosino Federal Budoet ,R._ed_~t_ions o,f V.e.teran..s Bene~., ~Pblled frOliCs C0.~t Calendar and addec~ to the agenda-as a. Approved D~rseme'i~'~!~ti~iirnonth of May, 1998; b. Adopted-:;iOrd~nce No'?~a..~ 5 iiRmending Division 9, Chapter 2, Article 14 (Planned .Devel~C~in. ing Z6Re/DiStrict) of the UkJah City Code; c. ^~:[horlzed ~!~:.~0 dispose of biosolids at the Redwood Landfill for the sum not to d. ~::~iilReceived notifica~i~'~;ding the award of bid to Hart for the maintenance and testing of g~!ii!? the main substati~'~itchgear in the amount of $5,900.00; e..:~i!?il:'~ Received notifi~.'~'-"tJon, regarding the award of bid to Wipf Construction for the Installation of .+!?:~::!~i~i!ii:.: two pull boxes.~ind Albertson's and locating and stubbing up conduit at State and Henry ~iiiii!iiiiiii!ii!iii!,~. Streets in th.e~ount of $6,980.00; ~iiiiii:~iii:~iii~ ililiRecei~ed:fi°tification regarding the award of bid to Wipf Construction for the installation of ~?~i~i~i~!?.!~i;i~iiiia r, ix, inch:~nduit at Empire Drive and State Street in the amount of $9,160.00; g~iiii?i!!set~-ctat:es and times for Fiscal Year 1998-99 Budget Hearings as June 23 and 24, 1998, ....... 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.; h. Authorized Mayor to execute letter to State Legislature in support of ACA 42; J. Awarded bid to Advanced Computer Connections, to provide and install a public safety computer (hardware) system, for the Public Safety Technology Enhancement Project, in the amount not to exceed $90,200; k. Awarded bid to Masterson Communications, Inc., in the amount not to exceed $S5,58S.00, to provide and install public safety communication center, communications equipment, for the approved Communication Center Improvement Project; I. Rejected all proposals received for providing fuel card lock service. The motion carded by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Kelly, Mastin, and Mayor Malone. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilmembers Chavez and Ashiku. Regular Meeting. June 17,1998 Page I 7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEM-e- No one came forward to address the Council. As it was not yet the 7:00 p.m. time for the Public Hearing, the Council proceeded to Item 9a. 9a. Presentation and Prooosel for Collaborative Creation of Webslta.- The presentation for the collaborative creation of websites was conducted by Greater Ukiah Chamber Image Committee co-chairs Jeanie Nord and Dennis Wilson, Committee members Vince Caramella and Kathy Spencer, and Chamber General Manager Elizabeth Brazil. In addition to a general summary of the Chamber's activities for the previous year, the presentation also incorporated the Chamber's projected goals and objectives for the upcoming fiscal year, including the development of innovative and vital websites for both the City of Ukiah and the Chamber, and the production of informational brochures for uss by both entities. . .~...~!:.,. Councilmembers and staff commented positively on the accomplishment, of the Amber, noting that not only has the level of sophistication improved, but that everyone~nce~' appears to be enjoying a more comfortable working relationship. Discussi=n ensued :.~:e]a{i~e~:'to the websites, wherein the collaborative benefits of sharing data and avoiding!~licati6hi~i,e~ted, and possible info.n'national linkages defined. Websites from various ~ :~ities we?~ii~wed~and commer}~~ mace on the importance of visual appeal, ease of movem~t between~ ~er~tltOPics, and~e necessity to take adequate time for the creation of w~i:Pages tha:~!~;~re di~§q~!ifu~naf, :~nd Pwr~fess..ion..al in apse. arance. Req. ~uested funding for the d~:~p~e~:~f ~e websit~si!~s' discussed, hereto ~t was aemrminea this matter would be take~:~=p~:~Utther during the b~gethearings scheduled for the following week. 8 PUBLIC HEARING 7 DO o ql lie. Introduction of an Ordinance Amendlno the 4~Offlclal Z"~i~'i~!~ for the Citv of Uklal and AD..arovin_~ the RCHDC/Doolan Creek-.SUbdivLNon and Planr~;d Devalo_~me-nt Prolecl ng L;o ission voted 5 to 0 to reco~'end ad~tion;iofa ~ative Declaration and approval of the Rural Community Housing Devel~ent Co~ratior~i~CHl~C) Subdivision Map, Rezoning, and Planned Development project .on'::!~ulberry~ii~reet. Tb~::~'i:~)ject involves the rezoning of the property from 'R-3" (Multiple ResidUal)to 'P~:(Pianned!Development) and the subdivision of a 3.11 acre parcel into 23 single fami~ireSidentiaJ:i~ts and ~ for open space and recreational uses. The 'P-D" zoning classification: is ~uested tOaljow the.~axation of lot size and width requirements for the de~ei.o_pment of..~i~i'~eat equ~i[!i~ !~me single family residential units. The recomm~;Cor~ditions;i~:~I also i~~if¢ requirements for several issues, including a seconoary~eaccess driveway;:i~mpletion of a landscape plan, and the establishment of an area for oPeL!..i~ ~d/or Mr. Lohse refer~ ~ili~ne Hi~i~::'0f June ~ 2, ~ 998 to Senior Planner Stump, wherein Mr. Hill clarified, ilhe :po~nitaken by RCHDC on the Mulberry Street Subdivision open space and emerge~aCCess as ~ted by the City Council, and indicated that following his contemplation of the::..~fl ramifications '~ ~tOmeowners of this open space and access, he felt compelled to reverse his initial recom~tion of shifting the lots in order to create the open space and the in~tiation of a box culvert f~ pedestrian traffic and emergency vehicle access. Mr. Lohse noted t...hat .the reduction of i~eu fees is not allowable if no recreation area is created, and if the City ~ts the recreati~ilArea, RCHDC will be held responsible for paying the full fee amount. ~e:~t ~' staff relative to recreational space within the subdivision, the Mulberry Street ex:iertsion~ii~ Volumes in ~ area, emergency aocess, impacts on the creek bank, and flood plain Mr. Lohse replied that traffic volumes wtthin that area did not warrant the cost that would be entailed to develop a street over Doolan Creek; a slightly larger box culvert would probably be required to alleviate flooding cone, ems; there are no details in the proposal that relate to the issue of the condition of the creek bank on the developed side; and there were no specific grading plans submitted with the project, although grading would be expected to be part of any stream alteration agreement with the Department of Fish and Game. Staff has requested that riparian species be used on the creek bank. Discussion followed relative to whether a homeowners' association or the City would assume responsibility for the recreation area, wherein it was noted two other options had been suggested which involved either deleting the open space from the project plan entirely, or having the Regular Meeting. June 17,1998 Page 2 maintenance provided directly by RCHDC. Mayor Malone opened the public hearing at 7:41 p.m. Duane Hill, Executive Director of RCHDC, commented on the flood plain and box culvert, and stated RCHDC has submitted a plan to FEMA specifying the necessary requirements relative to elevations that the City Engineer has signed off on and FEMA has approved. He further commented upon the development and housing costs within the City, noting RCHDC's goal of providing housing for Iow income families, and clarified the statements in his letter to Mr. Stump relative to his altered recommendation regarding the open space and emergency access. The Council queried the applicant regarding the Impact of potential costs for emergency access and open space on this development, and if RCHDC retained any type of interest in the property following build-out. Mr. Hill replied that if an open space is created and owned by the homeowners, this::~ll make the s. ubdivision a Common Interest Development, and necessitate the formation of:~iiHomeowners Association and compliance with Common Interest Development regular'ns andi~stly insurance requirements. Under the Sterling Davis, a Common Interest Develop~ti~ting of less than 100 houses must carry substantial Insurance, and if that:~erage~i~!::in~t~?::~::..place, then each i.ndivid, u..al home.owner ca.n .be sued. Another cost that~i~e incu'~; ~i:i?~ Homeowne~ ,~sso~a~on ~ not successful, and there are dues to be p~:" Although!RC'~. d0~.~l!ot retain;~-~n interes! in. the pr .ol~e. ~, they function as the Architectural ~ntrol Com~ttee u~..sU~i~me as'~ey I .......... '"-' _ I~.1 =.St.r. eet' ~ his con .ceres rela~!~!~.proposed develo~gent,, small u~ ,~.es eno me potential closing oll of the pecestrian ~kW~:i~ existence. hangout for older teens, resulti~ in a high~te of POt~ in~'~on::::~':While the idea of open space is. a wonderful concept, it becomes an .a~Ordability:~0blem f~!~f~::':income families, who need to be g~ven the opportunity to own the[ril;bwn home!i?tn a safef~ila'nd comfortable environment. Also, con. str. uctio, n__of__a_Pedestrian briC:and e~g:ency a~s could possibly add $100,000 to the project ano ~3,000 to $5,000..pet~ ~th~,~::.~elly cliff ~'ii,:the idea~ii~i~n space was abandoned, it would then come oland d'r~Otone of the p'toperty owners, subsequenti blocki the estrian Jared Williams;:~:i!~St!ii~s La~!!!iAii!SAgg, spoke in support of the applicant, and Invited the ~CO_u. 7.[I ,me,~rn..~ip;:~ ~e:~!. GlasS:iL~.Beach to observe in person the type of home and subdivision M~'Williams, 151 Hol~;~e, Ft. Bragg, spoke in support of RCHDC's seE-help program, and to ~ :value of creating ~i~r~r community while working together to build each other's homes. ~i :iStefani, 225 W~:ington Avenue, spoke against the necessity for open space in the ~ment since~.:~homes will have their own lawns for the children to play in, and against the an.~!~;:::'since most of the traffic consists of children on their way to school, and they Matt Howard, 20 Olga Place, expressed his gratitude to RCHDC for providing him and others with the opportunity to own their own homes, and commented upon the rewarding sense of community among the neighbors who work together to build their own houses. Cecilia Vargas, 2101 South State Street, expressed her appreciation to RCHDC for making her family's dreams of home ownership come true. Laurel Cannell, address unknown, spoke to the importance that building her own home made in her life, and stated she wished to see more people have the opportunity for home ownership. Melinda Noward commented that many families in the community are waiting for the Council's decision about their dream, and are praying that they approve this project. Regular Meeting. June 17,1998 Page 3 The public hearing was closed at 8:37 p.m. Mayor Malone commented on the positive nature of helping people to own their own homes, since it was also an investment in the community. He stated the City would like to see some type of access in that area, as well as more parks in that end of town. Planning Director Sawyer advised that the City Attorney had just Informed staff that the ordinance did not make reference to the Subdivision Map. Senior Planner Stump referenced Page 2, Section Seven of the proposed ordinance, and offered the following amendment to the section to resolve City Attorney Rapport's concern regarding the omission. SECTION SEVEN 'The approval of the Development Plan shown as Exhibit "A", and the Tentative Subdivision Map shown as Exhibit 'C', and entitled 'Doolan Creek Subdivisi~*~Shall ~ .be. subject., to the .~ed Conditions of Approval, which are i~ded::~:Exhibit .:.:..[~I:~;< .... _ 'D?:~. ssion.f, ollow..ed r.egarding the emergency access, whe~i~ff no~i~i!~!:iFJre Marshal Will noz sign on on me ouilding permits unless the secon~:'access is:~i~iud~ib~.Ihat he ..~s amenable to provision for fire access either across the c/~k or thr~' the a~:~ht~X to ~? north. S.,.._r~..~e .owners of the property to ~.e. nor~ ~iriO~.pe~'an extensiO:~!i~;~eeaS~ment aecause o~ ,am,w ~ssues, RCHDC has ident;hed the ~es~rianlacc, ess across t~.i~ek as the secondary access, although it will increase the costS'::~ Potentially eliminate some of the .pr~.ve families. Upon further dL~'~__~ssion, RCHDC exp~ i~desire to consult with the Fire ~arsna; ~n an attempt to achieve a workable solution f~:imeet~ !~ ~ess requirements. Sen,or Planner Stump suggested the following lang~'~!~ange to ~ti~i!~f Approval No. 10 on Page 2 of the proposed ordinance, which wou~;reflect~he intent of the above discussion: re.net aoceptame ~ra protaCt~on m~ure Shall be:reviewed and approved prior to the issua~iii~iiany bu~ing per~ffo~' structuras or other site Councilmember Kelly inquired of ~:munity ~s ~;r DeKnoblough regarding the concerns and mainteoance costs rela~i~ tOthe pro~ ~t park. ~r_. De.~;~l?l' ~ii~~ malnly':~ned to the proposed park's location by the creek, ~_e:r?~_a?_o~p~?? ~e~Y '~i~ cost o~ =ave,ng time and use o~ City ~uipment for the CRy Maneg~i!~y~nted ~:'the General Plan Indicates a desire to have more green spaces and::~n are~n ~C;ity' but that it is preferable ~at they pe privately owned and the neigh.~ responsi~eJorii~ upkeep, since City maintenance pecomes problematical when con.ring the possibili~ili~i~ the future there potentially could be several times the amount of p~! parks than exist ~re~tly. ~on followed re~ard~ng open spaces and parks, wherein staff noted the importance of design, ~on~., ,a~ t .o?~..C~ components in order to Insure public safety. It was suggested the in-lieu ~ ~or ~ :p~.~would ..be better spent towards a regionally based park that would serve all of the ~~ ?n~a:nS,~r~:a ra?er than the small pocket park within this subdivision, since there are ~~:. [e al'ice issues. Senior Planner Stump recommended that, as a result of the above discussions, the in-lieu park fee as sated in Condition of Approval No. 25 on Page 4 of the proposed ordinance, be increased from $30,822 to $61,634. M/S Mastin/Malone to adopt the Negative Declaration No. 97-44, carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Kelly, Mastin, arid Mayor Malone. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilmembers Chavez and Ashiku. M/S Mastin/Malone to Introduce by title only the Ordinance Amending the Official Zoning Map for the City of UkJah, California, and Approving the Dcolan Creek Subdivision and Planned Development Project, carried by a voice vote of all AYE. Absent: Councilmembers Chavez and Ashiku. Regular Meeting. June 17,1998 Page 4 Recording Secretary Giuntoli read the ordinance by title only. M/S Mastin/Malone to introduce the ordinance, amended as noted above, carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Kelly, Mastin, and Mayor Malone. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilrnembers Chavez and Ashiku. RECESS: 9:16 p.m. FIECONVENE: 9:26 p.m. Bb. Introduction of Ordinance Amendina Articles 6. 7 end 8 of Ch~,~ter 2. Division 9 of th,, Ukiah Municl.rml Code Revtsin_, the-Re..3_ ulstions for the Comr;~erclal Zonina Di~ict.- -- Senior Planner Stump reviewed the staff report relative to the ordinance, noting that the proposed revisions to the Commercial Zoning Districts are the result of direction provided in the General Plan, as well as the comments and suggestions of the Planning Commission during a public workshop and subsequent public hearing. Changes are also proposed to assure compliance with State law, and to improve the practical application of the regulations. He further noted that the propped revisions include changes or additions relative to reformatting, name changes, al[Qwed ar)d~'ermitted land uses, development standards, landscaping requirements, and parkJ~ s~rds for retail commercial land uses. Staff is proposing that the Zoning C~e text f~~be (3) Commercial Zoning Districts be updated and revised according to the d~on c~~ ~:the new General Plan, as well as the direction provided by the Pianning!!!~rnmission:~id~ii~:.Series of recent _wor~hops and a .d.uly not[ced .pu.blic hearing. Moreo~Y~' the roves ~efl~ilstaff!s ldeag!fOr _cr_?;~?.ng_a. m.o. re usao. ie set. o! r. egu~ati..ons for the g. eneral ~lic, sta~?~td the d'~ii~kerS~!'and _w,_e_n!enoeo to pro!e~..ano .ennance me local business co~Un~.~ile fostering ~re~e.s~eticallv p~eas~ng commercial aeve[opment throughout the City ':~i~;~i~i~ii~i~i~i~,~::i~!~i~i '%~,~?" - Mayor Malone opened the public hearing at 9::30 p.m. ~?~i!iii!iiii?i!!ii?~i!i!i~ .... The public hearing was closed at 9:31 p.m. ~ii!iiiiiii~iiii??iiiiii?ii?ii!!!?!iiiiii~ .... "~iiii? ..... Cou cil queried staff relative to height,~ndards~iiii~k~';ii~Sidential/business use, and historical buildings. The value of creati~ a livingi~bpulati~ ~lhin downtown areas by allowing individuals and businesses to occuw.~ same:~tion w~?&~Phasized, with staff agreeing that atthough that was an achievable goatthaf'Other.~mmunitie~i~cross the United States are engaged in, the issue of costs and prioriti~ii~tated i~i~'ability ~i'n this City at this point in time. ~ _.Ma.~. ~lone to mtr~;~' tiUe onl~i~'i~'hce Amending Articles 6, 7, and 8, Chapter z_ of D~9ofi~e Uki~ ~~, carried~ai~ice vote of all AYE. Absent: Councilmembers Recording Sec~.~:i~.toli re~eie~eance by ~t~e only. a/Mal°r~e!~61:'iiin~ce th~!fiOrdinance, carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Council~mbers KellY:~a~n~i!~d Mayor Malone. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Counoilmembers Chave~and ~hiku. ~!!i!!!i!i~ Introduce OrallY'nee Amendine Bastion ~000 ~_*'Model C~e _A_ao.etion'? of the City_ ~iiiiiiiiiii;~.. Building aeg~on- - ~~r..ec~'t.~r~_r .. _edv~. that, .two.years ago, the City Council adopted an ordinance which _:::.~ ~:~io~ .me C;m('.. r.a:x~e, uno established generic language for the continual adoption of m~ou~ng co, as as mey are periodically adopted by the State of California. When Planning staff ~:tl-ie City Attorney developed this generic language in order to ensure that our local codes were, by reference, always up to date in terms of the adopted model codes, the appendices of the model codes were inadvertently omitted. These appendices contain useful information and guidance on a variety of building-related subjects and issues, Including alternative methods of construction, aJtemative methods of product installation, and grading and excavation of earth, among others. The City's Building Inspector is of the opinion that these specialty subjects are applicable from time to time, and that staff should have the enabling authority to refer to them when necessary. Staff believes it would be useful and beneficial to the public and the building community alike to expand the local building regulations, and therefore recommend the Council introduce the ordinance amending Ukiah Municipal Code ~3000. Mayor Malone opened the public hearing at 9:44 p.m. Regular Meeting · June 17,1998 Page 5 No one came forward to address the Council on this matter. The public hearing was closed at 9:45 p.m. M/S Mastin/Kelly to introduce by ~tle only the Ordinance Amending Section 3000 of the Ukiah City Code, carried by a voice vote of all AYE. Absent: Councilmembers Chavez and Ashiku. Recording Secretary Giuntoli read the ordinance by title only. M/S Mastin/Kelly to Introduce the ordinance, carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Kelly, Mastin, and Mayor Malone. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilmembers Chavez and Ashiku. 9. NEW BUSINESR 9b. Approval of 1997/98 Year End Bud_edt Amendment .>~'..'~:. City Manager Horsley and Finance Director Elton reviewed the Summary of R~0sed Budget Amendments by Fund, and advised that throughout the year various ~get..~endments were ~..e~e. _m_~_ ~_r ,_City Council =pr.oval..as rev_e.n, ue a.nd expe.ndit~e condi~i;~i~'ged or as specific .uw projeuns/programs were identified, umer changes n~!i!~,rr~ii~ur~:!~e year for which formaJ budget amendments were not prepared. Also, vario~'~.~~ati~i.forli~iprograms w~~ p~ o o! a.. ouoget amenoment to comc~oe witl~ the p!~O]ect apparel. This'1~ta~ent .r.~e~.~.m~.e.._naa_~.o~. ,n..,t,e~ed to.fo?ally es.tablish budget i~ets lo[.~nues, transf~ a~!~enses ~,,~,, =.vt~, ur =u, win, occur ounng nsca~ year 1997/98.'=~aff ~iieves that bv ~uoge. tea amounts for both revenue and expenditures int0';~:a~ ment. 'rn '"'° ......... r ........ ~ :~: ~. . a ore up-to-date and me emre more accurate p~cture of ~e City s financial p~on~!i~ ~esented to the public. The Council queried staff regarding various figures or~::the M/S Kelly/I/asfln to approve the 1997/98 budge{'~~i~ identifi~!i~=the budget amendment schedules, carried by the following roll call v0!e:':'AYES: iliC~ltnemb~$ Kelly, Mastin, and Mayor Malone. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: No~iii~ABSE~'' ~ilm~rs Chavez and Ashiku. 9c. Ap..oroval of Letter Oppoei~:~eral tl'~l_,et Iq~'~i~n, e! Veterane Ben,;;; Councdmember Kelly explained ~?request:~!'have thi~?i~item pulled from the Consent Calendar, .n. oti~ tha_t she wished disc~...ssi~ i~ occur ~!atiY~ to.ii~"fact that the monies created by reducing ~e.oe.nerrts= ~eter .ar? w~e ~.ilused to ~¥:10~i~eral priorities, such as various transportation p_roj. _e~s~as.~:;~;ame~[i~i~.i~y 29, lgg8Jetter to Mayor Malone from Lindy Peters, Mayor of ?~Tr-~'~on..!_°_"~~~ Lo ~i~':~:~ion ~e. Council w~shed to take regarding this matter, ~,.~. u,. ~!.w~::;~!~:i:~:~l.e ~e~e~:L~ me t.'resioem, as drafted, would be the appropriate way to M/S ~lastln to autl~i!~iVlayor to execute the letter, as drafted, opposing federal budget red'ions for veterans ~h~ts, carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers K~.eliY~:Mastin, and MayO~ii~alone. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilmembers ~Vez and ~hiku. ~f'Kelly reported on her oonversation with Dr. Marvin Trotter of the Recreation Center grouPi"~ oommented upon their frustration caused by the lack of an identified site for the proposed facility, and their hope that at some point in time either a piece of property or a building would be donated for development into recreational use. Presently the group is functioning on a Committee level, and is meeting to discuss potential kinds of programming that gould possibly be accommodated in the Center. Mayor Malone inquired relative to the school site selection process in regards to the Montgomery Ward property. Councilmember Kelly replied she had spoken with kqm Logan, and was advised the School Board would be making a decision regarding a new school site in the near future. Negotiations surrounding the Ward site appear to be continuing, although there is a difference of opinion relative to the value Regular Meeting. June 17, 1998 Page 6 of the property. Ms. Logan also advised her that the School Board had no specific requests regarding incentives that could be provided for the selection of that site, but would appreciate any considerations the City Council could give them. Councilmember Mastin reported on the success of the first Summer Concert in the Park. Mayor Malone reported on his attendance at the Railroad Committee meeting at which land negotiations with MTA for the 10 acres as well as funding sources were discussed, and the Ukiah Chamber of Commerce meeting relative to website production. 11. CITY MANAGER/DIRECTOR REPoITr? City Manager Horsley reported she had received a call from Governor Pete Wilson's off'me relative to the proposed reduction in vehicle license fees, and had responded with a letter stating the City's opposition to the reduction. The City Council adjourned to the Re<levelopment Agency meeting The Redevelopment Agency adjourned and reconvene al:.City ~4,~ion at 10:25 p.m. .~iiiiii~ili...:. 12. CLOSED SESSION 12,a. No action was taken on this item. 13. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Malone adjourned the meeting at 11:15 b:ccmin~nO61798.reg ,Secretary Regular Meeting. dune 17,1998 Page 7 AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. 6a DATE: July 1, 1998 REPORT SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE AMENDING DIVISION 9, CHAPTER 2, ARTICLES 6, 7, AND 8 (COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS) OF THE UKIAH MUNICIPAL CODE SUMMARY: On June 17, 1998, the City Council voted 3-0 to introduce an Ordinance amending Division 9, Chapter 2, Articles 6, 7, and 8 (Commercial Zoning District regulations) of the Ukiah Municipal Code. While the Council discussed a number of the proposed regulations, no changes to the Ordinance were made. Accordingly, the Ordinance has been prepared in final form and is ready for adoption. RECOMMENDATION: 1) Adopt the Ordinance amending Division 9, Chapter 2, Articles 6, 7 and 8 of the Ukiah City Code. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: 1. Do not adopt the Ordinance, and provide direction to staff. Citizen Advised: Legal notice published according to the requirements of the Ukiah City Code. Requested by: Planning Department Prepared by: Charley Stump, Senior Planner Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager and Bob Sawyer, Planning Director, and David Rapport, City Attorney Attachments: 1. Ordinance amending Division 9, Chapter 2, Articles 6, 7, and 8 of the Ukiah Municipal Code. APPROVED: Candace Horsley, C~'~y I~lanager 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH AMENDING ARTICLES 6, 7, AND 8, CHAPTER 2 OF DIVISION 9 OF THE UKIAH CITY CODE The City Council of the City of Ukiah does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION ONE Pursuant to Section 9260 of the Ukiah City Code, Division 9, Chapter 2 (Zoning) is amended by revising Articles 6, 7, and 8 (Regulations for the Commercial Zoning Districts) as indicated on Exhibit "A" attached to this Ordinance. SECTION TWO The purpose of this amendment is to revise the provisions of the Commercial Zoning District to bring them into conformance with the Ukiah General Plan; to make them more orderly and easier to administer; and to make them more understandable to the public. SECTION THREE Articles 6, 7, and 8 of Chapter 2, Division 9, of the Ukiah City Code is hereby amended to reformat the text to make it easier to read, understand, and administer; change the name of the "C-1" Zoning District from "Light Commercial" to "Community Commercial", and the name of the "C-2" Zoning District from "Highway Commercial and Restricted Industrial" to "Heavy Commercial"; add a Purpose and Intent Section to each district; change the allowed and permitted land uses within the "C-1" and "C-2" Districts; expand the permitted land uses in the "C-N" (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District; provide opportunities for mixed residential and commercial land uses in all Commercial Zoning Districts; update the development standards for all three Zoning Districts; add specific landscaping requirements for development projects in all three districts; and reduce the parking requirements for retail commercial land uses. ORDINANCE NO. Page 1 of 2 SECTION FOUR 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 This Ordinance shall be published as required by law in a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ukiah. SECTION FIVE This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after adoption. Introduced by title only on June 17, 1998, by the following roll call vote' AYES: Councilmembers Kelly, Mastin, and Mayor Malone NOES: None ABSENT: Councilmembers Chavez and Ashiku ABSTAIN: None Passed and adopted on July 1, 1998, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Sheridan Malone, Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. Page 2 of 2 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ARTICLE 7. CHAPTER 2 ZONING REGULATIONS IN COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (C-1) DISTRICTS SECTION' 9080: 9081: 9082: 9083: 9084: 9085: 9086: 9087: Purpose and Intent Allowed Uses Permitted Uses Building Height Limits Required Site Area Required Yard Setbacks Required Parking Additional Requirements 9080: PURPOSE AND INTENT: The purpose of the Community Commercial Zoning District is to provide a broad range of commercial land use opportunities along the primary transportation corridors within the City. It is intended to promote, and provide flexibility for commercial development, and to encourage the establishment of community-wide commercial serving land uses. The Community Commercial (C-1) Zoning District is consistent with the Commercial (C) General Plan Land Use Designation. 9081: ALLOWED USES: The following uses are allowed in the Community Commercial (C-1) Zoning District: A. B. C, D. Eo F, Retail stores. Personal improvement and personal service establishments. Professional offices and banks. Public or private schools. Places of religious worship, assembly or instruction. Condominiums. ORDINANCE NO. Exhibit "A" Page 1 of 24 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 H. Community Care Facility which provides service for six (6) or fewer persons, with the residents and operators of the facility being considered a family. I. Small Family Child Day Care Home, which provides care for eight or fewer children, including children under the age of ten years who reside at the home. J. Hotels, motels, and bed and breakfast establishments. K. Small homeless facilities, pursuant to Section 9171. L. Accessory uses to any of the uses allowed in the C-1 District. M. Restaurants 9082: PERMITTED USES: The following uses require approval of a Use Permit pursuant to the provisions contained in Section 9262: A. Veterinarian. B. Auto repair shop, auto body and painting shop, car wash, auto service (gas) station, and new and used car sales. C. Theater. D. Cabinet shop. E. Machine shop. F. Mini/Convenience storage. G. Parking lot H. Single-family dwelling, duplex, multiple family residential units, and mobile home park. I. Social halls and lodges. J. Outdoor sales establishments that occur for no more than thirty (30) days within a twelve (12) month period may be considered by the Zoning Administrator. All other applications shall be heard by the Planning Commission. 1. All outdoor Sales Establishments shall comply with the following criteria: a. Parking: Parking shall be designated for a minimum of three (3) automobiles, located offthe public right-of-way with no automobile maneuvering permitted in the ORDINANCE NO. Exhibit "A" Page 2 of 24 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 public right-of-way. The Use Permit may require additional parking, depending on the nature of sales proposed. b. Signage: A maximum of twenty five percent (25%) of the largest side of the vehicle or structure used in the sales operation. In addition, one sandwich board or "A" frame sign pursuant to Section 3227(A)(5) of the Ukiah Municipal Code. c. Utilities: The need for sanitary sewer, water, and electrical services shall be determined through the Use Permit process, and all hook-ups shall comply with the Ukiah Municipal Code. d. Business License: Business license must be prominently displayed at all times, and the operator shall have proof of Board of Equalization Sales Permit. K. Large homeless facility, pursuant to Section 9171. L. Bar, dance hall, live entertainment establishment and nightclub. M. Billiard parlor, amusement arcade, and bowling alley. N. Community Care Facility for more than six (6) persons, but not more than 12 persons. O. Large Family Child Day Care Home for a minimum of 7 to 14 children inclusive, including children under the age of ten (10) years who reside at the home.. P. Mixed residential and commercial land uses on one parcel provided they are found to be compatible. 9083: BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITS: The maximum height of any building in a Community Commercial (C-1) District shall be fifty feet (50'). 9084: BUILDING SITE AREA REQUIRED: No minimum building site area except for residential development which shall be as follows: A. For each building or group of buildings a minimum of six thousand (6,000) square feet in area and a minimum width of sixty feet (60') on interior lots; a minimum of seven thousand (7,000) square feet in a area and a minimum width of seventy feet (70') on corner lots. ORDINANCE NO. Exhibit "A" Page 3 of 24 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B. For each family unit intended to occupy any building or group of buildings a minimum of one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet of site area. C. For each mobile home park a minimum of two (2) acres. 9085: YARDS REQUIRED: In Community Commercial (C-1) Districts, yards shall be required in the following minimum widths: A. Front Yards for Single-Story Buildings: On both interior and corner lots outside the boundaries of the Downtown Master Plan area, the front setback line shall be a minimum of ten feet (10') measured from the street right-of-way line fronting such lot, except in cases where fifty percent (50%) of one side of the block is already built out, the average (median) setback shall apply. B. Front Yards for Multiple-Story Buildings: For multiple-story buildings outside the Downtown Master Plan area, the front setback line for the first story shall be ten feet (10'), and the front yard setback for the second story shall be a minimum of fifteen feet (15') measured from the street right-of-way line fronting such lot, except in cases where fifty percent (50%) of one side of the block is already built out with multiple-story buildings, in which case the average (median) setback shall apply. C. Rear and Side Yards: None required except where the rear or side of a lot abuts on an R-l, R-2, or R-3 District, in which case such rear or side yard shall be that of the adjoining zone. 9086: PARKING REQUIRED: The minimum parking area required in the Community Commercial (C-1) Zoning Districts shall be as follows: A. Retail stores, professional offices, and business offices: 1 parking space for each three hundred (300) square feet of gross leasable floor area. B. Personal services and personal improvement facilities: 1 parking spaces for each three hundred fifty (350) square feet of gross leasable floor area. C. Commercial recreation and public assembly: 1 parking space for each four (4) persons capacity. ORDINANCE NO. Exhibit "A" Page 4 of 24 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 D. Restaurant: 1 parking space for every three (3) seats, with a minimum of four (4) spaces. An additional parking space for each two (2) employees at maximum shift. E. Bicycle Parking: Safe bicycle parking facilities shall be provided in all commercial developments, where it is determined that the use would attract bicyclists. The number of bicycle parking spaces required shall be not less than ten percent (10%) of the number of required off-street automobile parking spaces. Such safe bicycle parking shall be located convenient to the entrance(s) to the use. F. All parcels within the Downtown Parking District No. 1 are not subject to the C-1 Zoning District parking standards. These parcels shall comply with the provisions of the Downtown Parking Improvement Program. G. All other uses are subject to the provisions contained in the Article 17 of this Chapter. H. Relief from the parking requirements in the C-1 Zoning District may be approved through the discretionary review process, provided a finding is made that there is a unique circumstance associated with the use or property that results in a demand for less parking than normally expected. 9087: ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: The following additional requirements are applicable in the Community Commercial (C-1) Zoning District: A. A Site Development Permit shall be required for development projects in the Community Commercial (C-1) Zoning District, pursuant to the requirements of Section 9261 (B). B. Second story development shall be designed to preserve the privacy of adjoining property owners. C. The maximum lot coverage shall be forty percent (40%) of the gross size of the parcel(s), except in the Downtown Master Plan area when off-site parking is provided through a parking district, in which case no maximum lot coverage standard shall apply. Relief from the lot coverage standard may be approved through the discretionary review process, based upon the size, scope, and intensity of the development proposal. ORDINANCE NO. Exhibit "A" Page 5 of 24 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 D. All development projects in the C-1 Zoning District requiring discretionary review shall include a proposed Landscaping Plan commensurate with the size and scale of the proposed development project. Landscaping Plans shall be submitted as a required component of all Site Development and Use Permits at the time of application filing. Properties within the Downtown Master Plan (DMP) area are exempt from the landscaping requirements. 1. All proposed Landscaping Plans shall comply with the following standards: a. Landscaping shall be proportional to the building elevations. b. Landscape plantings shall be those which grow well in Ukiah's climate without extensive irrigation. Native species are strongly encouraged. c. All landscape plantings shall be of sufficient size, health and intensity so that a viable and mature appearance can be attained in a reasonably short amount of time. d. Deciduous trees shall constitute the majority of the trees proposed along the south and west building exposures; non-deciduous street species shall be restricted to areas that do not inhibit solar access. e. Parking lots with twelve (12) or more parking stalls shall have a tree placed between every four (4) parking stalls within a continuous linear planting strip, rather than individual planting wells, unless clearly infeasible. Parking lot trees shall primarily be deciduous species, and shall be designed to provide a tree canopy coverage of 50% over all paved areas within ten years of planting. Based upon the design of the parking lot, a reduced number of trees may be approved through the discretionary review process. f. Parking lots shall have a perimeter planting strip with both trees and shrubs. g. Parking lots with twelve (12) or more parking stalls shall have defined pedestrian sidewalks or marked pedestrian facilities within landscaped areas and/or separated from automobile travel lanes. Based upon the design of the parking lot, and the use that it is serving, relief from this requirement may be approved through the discretionary review process. ORDINANCE NO. Exhibit "A" Page 6 of 24 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 h. Street trees may be placed on the property proposed for development instead of within the public right-of-way if the location is approved by the City Engineer, based upon safety and maintenance factors. i. All new developments shall include a landscaping coverage of 20 percent (20%) of the gross area of the parcel, unless because of the small size of a parcel, such coverage would be unreasonable. A minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the landscaped area shall be dedicated to live plantings. j. Landscaping Plans shall include an automatic irrigation system, and Lighting Plan. k. All required landscaping for commercial development projects shall be adequately maintained in a viable condition. I. The Planning Director, Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission, or City Council shall have the authority to modify the required elements of a Landscaping Plan depending upon the size, scale, intensity, and location of the development project. E. No fence shall be constructed over three feet (3') in height in any required front yard setback area. F. Existing development as of the date of this Ordinance inconsistent with the provisions listed herein, shall be considered legal Non-conforming, provided that they were legal at the time of their creation, and shall be subject to the non-conforming provisions contained in this Chapter. 9088: DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATE USE BY PLANNING DIRECTOR: Whenever a use is not listed in this Article as a use permitted by right or a use subject to a Use Permit in the C-1 Zoning District, the Planning Director shall determine whether the use is appropriate for the zoning district, either as a right or subject to a Use Permit. In making this determination, the Planning Director shall find as follows: A. That the use would not be incompatible with other existing or allowed uses in the C-1 Zoning District. ORDINANCE NO. Exhibit "A" Page 7 of 24 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B. That the use would not be detrimental to the continuing development of the area in which the use would be located. C. In the case of determining that a use not articulated as an allowed or permitted use could be established with the securing of a Use Permit, the Planning Director shall find that the proposed use is similar in nature and intensity to the uses listed as permitted uses. All determinations of the Planning Director regarding whether a use can be allowed or permitted in the Community Commercial (C-1) Zoning District shall be final unless a written appeal to the City Council, stating the reasons for the appeal, and the appeal fee, if any, established from time to time by City Council Resolution, is filed with the City Clerk within ten (10) days of the date the decision was made. Appeals may be filed by an applicant or any interested party. The City Council shall conduct a duly noticed public hearing on the appeal in accordance to the applicable procedures as set forth in this chapter. At the close of the public hearing, the City Council may affirm, reverse, revise or modify the appealed decision of the Planning Director. All City Council decisions on appeals of the Planning Director's actions are final for the City of Ukiah. ORDINANCE NO. Exhibit "A" Page 8 of 24 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ARTICLE 8. CHAPTER 2 ZONING REGULATIONS IN HEAVY COMMERCIAL (C-2) DISTRICTS SECTION: 9095: 9096: 9097: 9098: 9100: 9101: 9102: Purpose and Intent Allowed Uses Permitted Uses Building Height Limits Yards Required Parking Required Additional Requirements 9095: PURPOSE AND INTENT: The purpose of the Heavy Commercial Zoning District is to provide opportunities for commercial service, wholesale activities, auto repair shops, agricultural supply stores, and other activities which are generally inappropriate in areas developed with professional offices and retail stores. The Heavy Commercial (C-2) Zoning District is consistent with the Commercial (C) General Plan Land Use Designation. 9096: ALLOWED USES: The following uses are allowed in the Heavy Commercial (C-2) Zoning District: A. VVholesale Store. Bo C. D. E. F. G. Mini/Convenience storage. Business service. New and used automobile sales. Construction sales and service. Cabinet shop, sign shop, and machine shop. Equipment repair shop. Kennel, pet shop, and pet services. Recycling facility. ORDINANCE NO. Exhibit "A" Page 9 of 24 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 U. Ko Lo U. Safety service. Transportation service. Warehousing and distribution (limited). Service (gas) station, automobile repair, automobile body and painting shop, and car washing facility. N. Farm equipment sales and feed stores. O. Laundry service and laundromat. P. Accessory uses to any allowed or permitted uses. 9097: PERMITTED USES: The following uses require approval of a Use Permit pursuant to the provisions contained in Section 9262: A. Light industrial and manufacturing uses. B. Parks, Playgrounds, community gardens, and other recreational uses. C. Hotels, motels, and Bed & Breakfast establishments. D. Retail stores, restaurants, and professional offices. E. Public and quasi-public buildings, structures and uses. F. Resident manager/security personnel housing. G. Multiple family dwellings in conformance with the development standards for the R-3 Zoning District. H. Mobile Home Park. I. Mixed residential and commercial land uses on one parcel provided they are found to be compatible. J. Establishment, maintenance, operation and removal of circuses, carnivals, amusement parks, open air theaters, or other similar temporary establishments involving large assemblages of people. K. Warehousing and distribution (General). ORDINANCE NO. Exhibit "A" Page 10 of 24 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 L. Temporary uses complying with the purpose and intent of the C-2 zoning district. The temporary use shall be for a maximum period of six (6) months, and shall be subject to permit renewal/time extension at the discretion of the Planning Director. M. Outdoor sales establishments that occur for no more than thirty (30) days within a twelve (12) month period may be considered by the Zoning Administrator. All other applications shall be heard by the Planning Commission. 1. All outdoor Sales Establishments shall comply with the following criteria: a. Parking: Parking shall be designated for a minimum of three (3) automobiles, located off the public right-of-way with no automobile maneuvering permitted in the public right-of-way. The Use Permit may require additional parking, depending on the nature of sales proposed. b. Signage: A maximum of twenty five percent (25%) of the largest side of the vehicle or structure used in the sales operation. In addition, one sandwich board or "A" frame sign pursuant to Section 3227(A)(5) of the Ukiah Municipal Code. ¢. Utilities: The need for sanitary sewer, water, and electrical services shall be determined through the Use Permit process, and all hook-ups shall comply with the Ukiah Municipal Code. d. Business License: Business license must be prominently displayed at all times, and the operator shall have proof of Board of Equalization Sales Permit. 9098: BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITS: The maximum height of any building in a C-2 District shall be as follows: a. Forty feet (40') for primary buildings. b. Twenty feet (20') for accessory buildings. c. To exceed the height limits for primary and accessory buildings, a Use Permit must first be secured. ORDINANCE NO. Exhibit "A" Page 11of 24 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9'100: YARDS REQUIRED: In C-2 Districts yards shall be required in the following minimum widths: A. Front Yards for Single-Story Buildings: On both interior and corner lots the front setback line shall be a minimum of ten feet (10') measured from the street right-of-way line fronting such lot, except in cases where fifty percent (50%) of one side of the block is already built out, the average (median) setback shall apply. B. Front Yards for Multiple-Story Buildings: On both interior and corner lots the front setback line shall be a minimum of ten feet (10') for the first story and fifteen feet (15') for the second story measured from the street right-of-way line fronting each side of the lot, except in cases where fifty percent (50%) of one side of the block is already built out, the average (median) setback shall apply. C. Rear and Side Yards: None required except where the rear or side of a lot abuts on an R-l, R-2, or R-3 District, in which case such rear or side yard shall be that of the adjoining zone. 9'101: PARKING REQUIRED: The minimum parking area required in the Heavy Commercial (C-2) Zoning District shall be as follows: A. Wholesale stores: 1 parking space for each four hundred (400) square feet of gross leasable space. B. Automobile sales: I space for each five hundred square feet of floor area plus 1 space for each two thousand (2,000) square feet of outdoor display area. C. Cabinet shop, machine shop, and sign shop: 1 space for each employee on the maximum shift plus required space for office areas. 2 spaces are also required for customer parking, and 1 space for each vehicle operated from or on the site. D. Warehouse, mini/convenience storage: 1 parking space for each two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet. 4 additional spaces are also required for customers, 1 parking space for each two (2) employees at maximum shift, and 1 space for each vehicle operated from or on the site. ORDINANCE NO. Exhibit "A" Page 12 of 24 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 E. Bicycle Parking: Safe bicycle parking facilities shall be provided in all new commercial developments where it is determined that the use would attract bicyclists. The number of bicycle parking spaces required shall be not less than ten (10) percent of the number of required off-street automobile parking spaces. Such safe bicycle parking shall be located convenient to the entrance(s) to the use. F. Retail stores, professional offices, and business offices: 1 parking space for each three hundred (300) square feet of gross leasable floor area. G. All other uses are subject to the provisions contained in Article 17 of this Chapter. H. Relief from the parking requirements in the C-2 Zoning District may be approved through the discretionary review process, provided a finding is made that there is a unique circumstance associated with the use or property that results in a demand for less parking than normally expected. 9102: ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: The following additional requirements are applicable in the Heavy Commercial (C-2) Zoning District: A. A Site Development Permit shall be required for development projects in the Heavy Commercial (C-2) Zoning District, pursuant to the requirements of Section 9261 (B). B. Second story development shall be designed to preserve the privacy of adjoining property owners. C. The maximum lot coverage shall be forty percent (40%) of the gross size of the parcel(s). Relief from the lot coverage standard may be approved through the discretionary review process, based upon the size, scope, and intensity of the development proposal. D. All development projects in the C-2 Zoning District requiring discretionary review shall include a proposed Landscaping Plan commensurate with the size and scale of the proposed development project. Landscaping Plans shall be submitted as a required component of all Site Development and Use Permits at the time of application filing. ORDINANCE NO. Exhibit "A" Page 13of 24 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. All proposed Landscaping Plans shall comply with the following standards: a Landscaping shall be proportional to the building elevations. b. Landscape plantings shall be those which grow well in Ukiah's climate without extensive irrigation. Native species are strongly encouraged. c. All landscape plantings shall be of sufficient size, health and intensity so that a viable and mature appearance can be attained in a reasonably short amount of time. d. Deciduous trees shall constitute the majority of the trees proposed along the south and west building exposures; non-deciduous street species shall be restricted to areas that do not inhibit solar access. e. Parking lots with twelve (12) or more parking stalls shall have a tree placed between every four (4) parking stalls within a continuous linear planting strip, rather than individual planting wells, unless clearly infeasible. Parking lot trees shall primarily be deciduous species, and shall be designed to provide a tree canopy coverage of fifty percent (50%) over all paved areas within ten years of planting. Based upon the design of the parking lot, a reduced number of trees may be approved through the discretionary review process. f. Parking lots shall have a perimeter planting strip with both trees and shrubs. g. Parking lots with twelve (12) or more parking stalls shall have defined pedestrian sidewalks or marked pedestrian facilities within landscaped areas and/or separated from automobile travel lanes. Based upon the design of the parking lot, and the use that it is serving, relief from this requirement may be approved through the discretionary review process. h. Street trees may be placed on the property proposed for development instead of within the public right-of-way if the location is approved by the City Engineer, based upon safety and maintenance factors. i. All new developments shall include a landscaping coverage of twenty percent (20) percent of the gross area of the parcel, unless based upon the small size of a ORDINANCE NO. Exhibit "A" Page 14 of 24 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 parcel, it would be unreasonable and illogical. A minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the landscaped area shall be dedicated to live plantings. j. Landscaping Plans shall include an automatic irrigation system, and Lighting Plan. k. All required landscaping for commercial development projects shall be adequately maintained in a viable condition. I. The Planning Director, Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission, or City Council shall have the authority to modify the required elements of a Landscaping Plan depending upon the size, scale, intensity, and location of the development project. E. No fence shall be constructed over three feet (3') in height in any required front yard setback area. F. Existing development as of the date of this Ordinance inconsistent with the provisions listed herein, shall be considered legal Non-conforming, provided that they were legal at the time of their creation, and shall be subject to the non-conforming provisions contained in this Chapter. 9103: DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATE USE BY PLANNING DIRECTOR Whenever a use is not listed in this Article as a use permitted as of right or a use subject to a Use Permit in the C-2 Zoning District, the Planning Director shall determine whether the use is appropriate for the zoning district, either as of right or subject to a Use Permit. In making this determination, the Planning Director shall find as follows: A. That the use would not be incompatible with other existing or allowed uses in the C-2 Zoning District. B. That the use would not be detrimental to the continuing development of the area in which the use would be located. C. In the case of determining that a use not articulated as an allowed or permitted use could be established with the securing of a Use Permit, the Planning Director shall find that the proposed use is similar in nature and intensity to the uses listed as permitted uses. All ORDINANCE NO. Exhibit "A" Page 15of 24 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 determinations of the Planning Director regarding whether a use can be allowed or permitted in the Heavy Commercial (C-2) Zoning District shall be final unless a written appeal to the City Council, stating the reasons for the appeal, and the appeal fee, if any, established from time to time by City Council Resolution, is filed with the City Clerk within ten (10) days of the date the decision was made. Appeals may be filed by an applicant or any interested party. The City Council shall conduct a duly noticed public hearing on the appeal in accordance to the applicable procedures as set forth in this chapter. At the close of the public hearing, the City Council may affirm, reverse, revise or modify the appealed decision of the Planning Director. All City Council decisions on appeals of the Planning Director's actions are final for the City of Ukiah. ORDINANCE NO. Exhibit "A" Page 16of 24 1 CHAPTER 2 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ZONING ARTICLE 6. REGULATIONS IN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (C-N) DISTRICTS SECTION: 9060: 9061: 9062: 9063: 9064: 9065: 9066: 9067: 9068: Purpose and Intent Uses Allowed Uses Permitted with Securing of a Use Permit Building Height Limits Building Site Area Required Front Setback Lines Yard Requirements Parking Requirements Additional Requirements 9060: PURPOSE AND INTENT: The purpose of the Neighborhood Commercial (C-N) Zoning District is to encourage and promote a balanced mix of Iow intensity professional office, commercial, residential, and quasi-public land uses. Large and incompatible commercial retail stores, such as supermarkets, chain drugstores, convenience stores, and discount clothing stores, are not allowed or permitted. Similarly, highway serving commercial uses, such as motels, and gas stations/automotive repair businesses are not allowed or permitted. The C-N district is intended to provide Iow intensity commercial services, such as medical offices, small retail stores, and personal services to the adjacent and integrated residential community. Additionally, the provisions of this Chapter are intended to assure that development is compatible with the surrounding community, in terms of both design and use, and does not adversely impact surrounding properties. 9061: USES ALLOWED: The following uses are allowed in Neighborhood Commercial Zoning Districts: A. Professional and medical offices, barber shop, beauty shop, drugstore, florist, delicatessen (seating/tables permitted), small grocery store, and all other uses ORDINANCE NO. Exhibit "A" Page 17of 24 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 which, in the opinion of the Planning Director, are similar. The Planning Director may refer a determination regarding similar uses to the Planning Commission for a decision. B. Small homeless facilities. C. Accessory uses to any of the uses allowed in a C-N District. E. Single family dwelling. F. Home occupations. G. A mix of any of the above allowed uses. 9062: USES PERMITTED SUBJECT TO FIRST SECURING A USE PERMIT: The following uses may be permitted in neighborhood Commercial (C-N) Districts, subject to first securing a Use Permit pursuant to provisions contained in Section 9262: A. Large homeless facilities. B. Sit-down Restaurant or cafe.(no drive-thru restaurants shall be permitted). C. Second dwelling unit. D. Public or private schools. E. Medical care facility or hospital. F. Retail stores not listed in Section 9061, except for large commercial retail stores, such as department stores, supermarkets, chain drugstores, and discount clothing stores. O. He Jo K, Lo No Places of religious worship, assembly or instruction. Personal service establishment. Bakery. Bookstore. Tailor shop. Coffee Shop. Small and large family child day care homes. Bed and breakfast establishment. ORDINANCE NO. Exhibit "A" Page 18of 24 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 O. A mix of any of the above permitted uses. P. Other uses which, in the opinion of the Planning Director, are similar. The Planning Director may refer a determination regarding similar uses to the Planning Commission for a decision. Q. Rental dwelling units, when combined in a mixed development with any allowed or permitted use(s). 9063: BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITS: The following shall be the maximum limits for height of buildings in neighborhood Commercial (C-N) Districts: A. For main buildings, a maximum height of thirty feet (30'). B. For accessory buildings, a maximum of twenty feet (20'). C. To exceed the height limit, a Use Permit must first be secured. 9064: BUILDING SITE AND LOT AREA REQUIREMENTS: In Neighborhood Commercial (C-N) Districts, the building site area shall be as follows: A. For each main building a minimum of seven thousand (7,000) square feet of area, and a width of seventy feet (70'). B. Existing lots as of the date of this Ordinance under seven thousand (7,000) square feet are considered legal building sites. C. All newly created parcels shall have a minimum of seven thousand (7,000) square feet of area. 9065: FRONT SETBACK LINES: The provisions for front setback lines in neighborhood Commercial (C-N) Districts shall be as follows: A. On interior lots, the front setback line shall be a minimum of ten feet (10') measured from the street right-of-way line fronting such lot, except in cases where fifty percent (50%) of one side of the block is already built out, the average (median) setback shall apply. B. On corner lots, there shall be a front setback line on each street side of a corner lot. The ORDINANCE NO. Exhibit "A" Page 19of 24 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 2~ 27 28 front setback line shall be a minimum of ten feet (10') measured from the street right-of-way line adjacent to such lot. 9066: YARDS REQUIRED: In Neighborhood Commercial (C-N) Districts, yards shall be required in the following widths: A. Front Yards for Single-Story Buildings: On both interior and corner lots the front setback line shall be a minimum of ten feet (10') measured from the street right-of-way line fronting such lot, except in cases where fifty percent (50%) of one side of the block is already built out, the average (median) setback shall apply. B. Front Yards for Multiple-Story Buildings: On both interior and corner lots the front setback line shall be a minimum of ten feet (10') for the first story and fifteen feet (15') for the second story measured from the street right-of-way line fronting such lot, except in cases where fifty percent (50%) of one side of the block is already built out, the average (median) setback shall apply. C. Side Yards: The minimum depth required shall be five feet (5') for single-story structures, and ten (10') feet for two-story structures, except in cases where fifty percent (50%) of one side of the block is already built out, the average (median) setback shall apply. D. Rear Yards: The minimum depth required shall be ten feet (10') feet, except in cases where fifty percent (50%) of one side of the block is already built out, the average (median) setback shall apply. 9067: PARKING REQUIRED: The minimum parking area and number of on-site parking spaces required in the Neighborhood Commercial (C-N) Zoning District shall be as follows: A. Retail stores, professional offices, and business offices: 1 parking space for each three hundred (300) square feet of gross leasable space. B. Personal services and personal improvement facilities: 1 parking spaces for each three hundred fifty square feet of gross floor area. ORDINANCE NO. Exhibit "A" Page 20 of 24 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C. Restaurant: 1 parking space for every three (3) seats, with a minimum of four (4) spaces. An additional parking space for each two (2) employees at maximum shift. D. Bicycle Parking: Safe bicycle parking facilities shall be provided in all new commercial developments where it is determined through the discretionary review process that the use would attract bicyclists. The number of bicycle parking spaces required shall be not less than ten (10) percent of the number of required off-street automobile parking spaces. Such safe bicycle parking shall be located convenient to the entrance(s) to the use. E. All other uses are subject to the provisions contained in the Article 17 of this Chapter. F. Relief from the parking requirements in the C-N Zoning District may be approved through the discretionary review process, provided a finding is made that there is a unique circumstance associated with the use or property that results in a demand for less parking than normally expected. G. If parking is to be provided on the rear or sides of lots, fencing and landscaping shall be required to effectively screen the development from adjoining properties. 9067.5: LOT COVERAGE: The maximum lot coverage shall be forty percent (40%) of the gross size of the parcel(s). Relief from the lot coverage standard can be approved through the discretionary review process, based upon the size, scope, and intensity of the development proposal. 9068: ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: The following additional requirements are applicable in the Neighborhood Commercial (C-N) Districts: A. A Site Development Permit shall be required for development projects in the Neighborhood Commercial (C-N) Zoning District, pursuant to the requirements of Section 9261 (B). B. Second story development shall be designed to preserve the privacy of adjoining property owners. ORDINANCE NO. Exhibit "A" Page 21 of 24 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C. No fence shall be constructed over three feet (3') in height in any required front yard. D. All development projects in the C-N Zoning District requiring discretionary review shall include a proposed Landscaping Plan commensurate with the size and scale of the proposed development project and surrounding area. Landscaping Plans shall be submitted as a required component of all Site Development and Use Permits at the time application filing. 1. All proposed Landscaping Plans shall comply with the following standards: a. Landscaping shall be proportional to the building elevations. b. Landscape plantings shall be those which grow well in Ukiah's climate without extensive irrigation. Native species are strongly encouraged. c. All landscape plantings shall be of sufficient size, health and intensity so that a viable and mature appearance can be attained in a reasonably short amount of time. d. Deciduous trees shall constitute the majority of the trees proposed along the south and west building exposures; non-deciduous street species shall be restricted to areas that do not inhibit solar access. e. Parking lots with twelve (12) or more parking stalls shall have a tree placed between every four (4) parking stalls within a continuous linear planting strip, rather than individual planting wells, unless clearly infeasible. Parking lot trees shall primarily be deciduous species, and shall be designed to provide a tree canopy coverage of fifty percent (50%) over all paved areas within ten (10) years of planting. Based upon the design of the parking lot, a reduced number of trees may be approved through the discretionary review process. f. Parking lots shall have a perimeter planting strip with both trees and shrubs. g. Parking lots with twelve (12) or more parking stalls shall have defined pedestrian sidewalks or marked pedestrian facilities within landscaped areas and/or separated from automobile travel lanes. Based upon the design of the parking lot, and the use that it is serving, relief from this requirement may be approved through the discretionary review process. ORDINANCE NO. Exhibit "A" Page 22 of 24 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 h. Street trees may be placed on the property proposed for development instead of within the public right-of-way if the location is approved by the City Engineer, based upon safety and maintenance factors. i. All new developments shall include a landscaping coverage of 20 percent (20%) of the gross area of the parcel, unless based upon the small size of a parcel, it would be unreasonable and illogical. A minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the landscaped area shall be dedicated to live plantings. j. Landscaping Plans shall include an automatic irrigation system, and Lighting Plan. k. All required landscaping for commercial development projects shall be adequately maintained in a viable condition. I. The Planning Director, Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission, or City Council shall have the authority to modify the required elements of a Landscaping Plan depending upon the size, scale, intensity, and location of the development project. E. All commercial land uses shall be limited in hours of operation from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., except where the Planning Commission approves alternative hours through the discretionary permit review process. F. Existing development as of the date of this Ordinance inconsistent with the provisions listed herein, shall be considered legal Non-conforming, provided that they were legal at the time of their creation, and shall be subject to the provisions of Section 9209. 9069: DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATE USE BY PLANNING DIRECTOR Whenever a use is not listed in this Article as a use permitted as of right or a use subject to a Use Permit in the C-N Zoning District, the Planning Director shall determine whether the use is appropriate for the zoning district, either as of right or subject to a Use Permit. In making this determination, the Planning Director shall find as follows: ORDINANCE NO. Exhibit "A" Page 23 of 24 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A. That the use would not be incompatible with other existing or allowed uses in the C-N Zoning District. B. That the use would not be detrimental to the continuing development of the area in which the use would be located. C. In the case of determining that a use not articulated as an allowed or permitted use could be established with the securing of a Use Permit, the Planning Director shall find that the proposed use is similar in nature and intensity to the uses listed as permitted uses. All determinations of the Planning Director regarding whether a use can be allowed or permitted in the Neighborhood Commercial (C-N) Zoning District shall be final unless a written appeal to the City Council, stating the reasons for the appeal, and the appeal fee, if any, established from time to time by City Council Resolution, is filed with the City Clerk within ten (10) days of the date the decision was made. Appeals may be filed by an applicant or any interested party. The City Council shall conduct a duly noticed public hearing on the appeal in accordance to the applicable procedures as set forth in this chapter. At the close of the public hearing, the City Council may affirm, reverse, revise or modify the appealed decision of the Planning Director. All City Council decisions on appeals of the Planning Director's actions are final for the City of Ukiah. ORDINANCE NO. Exhibit "A" Page 24 of 24 ITEM NO. 6b DATE: July 1, 1998 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: ADOPT ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 3000 ("MODEL CODE ADOPTION") OF THE CITY BUILDING REGULATIONS SUMMARY: On June 17, 1998, the City Council introduced on a 3-0 vote the ordinance amending Section 3000 of the City Code, which adds the appendices of the nationwide model codes to the City's Building Regulations. The model code appendices contain information, guidance, and standards on a variety of building- related subjects, including alternative methods of construction, alternative methods of product installation, and grad ng and excavation, among others, and having this resource material available for implementation will be useful to Building Division staff and the construction community. Accordingly, this ordinance (attached) is now ready for City Council adoption. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt the ordinance amending Section 3000 ("Model Code Adoption") of the City Code, thereby adding the nationwide model code appendices to the City Building Regulations. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Do not adopt the subject ordinance, thereby disallowing future application of the reference material contained in the appendices of the nationwide model codes. Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Robert Sawyer, Planning Director Prepared by: Robert Sawyer, Planning Director Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager; and David Rapport, City Attorney Attachments: Ordinance ({}3000) Candace Horsley, City I~lanager ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH AMENDING SECTION 3000 OF THE UKIAH CITY CODE The City Council of the City of Ukiah hereby ordains as follows: SECTION 1. Ukiah City Code Section 3000 is hereby amended to read as follows: Except as amended or modified by other provisions of this Division (Division 3, entitled "Building"), the City Council hereby adopts by reference and makes effective within the City of Ukiah, the following: the versions of the uniform codes, as defined in Sections 3001-3011, which have been adopted by the Department of Housing and Community Development and are contained in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, as they are adopted, amended, or repealed from time to time pursuant to Chapter 2 of Part 1.5 of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code (commencing with Section 17910); and the Appendices contained in the model codes including the Uniform Building Code, the Uniform Plumbing Code, and the Uniform Mechanical Code, as respectively adopted by the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), and the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (IAPMO). SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be published as required by law and shall become effective thirty (30) days after it is adopted. Introduced by title only on June 17, 1998, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Kelly, Mastin, and Mayor Malone NOES: None ABSENT: Councilmembers Chavez and Ashiku ABSTAIN: None Adopted on July 1,1998, by the following roll call vote: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Sheridan Malone, Mayor City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. Page I of 1 ITEM NO.: 6c DATE: July 1, 1998 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FOR THE CITY OF UKIAH, CALIFORNIA, AND APPROVING THE DOOLAN CREEK SUBDIVISION AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT SUMMARY: On June 17, 1998, the City Council voted 3-0 to introduce an Ordinance amending the official Zoning Map of the City of Ukiah to rezone the 3.11 acres project site from 1:{-3 (Multiple Residential) to PD (Planned Development). The Council's action also included a unanimous approval of a Development Plan to allow deviations to development standards for lot size, lot width, and public street frontage, and a Subdivision Map to allow the division of the site into 23 individual parcels. In doing so, the Council made an amendment to Section Seven of the proposed ordinance to include the proposed Tentative Subdivision Map. The Council also amended Condition No. 10 to allow the City Fire Marshal a broader range of discretion in approving a secondary emergency access and/or other fire prevention measures, and Condition No. 25 to require full payment of in-lieu park fees since any requirement for a private recreation/open space area was deleted from the project. Accordingly, the ordinance has been prepared in the final form and is ready for adoption. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Adopt the Ordinance to approve the proposed Rezone, Tentative Subdivision Map and Development Plan for the Doolan Creek Subdivision. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY ACTION: provide direction to staff. 1) Do not adopt the Ordinance and Citizen Advised: Publicly noticed pursuant to provisions of Ukiah Municipal Code Requested by: Rural Communities Housing Development Corporation (RCHDC) Prepared by: Dave Lohse, Associate Planner Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager; Bob Sawyer, Planning Director; and Charley Stump, Senior Planner Attachments: 1. Ordinance Amending the Official Zoning Map and Approving the Doolan Creek Subdivision and Planned Development Project AP PROVED':-~=~ I ;'~-~ ,. . __ Candace Horsley, Cit~anager 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF UKIAH AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FOR THE CITY OF UKIAH, CALIFORNIA AND APPROVING THE DOOLAN CREEK SUBDIVISION AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT The City Council of the City of Ukiah ordains as follows: SECTION ONE Pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 9009 of the Ukiah City Code, the Official Zoning Map for the City of Ukiah is amended to change the zoning on a Assessor Parcel No. 003-530-23 from R-3 (Multiple Residential) to PD (Planned Development). Additionally, pursuant to Sections 9165-9167 of the Ukiah City Code, the Doolan Creek Planned Development is hereby established. The Planned Development encompasses 3.11 acres at the terminus of Mulberry Street, on Assessor Parcel No. 003-530-23, and is identified on the map attached as Exhibit "A". SECTION TWO The rezoning action and amendment to the Official Zoning Map of the City of Ukiah is to classify the subject property as "PD" (Planned Development) and is necessary to allow relaxed development standards for the proposed project. SECTION THREE The rezoning action is reasonable and appropriate because it satisfies goals and policies of the Ukiah General Plan that support individual home ownership and the creation of Iow and moderate income housing. SECTION FOUR The Development Plan for this Planned Development, as prescribed in Ukiah City Code Section 9167(b), and attached as Exhibit "A", is approved. ORDINANCE NO. Page 1 of 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECTION FIVE Development standards not addressed in the Planned Development regulations delineated in Section Five shall be those specified in the City of Ukiah Zoning Code. SECTION SlX The regulations for this Planned Development, as prescribed in Ukiah City Code Sections 9166 and 9167(b), are as follows: A. USES 1. Single family residential; one dwelling unit per parcel. B. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1. Building Heights: Dwellings, maximum height of 30 feet; Accessory structures, maximum height of 20 feet. 2. Building Site Areas: Parcel sizes and configurations shall be as shown on the Development Plan. 3. Building Setbacks: Front, 20 feet; Side, 5 feet; Rear, 15 feet 4. On-site Parking: Two spaces (9' x 20') per dwelling unit; No on-street parking shall be permitted in the culs-de-sac. SECTION SEVEN The approval of the Development Plan shown as Exhibit "A" and the Tentative Subdivision Map shown as Exhibit "C", and entitled Doolan Creek Subdivision, shall also be subject to the specified Conditions of Approval, which are included as Exhibit "B" of this ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. Page 2 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECTION EIGHT Based on the analysis and conclusions contained in the Initial Study, the City Council concluded that the proposed rezoning project would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment, and adopted a Negative Declaration. SECTION NINE The approval of the proposed project is based on the following findings: 1. The proposal is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Ukiah General Plan since it would provide individual home ownership for person with Iow to moderate incomes, provides energy-efficient designs and landscaping that would be compatible with passive solar techniques, and provides on-site recreation areas; 2. The location, size and intensity of the proposed single family neighborhood would not create a hazardous or inconvenient vehicular or pedestrian traffic pattern since the City Engineer has determined that the extension of Mulberry Street is not warranted by the size of the proposed development and that the proposed public access road shown on project plans as Creekside Court is consistent with the requirements for cul-de-sac streets, and a secondary access approved by the Fire Marshal will be provided for emergency access; 3. The accessibility of off-street parking areas and its location relative to traffic on the proposed public street would not create a hazardous or inconvenient condition since required off-street parking would be provided for each residential unit and parking in the culs-de-sac would be prohibited by the Ukiah Fire Code; 4. Sufficient landscaping areas and plantings would be available to provide screening of residential structures from the site; ORDINANCE NO. Page 3 of 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 . . . The use of passive solar methods would not be inhibited by the proposed location of the residential structures and the location and types of landscaping that would be planted on the site; The proposed development would not excessively damage or destroy natural features since proposed modifications to Doolan Creek would be consistent with creekside restoration policies of the Ukiah General Plan and the riparian requirements of the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. There is sufficient variety, creativity and articulation in the proposed design of the structures and grounds to avoid monotony and a box-like appearance since the residential structures will utilize a variety of designs and orientations, including the use of both one-story and two-story structures. SECTION TEN This ordinance shall be published as required by law in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Ukiah. SECTION ELEVEN This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after its adoption. INTRODUCED BY TITLE ONLY on the 17th day of June, 1998, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Kelly, Mastin and Mayor Malone NOES: None ABSENT: Councilmembers Chavez and Ashiku ABSTAIN: None ORDINANCE NO. Page 4 of 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of July, 1998, by the following roll call vote' AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: SHERIDAN MALONE, MAYOR MARIE UVILA, CITY CLERK ORDINANCE NO. Page 5 of 5 \% / ~o .\ ORDINANCE NO. EXHIBIT "A*' Page 1 of 1 o , . , o , . . EXHIBIT "B" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR DOOLAN CREEK SUBDIVISION (ORDINANCE NO. ) All use, construction, or occupancy shall conform to the Development Plan application approved by the City Council, 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 City Council. 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. Building Permits shall be issued within three years after the effective date of the Development Plan, or same shall be subject to the City's permit revocation process and procedures. The approved Development Plan may be revoked through the City's revocation process if the approved project related to the plan is not being conducted in compliance with the stipulations and conditions of approval; or if the project is not established within three years of the effective date of approval. Except as otherwise specifically noted, the Development Plan shall be granted only for the specific purposes stated in the action approving such plan and shall not be construed as eliminating or modifying any building, use, or zone requirements except as to such specific purposes. Ail curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and/or street paving which are broken or damaged, or driveways which will not be used, shall be removed and replaced as required by the City Engineer. ORDINANCE NO. ATTACHMENT "B'° Page 1 of 4 . The curbs along the cul-de-sac bulbs shall be posted as fire lanes, in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code restrictions in effect at the time that the street is constructed. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. At the discretion of the Ukiah Fire Marshal, a secondary emergency access or other acceptable fire prevention measures shall be reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of any building permits for structures or other site development. All on-site paving shall be a minimum of 2" (inches) of asphalt concrete with a 6" (inches) aggregate base, or, alternatively, any option approved by the City Engineer. Street improvements, including curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and street trees shall conform to the City Engineer's recommendations. 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. An Encroachment Permit from the Public Works Department is required to perform all work within the street right-of-way. No grading or excavation shall be permitted on the project site without the review and approval of a Grading and Drainage Plan by the City Engineer. This Plan shall include the following: a. b. c, d. e. the extent of modifications to the creek or existing drainage patterns on the site; the extent of storm drainage improvements and erosion control measures for building pads, driveways, parking lot areas and other movements of soils; other development that the City Engineer determines could adversely affect existing drainage patterns on the site or abutting properties or cause wind or water erosion; the incorporation of the PM-10 Mitigation Measures listed in the discussion on AIR QUALITY in the Initial Study; establishment of a Creekside Protection Area that would extend fifteen feet from the top of the bank for Doolan Creek and inclusion of riparian habitat plantings in the setback area and creek channel; and verification that a Stream Alteration Agreement for creek grading or other modifications has been completed with the California Department of Fish and Game. ORDINANCE NO. ATTACHMENT "B" Page 2 of 4 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. Low emission mobile construction equipment (e.g. tractor, scraper, dozer, etc.) shall be used in developing the site. The project site shall be regularly watered to control dust and all mobile equipment shall be washed regularly to prevent dust from leaving the site. The following construction management techniques shall be employed, as needed, during development of the site to reduce sources of particulate matter. ao bo Extended construction periods to reduce the number of days soils are exposed and heavy machinery; Limiting the use of different construction machinery at the same time; Increasing distances between emission sources located on the site; and Reducing or changing work hours if construction activities cause congestion on abutting streets. Sewer, water, and electric service shall conform to the specifications of the City Public Utilities and Public Works Departments. A Landscape Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning prior to the allowance of grading on the site or the issuance of building permits for any structures. This plan shall include, but not be limited to the following: ao b. co d. e. the use of trees for shading and screening of residential structures and access drives; the use of deciduous tree species with a crown height of 35-40 feet in areas where evergreen species would shade residential structures or limit solar access opportunities during winter months; the use of indigenous tree and plant species for 25 percent of total landscaping; the inclusion of indigenous riparian trees and vegetation in the 15-foot wide Creek Protection Area required for Lots 1-7, and the use of riparian shrubs on the banks of Doolan Creek; and the inclusion of a planting and maintenance schedule and a tree replacement policy for the trees approved as part of the final landscape plan. Any roof-mounted air conditioning, heating, and/or ventilation equipment shall be aesthetically screened from view consistent with the architecture of the building upon which it is located. Any outdoor refuse/recycle containers shall be aesthetically screened from view; garbage shall not be visible outside the enclosures. ORDINANCE NO. ATTACHMENT "B" Page 3 of 4 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. Hours of construction shall be limited from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. No second residential units shall be permitted on the site. An in-lieu park fee of $61,634 shall be paid to the City of Ukiah for development of area park and recreation facilities prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for any residential units on the site. This fee may be reduced by no more than fifty percent by the designation of private open space, in accordance with Subdivision Ordinance requirements for the reduction of in-lieu fees. The location and structural integrity of the pedestrian bridge across Doolan Creek shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to its installation and the issuance of any building permits for structures or other site development. The architecture of pedestrian bridge across Doolan Creek shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to its installation and the issuance of any building permits for structures or other site development. All conditions shall be completed prior to release of final building inspection and issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. ORDINANCE NO. ATTACHMENT "B" Page 4 of 4 ITEM NO. 6d DATE: July 1, 1998 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF PUBLISHING SERVICES BY UKIAH DAILY JOURNAL FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998/99, IN THE AMOUNT of $3.95 PER COLUMN INCH FOR THE FIRST DAY AND $2.50 FOR ADDITIONAL DAYS As the Ukiah Daily Journal is the only newspaper which qualifies for the designation as a newspaper having general circulation in Ukiah, a formal process requesting bids for legal publishing services was not used. The City Clerk requested the Ukiah Daily Journal to submit a letter to formalize extension of the 1997/98 fiscal year contract. The attached letter was received on June 16, 1998. The price of legal advertising has increased 6.75% to 6.4% over last year's rates of $3.70 per column inch for the first day and $2.35 for additional days. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the legal publishing services by Ukiah Daily Journal for fiscal year 1998/99, in the amount of $3.95 per column inch for first day and $2.50 per column inch for additional days. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A N/A Marie Ulvila, City Clerk Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Proposal letter from Ukiah Daily Journal Candace Horsley, c:asrpubcon I (707) 468-0123 FAX (707) 468-5780 ~ i,~,,,~,,,i, 590 South School Street · Post Office Box 749 · Ukiah, California 95482-0749 June 15, 1998 jUN I 6 1098 Colleen Henderson City Clerk City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah, CA 95482 Re' Legal rate contract Dear Ms. Henderson, As per your recent request, following is the information previously required to determine the con- tractor for legal notices placed by the City of Ukiah: 1) Total average paid circulation (ABC Publisher's Statement 3/31/98): 7,800 Daily; 7,844 Sunday 2) Paid circulation within the 95482 Zip code: 5,272 Daily; 5,155 Sunday 3) Days of Publication: Monday through Friday, PM; Sunday AM 4) Type and size print and format size used for legal publication: 8 pt. Helvetica, 8 pica wide column, 6 point gutter between columns 5) Cost of publication per column inch: a. First day - $3.95 per column inch b. Additional days - $2.50 per column inch 6) A 5% discount will be given for providing camera-ready material by deadline day and time. 7) Pdnt size and format for camera-ready material are as follows: 7 pt. Helvetica, 8 pica wide columns, 6 point gutter between columns. 8) Errors and omissions: The Journal will only be responsible for the cost of the space contain- ing the error, in the instance that the notice was not provided camera-ready, and will run a cor- rection at no charge in the next available issue after being notified of the error. Please note that the rates listed in item #5 reflect the first increase since June of 1992. We appreciate the opportunity to continue to serve the legal publication needs of the City of Ukiah. If you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to call me at 468-3510. Sincerely, _ Janet M. Noe Advertising Director Locally operated member [~ Donrey Media Group ITEM NO. 6e DATE: JULY 1, 1998 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: DENIAL OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES RECEIVED FROM NElL GROSS AND REFERRAL TO THE JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY, REDWOOD EMPIRE MUNICIPAL INSURANCE FUND The claim from Neil Gross was received by the City of Ukiah on June 17, 1998 and alleges damages related to a power outage on June 16, 1998 at 480 Luce Ave. Pursuant to City policy, it is recommended the City Council deny the claim as stated and refer it to Redwood Empire Municipal Insurance Fund (REMIF). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Deny Claim for Damages Received from Neil Gross; 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. Appropriation Requested: N/A Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: Claimants Claimants Michael F. Harris, Risk Manager/Budget Officer Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Claim of Neil Gross, pages 1-3. Candace Horsley, C-it~Manager mfh:asrcc98 0701 CLAIM NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST RETURN COMPLETED FORM TO: i . t 77ds claim must be pre_sented, as prescribed by Pads 3 and 4 of Division 3.6, of Title 1, of the Government Code of the State o! California, by the claimant or by a person acting on hi~er behalf. CLAIMANT'S NAME: CLAIMANT'S ADDRESS: CITY OF UKIAH Attn: City Clerk ;300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, California 95482 L Number/Street and/or Post OfiTce Box City State Home Phone Number JUEI--. 1998 CITY CLEP, K ( Zip Code Work Phone Number PERSON TO WHOM NOTICES REGARDING THIS CLAIM SHOULD BE SENT (if different from above): Name Number/Street and/or Post Office Box ( city DATE OF THE ACCIDENT OR OCCURRENCE: State Telephone 5. PLACE OF ACCIDENT OR OCCURRENCE: o Z~P Code GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE ACCIDENT OR OCCURRENCE (At~ach additional page(s), if more 7. NAME(S), if known, OF ANY PUBLIC EMPLOYEE(S) ALLEGEDLY CAUSING THE INJURY OR LOSS: i WITNESS(ES), ff known (optional): Name Address Telephone a. b. Se DOCTOR(S)/HOSPITAL(S), If any, WHERE CLAIMANT WAS TREATED: Name Address b. Telephone 10. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE INDEBTEDNESS, OBLIGATION, INJURY, DAMAGE OR 'lOSS so far as i( may be known at the time of presenlafion of the claim: 11. 12. STATE THE AMOUNT CLAIMED ff i( lotals less lhan ten thousand dollars ($10,000) as of lhe date of presen(afion of(he claim, including the estimated amount of any prospecfive injury, damage or ioss, insofar as if may be known at the time of the presentation o[ the claim, together with the basis of computation of the amount claimed (for computation use t112 below). However, if lhe amount claimed exceeds ten thousand do//ars ($10, 000), no do//ar amount shall be included, but you must indicate whether the jurisdiction over the claim would be in Municipal or Supedor Court. or Applicable Jurfsdicb'on 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: This claim must be signed by the claimant or by some person on his/her behalf. A claim relating to a cause of action for death or for injury to the person or to personal property or growing crops shall be presented not later than six (6) calendar months or 182 days after the accrual of the cause of action, whichever is longer. Claims relating to any other causes of act/on shah be presenled not later than one (1)yeara~,~e~a~c[-ual~f lheca, use of action. NOTE: This form of claim is for your convenience only. Any outer 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 rfght~ or lo interpre! any law. ff you are in doubt regarding your legal rights or the inlerpretation of any law, you should seek legal counsel of your choice at your own expense. Rev. ~18298 CRAWFORD'S VCR REPAIR 1128 SOUTH STATE STREET UKIAH, CALIFORNIA 95482 Telephone (707) 468-1371 FREE ESTIMATE Slate Rag. No. 7O765 INSTALL e:] DELIVER :) Pa,Is El IL~t~"wf IOnDEm . /-./r.L' ~ [:: ,~..~z .&. :. ...... ! ............ ,, ........ ~ .................. >~;......,, ~" ............................. *~' ., ............................. ........ ,., ...... ._z. 0 SlaVIC[ ~[CH OCCASIONED BY IHEF1 ~IRE OR VANDALISM CC)M~f N~A DAYS WILL BE SOLD For SERVIcEsRLNDLRED -- ............................... ' ........... ............. ~ ....................... ................. % ............................................... ~;:~::~ ~':': ..................................... i ..................... ' (-~aT~n ~ iNCLUDE Yest,~~to~'~"'s o K I Oeeos't SERVICE CALL. SHOP ~BOR, REMOVAL. IS/~ ~/~. !~ Ia' RE-INSTALLATION AND PARTS. IF UPOr4 [h~eOeSflMate ~It'ME&OAtLCALLeO CLOSER SHOP ANALYSIS ADDITIONAL REPAIRS I I / AR NEEDED YOU WILL BE CONTACIED FOR E R NOTE Il u~p~nt ts ~elu~ned al customer t~uest ~lote ~IGNAtURE X 30 DAY LABOR- 90 DAY 'PARTS GUARANTEED ON ALL WORK PERFORIV~:D ,, . ...... .,. .... ; .. .'.~ .......... ' .,.,'..:'.,, , , L..;...~.' .,;'--...L~.,..;.. - '~-~- -~'~~'.- '"'-" '~"'"'~ :--:';" ~'-";-' '"';" :: ........ "" ' ...... : . .- . · :. , ; :. ITEM NO. 6£ DATE: July 1, 1998 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: AWARD OF CONTRACT TO AMERICAN ASPHALT REPAIR AND RESURFACING CO., INC. FOR RUNWAY AND TAXIWAY SLURRY SEAL PROJECT, SPECIFICATION NO. 98-01 IN THE AMOUNT OF $121,253.40 SUMMARY: The City distributed plans and specifications to eight builders exchanges and nine contractors. The City publicly advertised this project on April 17, 1998 and April 24, 1998 in the Ukiah Daily Journal. Notices to Bidders were mailed to 32 potential bidders. Four sealed proposals were received and opened by the City Clerk on May 12, 1998. The lowest responsive, responsible bidder is American Asphalt of Hayward, California with a total bid of $121,253.40. The Engineer's Estimate for the project is $103,190. The primary reason for the price differential is the bid item for striping and pavement marking. For this bid item staff neglected to include the cost for the removal of the pavement markings and striping in the engineer's estimate. As a result, the contractors' bid prices for this item are significantly higher than the engineer's estimate. Continued on Page 2 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Award the contract for Runway and Taxiway Slurry Seal Project, Specification No. 98-01, to American Asphalt of Hayward, California in the amount of $121,253.40 contingent upon receiving the fully executed Grant Agreement from the State ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Reject all bids and direct staff to re-advertise for bids. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Rick Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engir~eer Seanor, Deputy Director of Public Works Rick Candace Horsley, City Manager Rick Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Don Bua, Airport Manager i ' 1. Bid Tabulation 2. Bid Proposal from American Asphalt 3. correspondence regarding bid extension 4. Fiscal Year 1997/1998 Budget Sheet 5. Grant Agreement & Resolution No. 98-08 APPROVED: ~ Candace H~rsley, ~it~ Manager RJS:^GRUNW^Y SUM Page 2 July 1, 1998 Award of Contract to American Asphalt Repair and Resurfacing Co., Inc. for Runway and Taxiway Slurry Seal Project, Specification No. 98-01 in the Amount of $121,253.40 Subsequent to receiving bids which exceeded available project funds, staff requested additional funding from the State of California, Aeronautics Program in order to proceed with the project. Since the funding approval from the State would delay a project award beyond the period in which it must be awarded or rejected, the City requested and received approval from the Iow bidder to extend the period in which to award the bid (Attachment 3). This bid extension was necessary since the State had not confirmed the additional funds needed within the initial 30 day period which the City was required to award or reject the bid. The other bidders were advised in writing of the City's request to extend the award period for the bid. The City approved a budget transfer to account number 600.5001.305 on August 6, 1997 to establish a local match of $11,444 needed for this project. Due to the increase in funding required to construct the project, the City's match must be increased by $2,136.38. This amount has been authorized by the City Manager (Attachment 4). The total City match for the project will be $13,580.38. On June 17, 1998 the City received the Grant Agreement which identified the funding in the amount of the Iow bid for the project. The Grant Agreement has been executed by the City Manager as authorized by Resolution No. 98-08 (Attachment 5). Once the Grant Agreement is returned from the State, the City will be authorized to execute the Agreement for construction of the project. Staff's contact at the State has indicated that it is a formality to obtain the final signatures on the Grant Agreement and that it may be possible that the Grant Agreement will be returned prior to the July 1, 1998 City Council meeting. If the bid is awarded, compensation for the performance of the work will be based on unit prices bid for contract item quantities actually installed. Bid totals are based on unit prices bid for contract items at estimated quantities, and therefore, the actual total paid to the contractor may be lower or higher than the bid total indicated. As with all construction projects there may be cost overruns by reason of unforseen work or because actual quantities installed exceed estimated quantities. Policy Resolution No. 13, authorizes the responsible Department Head with approval of the City Manager to issue change orders not to exceed 10 percent of the original contract sum or $5,000 whichever is greater provided that no change exceeds the amount budgeted for the project. However, with this State funded project, the State will also be in the approval process for any change orders. The maximum State participation amount of $123,000 in the Grant Agreement has been established to provide a small contingency for change orders. ADDENDUM NO. 1 RUNWAY AND TAXlWAY SLURRY SEAL PROJECT, SPECIFICATION NO. 98-01 ITEM NO. ...... . . . BIDDING SCHEDULE In case of discrepancy between words and figures, the words shall prevail. QUANTITY 121,100 Square Yards Lump Sum 4,730 Lineal Feet DESCRIPTION AND UNIT PRICE BID (in words and figures) Polymer Modified Slurry Seal for the price per square ya.r'd of ~',':~? _ S~ vr_,f S~triping an_.d Pavecnent Marking for the lump sum of/-' C? k EXTENDED AMOUNT FOR ITEM TOTAL BID AMOUNT ====> T..._~otal b!d, am.ou,nt.j.in._words: ~r"A/'~ ~n c ' ------- ........... ,, ase of dmcrepancy between words and figures, the words shall prevail. We, the undersigned, further agree, if this proposal shall be accepted, to sign the agreement and to furnish the required bonds with satisfactory surety, or sureties, within fifteen (15) calendar days after written notice that the contract is ready for signature; and, if the undersigned shall fail to contract, as aforesaid, it shall be understood that he or she has abandoned the contract and that, therefore, this proposal shall be null and void and the proposal guaranty accompanying this proposal, or the amount of said guaranty, shall be forfeited to and become the property of the City. Otherwise, the proposaJ guaranty accompanying this proposal shall be returned to the undersigned. Witness our hands this day of Licensed in accordance with an act providing for the registration of Contractor's License No. ?-!,~5'~' ! , expiration date ,/. _ THE CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE NUMBER AND EXPIRATION DATE STATED HEREIN ARE MADE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY. Signature of bidder or bidders, with business addresses: Notice: In the case of a corporatiq~q, give below the addresses of the principal office thereof and names and addresses of the President, Secretary, Treasurer. 300 SEMiNARY,AVE., UKIAH, CA 95482-5400 . ADMIN. 707/463-6200 · PUBLIC SAFELY 463-6242/6274 · FAX # 707/463-6204 May 29, 1998 Mr. Allan Henderson American Asphalt Repair & Resurfacing Co. Inc. PO BOX 3367 HAYWARD, CA 94540-3367 RE: Runway and Taxiway Slurry Seal Project California Aid to Airports Project No. MEN-3-97-1 Specification No. 98-01 Dear Mr. Henderson: Your firm is the lowest responsive bidder for the subject project. As you may know, your bid exceeded the amount allocated by the State of California Aeronautics Program for this project. Staff has requested additional funding from the State in order to proceed with this project. We have been informed that our additional funding request is working its way through the system. Under Section 2-01 of the Specifications the City has until June 11, 1998 (30 days from the date of bid opening) in which to award the contract. By this letter the City requests your written concurrence for a 30 day extension of the award period in the hope that this project can be awarded by July 1, 1998. Thank you for your assistance with this project. Please do not hesitate to contact Rick Seanor at (707) 463-6296 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Director of Public Works/City E~neer CC: Mr. Roberto Buendia, State of California Aeronautics Program filer/' 'We Are Here To Serve" PENINSULA 4 ! 5-366-0144 R~'dwood Cily NORD! BAY 707-571-2004 Santa Rosa SOUTH BAY 408-292-! 775 San Jose EAST BAY 5'10-537-2172 Duhlin American Asphalt Repair & Resurfacing Co., Inc. June 4, 1998 Mr. Rick Kennedy City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Ave Ukiah, CA 95482-5400 Re: Runway and Taxiway Slurry Seal Project Specification No. 98-01 Dear Mr. Kennedy: American Asphalt is willing to wait for the award of the above project by the terms outlined in your letter dated May 29, 1998. If you need additional time, please let me know. Sincerely, Steve Ag ~~e General Manager JUN - 8 1990 CITY OF UKIAH DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS www. AmericanAsphalt.com ~,, .~ ~:- ~ 27601 INDUSTRIAL BLVD. · P.O. BOX 3367 · HAYWARD, CA 94540-3367 * (800)541-5559 · FAX (510) 723-0288 · CA Lic. 439551 · ADMIN. 707/463-6200 · PUBLIC SAFETY 463-6242/6274 · FAX # 707/463-6204 May 29, 1998 G. R. Graham, Jr. Graham Contractors, Inc. PO BOX 26770 SAN JOSE, CA 95159-6770 RE' Runway and Taxiway Slurry Seal Project California Aid to Airports Project No. MEN-3-97-1 Specification No. 98-01 Dear G. R. Graham, Jr.' Based upon the bids received for the subject project, staff has made a tentative recommendation to award the contract to American Asphalt Repair & Resurfacing, the lowest responsive bidder. Each of the bids received for this project exceeds the amount allocated by the State of California Aeronautics Program. Staff has requested additional funding from the State in order to proceed with this project. We have been informed that our additional funding request is working its way through the system. Under Section 2-01 of the Specifications the City has until June 11, 1998 (30 days from the date of bid opening) in which to award the contract. The City has requested a 30 day extension of the award period from American Asphalt Repair & Resurfacing in the hope that this project can be awarded by July 1, 1998. Thank you for your time and effort to submit a bid for this project. Please do not hesitate to contact Rick Seanor at (707) 463-6296 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Director of Public Works/C~y Engineer cc: Mr. Rgberto Buendia, State of California Aeronautics Program file '~Ve Are Here To Serve" >:"~ 300 SEMi'~'RYAVE., UKIAH, ~ 95482-5400 ,,~ ., . ~ M~y 29, 1998 · ADMIN. 7071463-6200 · PUBLIC SAFETY 463-6242/6274 · FAX # 7071463-6204 · Mr. Eric Reimschiissel California Pavement Mtce. Co. Inc. 9390 Elder Creek Road Sacramento, CA 95829-9326 RE: Runway and Taxiway Slurry Seal Project California Aid to Airports Project No. MEN-3-97-1 Specification No. 98-01 Dear Mr. Reimschiissel' Based upon the bids received for the subject project, staff has made a tentative recommendation to award the contract to American Asphalt Repair & Resurfacing, the lowest responsive bidder. Each of the bids received for this project exceeds the amount allocated by the State of California Aeronautics Program. Staff has requested additional funding from the State in order to proceed with this project. We have been informed that our additional funding request is working its way through the system. Under Section 2-01 of the Specifications the City has until June 11, 1998 (30 days from the date of bid opening) in which to award the contract. The City has requested a 30 day extension of the award period from American Asphalt Repair & Resurfacing in the hope that this project can be awarded by July 1, 1998. Sincerely, Director of Public Works/C g'ineer Thank you for your time and effort to submit a bid for this project. Please do not hesitate to contact Rick Seanor at (707) 463-6296 if you have any questions. CC: Mr. Roberto Buendia, State of California Aeronautics Program file / '~/e Are Here To Serve" hie T 3 300 SEMINARY~A.,VE., UKIAH, CA 95482-5400 · Al)MIN. 707/463-6200 - PUBLIC S,~ 463-6242/6274 · · FAX # 707/463-6204 · May 29, 1998 Mr. Alan Berger Valley Slurry Seal PO BOX 1620 WEST SACRAMENTO, CA 95691-6620 RE: Runway and Taxiway Slurry Seal Project California Aid to Airports Project No. MEN-3-97-1 Specification No. 98-01 Dear Mr. Berger: Based upon the bids received for the subject project, staff has made a tentative recommendation to award the contract to American Asphalt Repair & Resurfacing, the lowest responsive bidder. Each of the bids received for this project exceeds the amount allocated by the State of California Aeronautics Program. Staff has requested additional funding from the State in order to proceed with this project. We have been informed that our additional funding request is working its way through the system. Under Section 2-01 of the Specifications the City has until June 11, 1998 (30 days from the date of bid opening) in which to award the contract. The City has requested a 30 day extension of the award period from American Asphalt Repair & Resurfacing in the hope that this project can be awarded by July 1, 1998. Thank you for your time and effort to submit a bid for this project. Please do not hesitate to contact Rick Seanor at (707) 463-6296 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Director of Public Works/City~gineer CC: Mr. Roberto Buendia, State of California Aeronautics Program file v'/'' '~u'e Are Here To Serve" 0 HHY-l,I,-:L'~':38 14: ,3'7' rORLTRRNS RERONClUT ! CS 916, ~27 9893 P. 82/82 Ukiah Municipal Airport CAAP # MEN-3-97-1 Project Cost Estimate Estimated Construction Cost Project Services (12 %) Total Project Cost Local Share State Sham State Allocation $103,000.00 $14,550.41 / $135,803.81 $13,580.38 $122,223.43 =~ J~.~% + TOTRL P. 02 ; STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AIRPORT: Ukiah Municipal Airport CAAP NO.: MEN-3-97-1 CALIFORNIA AID TO AIRPORTS PROGRAM GRANT AGREEMENT - CONSTRUCTION THIS AGREEMENT, MADE AND ENTERED INTO ON THIS SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE, 1998, BY AND BETWEEN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as "STATE," AND THE CiTY OF UKIAH, a political subdivision of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as "PUBLIC EN'['ITY." WHEREAS, Section 21215 of the California Public Utilities Code has embodied the former duties, powers, purposes, and responsibilities of the State Aeronautics Board in the California Transportation Commission, the Commission may, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 4, Adicle 4, of the California Public Utilities Code, Sections 21680, et seq., allocate monies to public entities for the acquisition and development of airpods upon the recommendations of the Department and pursuant to Department regulations set forth in Title 21, Chapter 2.5, Subchapter 4, Sections 4050, et seq., of the California Code of Regulations; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the above authority, the California Transportation Commission allocated a maximum amount of $123,000.00 from the Aeronautics Account of the State Transportation Fund by Resolution Number FDOA-97-5 amended by G-12 Resolution Number AERO 98-4 dated June 16, 1998 (1997/98 Fiscal Year). NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and conditions hereinafter expressed, the parties agree as follows: SECTION I 1. PUBLIC ENTITY shall perform or contract for all work necessary to complete the following described airport improvement(s) hereinafter referred to as "IMPROVEMENT": Airport: Ukiah Municipal Airport Detailed Project Description: Slurry Seal Runway and Taxiway Construction Bid: Estimated Project Services: Total Estimated Project Cost: Estimated State Share of Project Cost: MAXIMUM STATE PARTICIPATION: $121,253.40 $14,550.41 $135,803.81 $122,223.43 $123,000.00 Conditions: Plans and specifications must be in accordance with both the Caltrans Standard Plans and Specifications, dated July 1992, and the Federal Aviation Administration dimensional criteria (Advisory Circular 150/5300-13). 2. PUBLIC ENTITY shall comply with any special conditions set forth in the Letter of Allocation issued by the Department of Transportation. 3. PUBLIC ENTITY shall deposit the sum of $13,580.38, which represents PUBLIC ENTITY's share for IMPROVEMENT in the Ukiah Municipal Airport Account within the PUBLIC ENTITY's Special Aviation Fund in accordance with Public Utilities Code Section 21684. All other monies received from STATE or the Federal Government for IMPROVEMENT shall also be placed in this account. 4. PUBLIC ENTITY shall enter into all necessary contracts for construction of IMPROVEMENT by July 17, 1998 and shall cause all work to be completed by September 18, 1998, or such subsequent dates as may be designated in writing by STATE. 5. PUBLIC ENTITY shall carry out and complete IMPROVEMENT in accordance with the plans and specifications which have been approved in writing by STATE. Any changes from or modification of said documents shall require prior written approval by STATE. 6. PUBLIC ENTITY shall allow authorized STATE representatives to inspect the work being performed at any time during construction of IMPROVEMENT. 7. PUBLIC ENTITY agrees to retain all books, records, and accounts relating to this Grant Agreement for at least three (3) years after completion of IMPROVEMENT, and shall make these documents available for examination by STATE upon request. 8. PUBLIC ENTITY shall comply with all applicable STATE laws and regulations. 9. PUBLIC ENTITY shall indemnify and hold harmless the STATE and all officials and employees thereof from all claims, suits or actions of every kind, brought for, or on account of, any damage or liability occurring by reason of, or resulting from: (1) anything done or omitted to be done by PUBLIC ENTITY under this Grant Agreement; and/or (2) the construction of IMPROVEMENT by or in consequence of any negligence in gumding IMPROVEMENT; and/or (3) the use of improper materials in construction of the IMPROVEMENT; and/or (4) any act or omission by the Contractor or his agents during the process of constructing IMPROVEMENT and at any time before its completion and final acceptance. PUBLIC ENTITY's duty to indemnify and save harmless shall include the duty to defend, as set forth in Section 2778 of the Civil Code. 10. PUBLIC ENTITY shall pay, in addition to the amount described in paragraph 3 of this section, 10 percent of the cost of any change orders pertinent to IMPROVEMENT which have been approved in writing by both STATE and PUBLIC ENTITY. This money will be deposited into the account described in paragraph 3. 11. PUBLIC ENTITY shall pay to STATE all Federal monies received by PUBLIC ENTITY for cost of STATE's share of IMPROVEMENT. Repayment is due within 30 days of receipt of Federal funds. Repayment is required for such Federal funds paid either before, during, or after construction of IMPROVEMENT. Repayment to STATE shall not exceed the amount of monies actually disbursed by STATE to PUBLIC ENTITY pursuant to this Grant Agreement. SECTION II 1. Upon written acceptance by STATE that PUBLIC ENTITY has fulfilled all of the conditions stated in SECTION I, STATE shall disburse the STATE's share of the project cost up to $123,000.00 in the manner described in paragraph 2 of this section. However, in no event shall the total disbursement exceed the sum of $123,000.00 unless authorized by supplemental allocation by the California Transportation Commission or a G-12 Resolution. 2. Upon receipt of request for payment by PUBLIC ENTITY, STATE agrees to make monthly progress payments by any one or combination of the following methods: (a) PUBLIC ENTITY may submit certification of the percentage of the work completed, multiplied by 90 percent of the sum identified in paragraph I of this section; or (b) PUBLIC ENTITY may submit copies of the Contractor's invoices for materials delivered, up to 90 percent of the sum identified in paragraph 1 of this section; or (c) PUBLIC ENTITY may submit invoices for change orders which have been approved in writing by both PUBLIC ENTITY and STATE together with a request for payment by STATE of 90 percent of the invoice amount. 3. Regardless of the method under which progress payments are submitted, 10 percent of the STATE's share indicated in paragraph 1 of this section shall be retained by STATE until final acceptance of IMPROVEMENT. 4. After final inspection and written approval of IMPROVEMENT by STATE, STATE will pay the balance of grant to PUBLIC ENTITY. PUBLIC ENTITY'S ACCEPTANCE I hereby certify that the sum of $13,580.38 has been deposited in the Ukiah Municipal Airport Account within the PUBLIC ENTITY's Special Aviation Fund to match the sum of money granted by the STATE as provided by Section 21683 of the Public Utilities Code. EXECUTED THIS Z Z. DAY OF ~l~J~J ~ TITLE: CITY ,199_~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Aeronautics Program By: MARLIN BECKVVITH, Program Manager Aeronautics Program DATE: I hereby certify upon my own personal knowledge that allocated funds are available for the period and purpose of the expenditure stated above. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ACCOUNTING OFFICER DATE: Page 2 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. 98-08 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION, ACCEPTANCE OF AN ALLOCATION OF FUNDS, AND EXECUTION OF A GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR AN ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT GRANT, AND CERTIFYING THE AVAILABILITY OF THE CITY'S SHARE OF MATCHING FUNDS WHEREAS, the California Transportation Commission has adopted the 1996 Aeronautics Program for airport improvement projects; and WHEREAS, the California Department of Transportation, pursuant to the Public Utilities Code and California Aid to Airports Program (CAAP) regulations, requires local government approval authorizing the application and certifying the availability of 10% matching funds; and WHEREAS, the City of Ukiah is submitting an application for Runway crack seal, slurry seal, and paint, which is included in the 1996 Aeronautics Program, at the Ukiah Municipal Airport. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Ukiah, State of California: 1. Authorizes filing the application for the project in the 1996 Aeronautics Program; 2. Authorizes accepting the allocation of funds for the project at the Ukiah Municipal Airport; 3. Certifies the availability of the City's ten percent (10%) matching funds; 4. Authorizes execution of the Grant Agreement; and o Authorizes Candace Horsley, City Manager, to sign any documents required to apply for and accept these subject funds on behalf of the City of Ukiah. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of August, 1997 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: AT...T~ST: ~ Co'~leen B. Henderson, City Clerk mfh:resord RESAIRP Councilmembers Ashiku, Kelly, and Vice Mayor Mastin None Councilmember Chavez and Mayor Malone None Ja es Mastin, ' -" Resolution No. 98-08 Page 1 of 1 AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. 6g DATE: JULY 1, 1998 REPORT SUBJECT: AWARD CONSULTANT SERVICE AGREEMENT TO CARLILE · MACY FOR THE PREPARATION OF CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF PERKINS STREET AT A TOTAL COMPENSATION NOT EXCEEDING $26,571 In response to the City's Request for Proposal (RFP), five proposals were received from consulting engineering firms for the preparation of contract documents including plans, specifications, and engineer's cost estimate and the performance of cost analysis for the reconstruction of Perkins Street. The complete scope-of-work to be completed by the consultant is provided in the attached RFP. As communicated in the RFP, only four weeks are allowed for the completion of the work in order to facilitate a construction start date of September 14, 1998, and it is necessary that the selected consultant dedicate considerable staff resources to complete the project within the required time frame. Each proposal was ranked by utilizing the following criteria: I · adequate resources to perform the work within a very short time period, and the consultant's commitment to allocate the resources to the project; does the consultant have depth in personnel; , past experience in performing the type of work specified and within time and budget; 3, proposed compensation: is the proposed guaranteed maximum compensation in line with available financial resources; CONTINUED ON PAGE 2 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Award Consultant Service Agreement to Carlile · Macy for the preparation of contract documents for the Reconstruction of Perkins Street from the US 101 overcrossing to Main Street at a total compensation not exceeding $26,571. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Review proposals and select other consultant to perform the work. Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: Rick H. Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Rick H Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Pertinent excerpts of proposal from Carlile · Macy. 2. Request for Proposal. APPROVED: ~andace Horsley, Manager Award Consultant Service Agreement to Carlile · Macy for the Preparation of Contract Documents for the Reconstruction of Orchard Avenue at Compensation not Exceeding $24,247 Page 2 A fourth criterion regarding cooperation and coordination with client, originally planned to be utilized in the initial rating was abandoned due to the time available for review of the proposals and availability of references. As a result of the ranking process based on the selection criteria, and subsequent reference interviews and discussions with the City Manager, it is recommended that the Consultant Service Agreement be awarded to Carlile · Macy. Compensation for the performance of the work shall be made on a time and expense basis not to exceed a maximum compensation of $26,571. This consultant proposes to use a subconsultant for the preparation of traffic striping plans who has successfully completed work for the City in the past. Because ranking of proposals is somewhat subjective and in light of professional sensitivity, the numerical rating and order of ranking has not been provided in this report. A listing of the consultants who submitted proposals and their corresponding guaranteed maximum compensation are as follows: Winzler and Kelly, Consulting Engineers Eureka $38,000 Ruzicka Associates Lakeport $37,500 Carlile · Macy Lakeport and Santa Rosa $26,571 Associated Engineering Consultants Redding $19,880 CHEC Consultants Redding $16,555 In December of 1997, CHEC Consultants lost several key personnel who formed another consulting firm. It is the Director's opinion that CHEC has not yet recovered completely from this loss and currently lacks depth of personnel which is needed to complete this project within the time constraints. This is evidenced by the proposed design team. Associated Engineering Consultants is a new company made-up of former employees and department heads of CHEC Engineering. No one was available from Associated on Wednesday, June 24, 1998 to discuss their proposal. It is believed that Award Consultant Service Agreement to Carlile · Macy for the Preparation of Contract Documents for the Reconstruction of Orchard Avenue at Compensation not Exceeding $24,247 Page 3 Associated has not yet attained adequate depth in resources and availability of personnel to perform the work within the very short time period allowed. Section 4526 of the Government Code and Section 1522, C2a, of the Municipal Code require that engineering services shall be awarded on the basis of demonstrated competence and on the professional qualifications necessary for the satisfactory performance of the services required. Cost may be considered as one factor in awarding the consultant contract, but not the sole factor. The RFP process was conducted in such a manner that the consultant's expertise and qualifications were equitably compared and evaluated with others. The consultant fees for this project will be paid from the Project Funds budgeted in Account Nos. 301.9646.250.000 and 303.9646.250.000. Funds in the amount of $450,000 have been budgeted for engineering and construction costs. RHK:kk R:I~P~N ACARLILE.2 CIVIL ENOINEERS URBAN PLANNERS LAND SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS June 19,1998 Mr. Rick H. Kennedy Department of Public Works City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, California 95482 RE: Proposal- Reconstruction of Perkins Street Dear Mr. Kennedy: Enclosed please find our proposal to provide Professional Engineering Services for preparation of Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) for the subject project. Prior to preparing this proposal, we have studied the geotechnical information in the City RFP and have reviewed the site conditions in the field. This proposal outlines Carlile · Macy's experience with Public Agency Contracts, our ability to perform the work and provides information on the experience of our personnel. Jack Macy has been associated with Mitchell and Heryford since 1971, and in January 1996 merged with Carlile Associates to form the merged firm of Carlile ° Macy. Many of our combined professional staff have been with us for over ten years, a sign of a very stable company, that provides our clients with more design productivity. Our Lakeport branch office has been in operation for eight years and from which, we will provide easy access to you at your office, as necessary. Please contact me with any questions and thank you for the opportunity to be of service. Very truly yours, CARLILE ° MACY Howard N. Dashiell HND:bc Filename:\Proposal 98P 15\Kennedy.ltr 175 PARK STREET, LAKEPORT, CA 95453 TEL (707) 263-0202 FAX (707) 263-0298.._,~/ SECTION I PROJECT APPROACH \ FIRM QUALIFICATIONS AND RESOURCES Introduction Carlile · Macy recognizes this as a straight forward project, in which design basis analysis is limited to a decision concerning the road section thickness which is limited by existing utilities. Therefore, the choice of what to do (probably use 7" section of AC) will not take much time. The remainder of work is in preparing accurate plans from which accurate estimates can be made for bidding using the CalTrans Standard Specifications and contractor payment methods. A smooth job which is built without out-of contingency (3%) change orders depends on well thought out plans and contract specifications. How to do this is well known and the City can provide the basic documents on computer format. This job amounts to committing people and time to do this work quickly in order to build during this construction season. Carlile · Macy is willing and able to make this commitment. Our project manager, Howard Dashiell, worked for Mendocino Department of Public Works in 1989 and 1990 using the CalTrans Plans Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) system on roads and bridges. In 1993 he prepared PS&E's for two storm drainage projects. Carlile · Macy often uses CalTrans specifications for our private projects which require public works improvements. Carlile · Macy represents the merger of two firms with a combined total of over 50 years experience in highways, streets and construction plans throughout that time. The firm has prepared many plans, specifications, contracts, estimates, studies and reports. Carlile · Macy staff consists of six professional engineers, four licensed land surveyors and twelve technicians. We use Auto CAD softdesk computer work stations and our work is state-of-the art. Carlile ° Macy maintains control of project costs and schedules by assigning a principal to manage the project and to work closely with the client. Carlile ° Macy prepares accurate quantity estimates and compares cost to recent project bid costs to recent project bid costs as well as checking directly with suppliers. Carlile ° Macy can provide the City of Ukiah with the PS&E product required in the time frame specified in the following proposal. TIMELINE Carlile · Macy understands the City's need to accomplish this work within 31 calendar days from execution of contract. The 90% PS&E will be reviewed by the City within 5 days of submittal. Assuming that revisions are required and resubmitted the following timeline is proposed: 1) Execute Contract by- July 1, 1998 2) Perform Field Survey by - July 8, 1998 3) Prepare PS&E for 90% examination by - July 22, 1998 4) Re-submit PS&E final 25 sets by July 31, 1998 5) Answer questions during bidding - August 3 to 26 SECTION II CARLILE · MACY PROJECT PERSONNEL INTRODUCTION Carlile · Macy has carefully analyzed the requirements for this project and has selected those professionals who are best qualified for the task. The following are brief summaries, of our design group, capable of responding to your project at hand. JOHN A. MACY, Principal In-Charge/Owner As an Owner, Mr. Macy will be responsible for oversite. He will be responsible for leading the Carlile · Macy team in their assignments. Howard N. Dashiell, Project Manager/Project Engineer As a registered Civil Engineer, Mr. Dashiell will be responsible for project field surveys, office mapping, project design, quantity measurements and construction cost estimate. Mr. Dashiell will further act as liaison between the City of Ukiah and the project team. He will be responsible for the day-to-day logistics and most importantly be readily available Bruce E. Jarvis, Supervising Land Surveyor As Supervising Land Surveyor, Mr. Jarvis will be consulting with team members concerning surveying related issues. William M. Silva, Associate Engineer Mr. Silva has experience in Federal, State and locally funded projects and will bring this working knowledge to the team. Adam Bane, Associate Engineer Mr. Bane has recent experience in CalTrans specifications as field engineer for Kiewit Pacific on the Hwy. 53 project. Mr. Bane will assist the team in project cost estimates. John C. Scharff John C. Scharff is a survey party chief with over ten years experience in various types of surveys. He currently is registered as a professional Land Surveyor. James L. Smith, Engineering Technician Mr. Smith has six years experience in construction design projects. Mr. Smith worked extensively on the Mendocino County Storm Damage PS&E's in 1993. Randy D. Chaffin Randy D. Chaffin is a survey party chief with over ten years experience in various types of surveys. Jim Dickey, Engineering Technicial Mr. Dickey will support the project team in cross section and quantity calculations. In addition, design engineers, technicians, draftspersons and office personnel will provide the necessary support to the above mentioned design group. SUB CONSULTANT WHITLOCK & WEINBERGER TRAFFIS Ms. Dalene Whitlock has extensive traffic design experience. She will use the opportunity of a freshly paved street to consider a more efficient striping plan rather than just replace the existing striping. SECTION III CAPACITY TO PERFORM THE SCOPE OF WORK · Introduction From the R.P.F. we understand the importance of completing the PS&E quickly so there is time to complete construction during the 1998 construction season. SCOPE OF WORK Based upon our review of the project, the City's needs, and the objectives, Carlile · Macy prepared this Scope of Work, as set forth by the City in the R.F.P. The following is a list of items as shown in the RFP that make up our Scope of Work. 1. Kickoff meeting with the City Engineer. 2. Site visit of the project area. 3. Review of the pavement condition report prepared by CHEC Consultants. 4. Utility verification with City Utility Department (water, sewer and electric), Pacific Gas and Electric (gas), Pacific Bell (telephone), and Century Communications (cable), of subsurface facilities. Underground Service Alert (USA) will be called in by the City on June 22 and City water main shall be pot-holed by or located by the City Water Department. 5. Performance of a cost analysis between the recommended reconstruction section and an alternative replacement consisting of a 7" full depth asphalt concrete section. The alternative replacement would involve the grinding and removal of the existing asphalt and CTB courses to accommodate the full depth replacement in-lieu of removing 23" of materials to accommodate the recommended asphalt and base section. The shallow water main may also dictate that the full depth asphalt alternative is the most feasible. 6. Sufficient field surveys to establish a new centerline grade to achieve an acceptable cross fall of 3%. Again, the depth of the removal/replacement of the pavement section and the shallow water main may dictate that the existing profile must be maintained. In no case will the new centerline grade be higher than the existing. Surveys will be performed without lane closures using signs and flag persons with data point shots in traffic gaps. 7. Once the most cost effective and/or feasible reconstruction approach is selected, a cost analysis will be performed to confirm that the estimated construction cost between the desired limits is within the project budget. The desired project limits are from the west abutment , 10. 11. of the US 101 overcrossing to Main Street approximately 2,400 linear feet. The westerly limit (Main Street) can be shortened if the estimated construction cost exceeds project budget. Consultant shall recommend westerly limit if different than Main Street. Project budget construction is $450,000. less the Consultants PS and E fee. Construction engineering and inspection will be performed by City personnel at no cost to the project budget. Preparation of plan and profile drawings depicting new centerline grade of road surface, utilities, subsurface structures, manholes, and valve boxes. A scale of 1" -- 40 is desired and the plan view may be a strip aerial photo with the above features highlighted. The City does not have an up-to-date aerial photo of the project area. Consultant is advised that Cartwright Aerial Surveys, Inc., (916) 421-3465, may have a current photo of the project area. There shall be sufficient grade information for the contractor to establish final paving grades. The existing centerline grade of the pavement will be shown for the purpose of aiding the estimation of material removal (at twenty-five foot stationing). It is believed that horizontal distances to the nearest tenth is sufficient for this work. A re-striping plan at 1" = 100' and a plan detail showing the replacement of traffic loops on the east and west legs of Perkins at Orchard Avenue shall also be provided. Preparation of Special Provisions. The City will provide the Consultant with text of the General Conditions in Word Perfect 6.1 and will provide copies of the construction contract and bond forms. Consultant shall edit generic general conditions (Sections 1 through 12) to fit the project and shall prepare the Notice Inviting Bids. Instructions to Bidders, Construction Detailed Specifications (Section 13), Exclusions from General Conditions (Section 14), Amendments to General Conditions (Section 15), and the Bid proposal forms. The City will provide the Consultant with a Special Provision of a previous project to serve as a guide. The Standard Specifications is CalTrans Standard Specifications, July 1992 edition. Preparation of an Engineer's Cost Estimate. The Engineer's Cost Estimate and bid proposal schedule shall be in sufficient detail to permit ease of field measurement and control of construction costs. Anticipated bid items are removal of existing pavement section (SY), placement of AC (tons), placement of aggregate base (tons), if used, manhole cover adjustment, vault cover adjustment (each), valve cover adjustment, traffic stripping (L.S.), and traffic loop replacement (each). Mobilization, demobilization, traffic control, and other general contract requirements shall be included in the bid items noted. Contract Document Review at 90% completion with the City Engineer. This can be completed in one meeting with Consultant. If desired, review at other completion levels is also acceptable. 12. Preparation of schedule depicting consultants work tasks and completion dates. The schedule can be a simple bar chart or listing. Project Deliverables. One set of documents shall be provided for 90% completion review. This set will be reviewed together by Consultant and City Engineer. Twenty-five sets of the completed plans and Contract Special Provisions and one set of reproducible plans (vellum is acceptable), a copy ready set of the Contract Special Provisions and one copy of the Engineer's Estimate. The total amount of the Engineer's Estimate will be provided to the prospective bidders. SECTION IV COST ESTIMATE We are very interested in being the consultants for this project and look forward to working closely with the City of Ukiah Public Works Department. The Scope of Services previously listed and fee for those services are presented as a first step in negotiations of the contract price. Carlile · Macy shall do the work described in Section III. Scope of work and the R.F.P. dated June 2, 1998 for $26,571.00 (twenty-six thousand five hundred and seventy-one US dollars and no cents). WORK PLAN Project Engineer 40 hours @ 80.00 per hour Associate Engineer 40 hours @ 60.00 per hour Engineering Technical 56 hours @ 45.00 per hour Survey Crew 48 hours @ 130.00 per hour Flagger-Safety 48 hours @ 45.00 per hour Drafting Technician 90 hours @ 45.00 per hour A plan copy fee of $1,100.00 is estimated. Traffic Sub-consultant fee of $3,000.00 An additional $1,901.00 in prevailing wage differential and Union training fees for field personnel is estimated, if prevailing wages are required. 300 SEMINARY AVE., UKIAH, CA 95482-5400 · ADMIN. 707/463-6200 · PUBLIC SAFE'~ 463-6242/6274 · FAX il' 707/463-6204 · duno 2, 1998 RE: REQUEST FOR COST PROPOSAL FOR THE PREPARATION OF CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR "RECONSTRUCTION OF PERKINS STREET" Dear Consultant: Your cost proposal for the preparation of contract documents consisting of plans, specifications, and engineering cost estimate for the "Reconstruction of Perkins Street" in the City of Ukiah is requested. Proposals are due no later than 5:00 p.m., Friday, June 19, 1998. The City has programmed the reconstruction of Perkins Street between the US 101 overcrossing and Main Street and has budgeted $450,000 for the project including costs for design and PS and E. The City seeks the services of a consulting engineering firm who can complete the contract documents within a very short time period of four (4) weeks. BACKGROUND Perkins Street is a four (4) lane arterial street having a ADT of 15,000 vehicles per day. The street is improved with curb and gutter on both sides, and it is 48' wide curb to curb. It is assumed that the percent of heavy trucks is 2% and 3%. The length of Perkins Street to be reconstructed is 2,400'. Based on measured pavement deflections, visual conditions, core drilling of the pavement section and R value testing of subgrade material performed by CHEC Consultants, Inc., it has been recommended that the Perkins Street pavement section be reconstructed by replacing the existing section with 5.3" of dense graded asphalt concrete on 18" of Class II aggregate base. Because of existing curb and gutter and the already excessive transverse crown, it is not feasible to overlay the surface to the required overlay requirements. The recommended reconstruction depth is based on a 20 year life and a traffic index of 9.0. Based on corings taken within each lane at 11 sections, the pavement section ranges from 5.25" (2.25" AC on 3" cement treated base) to 12.5" (2.5" AC on 10 CTB). Asphalt concrete depths range from 1.75" to 5.5" and CTB depths range from 3" to 10". Generally, REQUEST FOR COST PROPOSAL "RECONSTRUCTION OF PERKINS STREET' PAGE 1 OF 7 '~Ve Are Here To Serve" the asphalt surface is on cement treated base, however, some cores indicate there is asphalt on untreated aggregate base. There may be aggregate sub-base under the CTB at some locations. R values taken on two samples were 25 and 19. The subgrade material was described as brown gravelly silty clay with 100% to 98% passing a 1/4" sieve. CHEC Consultants had noted during the pavement coring that the existing cement treated base was in poor condition and would crumble under the stress of the coring barrel. A sample of the CTB has been taken from an open cut trench west of Hospital Drive (corresponds to Section "E") and it appears to be in good condition at this location. The City Water Department reports that there is a shallow 12" AC water main running the length of the project area whose depth needs to be confirmed. SCOPE-OF-WORK The scope-of-work to be completed by the consultant shall include at a minimum the following work tasks: 1. Kickoff meeting with the City Engineer. 2. Site visit of the project area. 3. Review of the pavement condition report prepared by CHEC Consultants. Utility verification with City Utility Department (water, sewer, and electric), Pacific Gas and Electric (gas), Pacific Bell (telephone), and Century Communications (cable), of subsurface facilities. , Performance of a cost analysis between the recommended reconstruction section and an alternative replacement consisting of a 7" full depth asphalt concrete section. The alternative replacement would involve the grinding and removal of the existing asphalt and CTB courses to accommodate the full depth replacement in-lieu of removing 23" of materials to accommodate the recommended asphalt and base section. The shallow water main may also dictate that the full depth asphalt alternative is the most feasible. . Sufficient field surveys to establish a new centerline grade to achieve an acceptable cross fall of 3%. Again, the depth of the removal/replacement of the pavement section and the shallow water main may dictate that the existing profile must be maintained. In no case will the new centerline grade be higher than the existing. , Once the most cost effective and/or feasible reconstruction approach is selected, a cost analysis will be performed to confirm that the estimated construction cost between the desired limits is within the project budget. The desired project limits are from the west abutment of the US 101 overcrossing to Main Street approximately 2,400 linear feet. The westerly limit (Main Street) can be shortened if the estimated construction cost exceeds project budget. Consultant shall recommend westerly limit if different than Main Street. Project REQUEST FOR COST PROPOSAL "RECONSTRUCTION OF PERKINS STREET" PAGE 2 OF 7 8~ , 10. 11. 12. 13. budget construction is $450,000, less the Consultants PS and E fee. Construction, engineering, and inspection will be performed by City personnel at no cost to the project budget. Preparation of plan and profile drawings depicting new centerline grade of road surface, utilities, subsurface structures, manholes, and value boxes. A scale of 1" - 40' is desired and the plan view may be a strip aerial photo with the above features highlighted. The City does not have an up-to-date aerial photo of the project area. Consultant is advised that Cartwright Aerial Surveys, Inc., (91 6) 421-3465, may have a current photo of the project area. There shall be sufficient grade information for the contractor to establish final paving grades. The existing centerline grade of the pavement will be shown for the purpose of aiding the estimation of material removal. Twenty five foot stationing should be assumed. It is believed that horizontal distances to the nearest tenth is sufficient for this work. A restriping plan at 1" - 100' and a plan detail showing the replacement of traffic loops on the east and west legs of Perkins at Orchard Avenue shall also be provided. Preparation of Special Provisions. The City will provide the Consultant with text of the General Conditions in Word Perfect 6.1 and will provide copies of the construction contract and bond forms. Consultant shall edit generic general conditions (Sections 1 through 12) to fit the project and shall prepare the Notice Inviting Bids, Instructions to Bidders, Construction Detailed Specifications (Section 13), Exclusions from General Conditions (Section 14), Amendments to General Conditions (Section 15), and the Bid proposal forms. The City will provide the Consultant with a Special Provision of a previous project to serve as a guide. The Standard Specifications is Caltrans Standard Specifications, July 1992 edition. Preparation of an Engineer's Cost Estimate. The Engineer's Cost Estimate and bid proposal schedule shall be in sufficient detail to permit ease of field measurement and control of construction costs. Anticipated bid items are removal of existing pavement section (SY), placement of AC (tons), placement of aggregate base (tons), if used, manhole cover adjustment, vault cover adjustment (each), valve cover adjustment, traffic stripping (L.S.), and traffic loop replacement (each). Mobilization, demobilization, traffic control, and other general contract requirements shall be included in the bid items noted. Contract Document Review at 90% completion with the City Engineer. This can be completed in one meeting with Consultant. If desired, review at other completion levels is also acceptable. Preparation of schedule depicting consultants work tasks and completion dates. The schedule can be a simple bar chart or listing. Project Deliverables. One set of documents shall be provided for 90% completion review. This set will be reviewed together by Consultant and City REQUEST FOR COST PROPOSAL 'RECONSTRUCTION OF PERKINS STREET' PAGE 3 OF 7 Engineer. Twenty-five sets of the completed plans and Contract Special Provisions, and one set of reproducible plans (vellum is acceptable), a copy ready set of the Contract Special Provisions, and one copy of the Engineer's Estimate. The total amount of the Engineer's Estimate will be provided to the prospective bidders. WORK SCHEDULE The following Work Schedule will be adhered to: Consultant solicitation Consultant award Contract documentation/preparation Bid solicitation Bid award Start construction (4 weeks) End construction (4 weeks) June 1 -June 19 July 1 July 6 - July 31 August 3 - August 26 September 2 September 14 October 9 COST PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS A. Due Date and Number of Copies One set of the proposal is due no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, June 19, 1998. Proposals received after this deadline will not be considered. Proposal documents received by the City will become the property of the City and the documents will not be returned to the Proposer. Proposals are to be sealed, labeled, and addressed or delivered to: City Engineer Department of Public Works City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, California 95482 PROPOSAL: RECONSTRUCTION OF PERKINS STREET B. Proposal Contents The proposal shall contain the following elements: 1. Firm Qualifications and Resources. A brief summary of the Consulting Firm's qualifications pertaining to the expertise and practice in the type of work being planned. How long in business and size of firm. Consultant REQUEST FOR COST PROPOSAL 'RECONSTRUCTION OF PERKINS STREET' PAGE 4 OF 7 may submit the firms "Statement of Qualifications" with the proposal to satisfy this requirement. Consultant is advised that it will be necessary to dedicate considerable Staff resources to complete the proiect within the required time frame. Name, Background, Experience of Proiect Manager proposed for Assignment to the ..proiect. 3. Demonstrate Understanding of Scope-of-Work. Consultants shall demonstrate that they have full understanding of the scope-of-work and the effort needed to complete the project on time and within budget. 4. Proposed Compensation. Compensation for performing the work of the contract shall be on a time and expense basis not to exceed a guaranteed maximum amount. Consultants shall include in their proposals a guaranteed maximum amount for compensation, and a listing of their standard hourly rates for each profession, position, function or trade involved in the work, and the standard fees for typical expenses. 5. proposed Sub-Consultants and Contractors. Consultants shall list in their proposals proposed sub-consultants and/or contractors which will assist consultant in the performance of the work. Provide brief description of work to be performed by each sub-consultant and/or contractor. 6. Consultant References Consultant shall provide a list of references with contact person and current telephone number. 7. Other Information. At the consultant's discretion, other information may be included in the proposal that consultant deems appropriate to highlight the firm's experience and its ability to perform the work of the contract within the short time period allowed. The rating will be performed by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer and discussed with the City Manager. Telephone interviews with consultant's references will be conducted on June 22 and June 23. If rankings are very close, interviews with the consultants having the highest rankings may be conducted on June 24. On June 25, a recommendation for contract award will be prepared for presentation to the City Council on July 1, 1998. Consultant Selection Criteria The following criteria will be used to rank the proposals and they shall have equal weight. REQUEST FOR COST PROPOSAL "RECONSTRUCTION OF PERKINS STREET" PAGE 15 OF 7 , Adequate resources to perform the work within the very short time period required, and the consultant's commitment to allocate the resources to the project. 2. Past experience in performing work on time and within budget. e Cooperation and coordination with client. Does the consultant have a track record of providing the owner/client what they desire and can afford. Is consultant accommodating to the needs of the client. . Proposed Compensation. Are rates and fees reasonable. Is proposed guaranteed maximum compensation in line with available financial resources. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Pursuant to City policy, it will be necessary that the successful Consultant obtain the following insurance coverages and limits for this project: . General Liability: $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance of other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. 1 Automobile Liability: ,~ 1,000,000 combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage. 3~ Worker's Compensation and Employers Liability: Worker's compensation limits as required by the Labor Code of the State of California and Employers Liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident. . Professional Liability: Not less than $500,000 and shall remain in force for two (2) years after completion of consultant's work product and acceptance by City. Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City officers, agents, and employees from and against all claims, demands, liability, costs and expenses, including court costs and counsel fees, arising out of the injury to or death of any person or loss of or physical damage to any property resulting from any negligent or wrongful act or omission committed by consultant or its officers, agents, or employees while performing the services under the contract. Any questions concerning the City's insurance requirements should be directed to Michael F. Harris, Risk Manager at (707) 463-6287. REQUEST FOR COST PROPOSAL "RECONSTRUCTION OF PERKINS STREET" P,~,GE 6 OF 7 CONSULTANT AGREEMENT The successful consultant will be required to enter into a written contract with the City prior to performing the proposed work. The contract will be prepared by the City and the contract must be executed by the consultant on or prior to July 6, 1998, in order to facilitate a start date of July 6, 1998. A sample Professional Consulting Services Agreement will be provided to the consultant upon request. Please direct any questions concerning this Request for Proposal to the Director of Public Works/City Engineer by faxing your inquires to (707) 463-6204. In recognition of the efforts and resources required to prepare an adequate proposal, and the short duration in which the proposal is to be prepared, the consultants are encouraged to keep the proposal "basic" and to the point; high quality graphics, etc., and voluminous proposals are not necessary or desired. Sincerely, Rick H. Kennedy Director of Public Works/City Engineer RHK:kk A;$PEC3 PERKINS REQUEST FOR COST PROPOSAL "RECONSTRUCTION OF PERKINS STREET" PAGE 7 OF 7 AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. 6h DATE: JULY 1, 1998 REPORT SUBJECT: AWARD CONSULTANT SERVICE AGREEMENT TO CARLILE · MACY FOR THE PREPARATION OF CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF ORCHARD AVENUE AT COMPENSATION NOT EXCEEDING $24,247 In response to the City's Request for Proposal (RFP), five proposals were received from consulting engineering firms for the performance of soils engineering work and the preparation of contract documents including plans, specifications, and engineer's cost estimate for the reconstruction of Orchard Avenue. The complete scope-of-work to be completed by the consultant is provided in the attached RFP. As communicated in the RFP, only six weeks are allowed for the completion of the work in order to facilitate a construction start date of September 28, 1998, and it is necessary that the selected consultant dedicate considerable staff resources to complete the project within the required time frame. Each proposal was ranked by utilizing the following criteria: I , adequate resources to perform the work within a very short time period, and the consultant's commitment to allocate the resources to the project; does the consultant have depth in personnel; , past experience in performing the type of work specified and within time and budget; , proposed compensation: is the proposed guaranteed maximum compensation in line with available financial resources, and are the consultant's rates and fees reasonable. CONTINUED ON PAGE 2 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Award Consultant Service Agreement to Carlile · Macy for the preparation of contract documents and the performance of soils engineering work for the Reconstruction of Orchard Avenue from Gobbi Street to Perkins Street at a total compensation not exceeding $24,247. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Review proposals and select other consultant to perform the work. Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attach me nts: Rick H. Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Rick H. Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Pertinent excerpts of proposal from Carlile · Macy. 2. Request for Proposal. APPROVED:;' ~_, Candace Horsley, Cil~ Manager Award Consultant Service Agreement to Carlile · Macy for the Preparation of Contract Documents for the Reconstruction of Orchard Avenue at Compensation not Exceeding $24,247 Page 2 A fourth criterion regarding cooperation and coordination with client, originally planned to be utilized in the initial rating was abandoned due to the time available for review of the proposals and availability of references. As a result of the Director of Public Works review and ranking of the proposals based on the selection criteria, and subsequent reference interviews and discussions with the City Manager, it is recommended that the Consultant Service Agreement be awarded to Carlile · Macy. Compensation for the performance of the work shall be made on a time and expense basis with a guaranteed maximum total compensation of $24,247. This consultant proposes to use subconsultants for soils work and traffic striping work who have successfully completed work for the City in the past. Because ranking of proposals is somewhat subjective and in light of professional sensitivity, the numerical rating and order of ranking has not been provided in this report. A listing of the consultants who submitted proposals and their corresponding guaranteed maximum compensation are as follows: Winzler and Kelly, Consulting Engineers Eureka $44,000 Rau and Associates Ukiah $39,625 Ruzicka Associates Lakeport $38,000 Carlile · Macy Lakeport and Santa Rosa $24,247 Associated Engineering Consultants Redding $22,670 Associated Engineering Consultants is a new company made-up of former employees and department heads of CHEC Engineering. No one was available from Associated the morning of Wednesday, June 24, 1998 to discuss their proposal. Although their proposed fee is very attractive, it is believed that they have not yet attained adequate depth in resources and availability of personnel to perform the work within the very short time period allowed. Award Consultant Service Agreement to Carlile · Macy for the Preparation of Contract Documents for the Reconstruction of Orchard Avenue at Compensation not Exceeding $24,247 Page 3 Section 4526 of the Government Code and Section 1522, C2a, of the Municipal code require that engineering services shall be awarded on the basis of demonstrated competence and on the professional qualifications necessary for the satisfactory performance of the services required. Cost may be considered as one factor in awarding the contract, but not the sole factor. The RFP process was conducted in such a manner that the consultant's expertise and qualifications were equitably compared and evaluated with others. The consultant fees for this project will be paid from the Project Funds budgeted in Account No. 301.9816.250.000. Funds in the amount of $375,000 have been budgeted for engineering and construction costs. RHK:kk R:I\PVV ACARLILE CIVIL ENGINEERS URBAN PLANNERS LAND SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS June 19, 1998 Mr. Rick H. Kennedy Department of Public Works City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, California 95482 RE: Proposal - Reconstruction of Orchard Avenue Dear Mr. Kennedy: Enclosed please find our proposal to provide Professional Engineering Services for preparation of Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) for the subject project. Prior to preparing this proposal, we have studied the City RFP and have reviewed the site conditions in the field. This proposal outlines Carlile · Macy's experience with Public Agency Contracts, our ability to perform the work and provides information on the experience of our personnel. Jack Macy has been associated with Mitchell and Heryford since 1971, and in January 1996 merged with Carlile Associates to form the merged firm of Carlile · Macy. Many of our combined professional staff have been with us for over ten years, a sign of a very stable company, that provides our clients with more design productivity. Our Lakeport branch office has been in operation for eight years and from which, we will provide easy access to you at your office, as necessary. Please contact me with any questions and thank you for the opportunity to be of service. Very truly yours, Howard N. Dashiell HND:bc Filename:\Proposal 98P16\Kennedy. ltr 175 PARK STREET, LAKEPORT, CA 95453 TZL (707) 263-0202 FAX (707) 263-029_~J SECTION I PROJECT APPROACH \ FIRM QUALIFICATIONS AND RESOURCES · Introduction Carlile · Macy recognizes this as a straight forward project, in which design basis analysis is limited to a decision concerning the road section thickness which is limited by existing utilities. The choice of what to do will be based on our soils investigation and cost analysis. The remainder of work is in preparing accurate plans from which accurate estimates can be made for bidding using the CalTrans Standard Specifications and contractor payment methods. A smooth job which is built without out-of contingency (3%) change orders depends on well thought out plans and contract specifications. How to do this is well known and the City can provide the basic documents on computer format. This job amounts to committing people and time to do this work quickly in order to build during this construction season. Carlile · Macy is willing and able to make this commitment. Our project manager, Howard Dashiell, worked for Mendocino Department of Public Works in 1989 and 1990 using the CalTrans Plans Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) system on roads and bridges. In 1993 he prepared PS&E's for two storm drainage projects. Carlile · Macy often uses CalTrans specifications for our private projects which require public works improvements. Carlile · Macy represents the merger of two firms with a combined total of over 50 years experience in highways, streets and construction plans throughout that time. The firm has prepared many plans, specifications, contracts, estimates, studies and reports. Carlile · Macy staff consists of six professional engineers, four licensed land surveyors and twelve technicians. We use Auto CAD softdesk computer work stations and our work is state-of-the art. Carlile · Macy maintains control of project costs and schedules by assigning a principal to manage the project and to work closely with the client. Carlile · Macy prepares accurate quantity estimates and compares cost to recent project bid costs to recent project bid costs as well as checking directly with suppliers. Carlile · Macy can provide the City of Ukiah with the PS&E product required in the time frame specified in the following proposal. · TIMELINE Carlile · Macy understands the City's need to accomplish this work within 31 calendar days from execution of contract. The 90% PS&E will be reviewed by the City within 5 days of submittal. Assuming that revisions are required and resubmitted the following timeline is proposed: 1) Execute Contract by- July 1, 1998 2) Perform Field Survey by - July 22, 1998 3) Prepare PS&E for 90% examination by - August 3, 4) Re-submit PS&E final 25 sets by August 14, 1998 5) Answer questions during bidding - August 3 to 26 1998 SECTION II CARLILE · MACY PROJECT PERSONNEL INTRODUCTION Carlile · Macy has carefully analyzed the requirements for this project and has selected those professionals who are best qualified for the task. The following are brief summaries, of our design group, capable of responding to your project at hand. JOHN A. MACY, Principal In-Charge/Owner As an Owner, Mr. Macy will be responsible for oversite. He will be responsible for leading the Carlile · Macy team in their assignments. Howard N. Dashiell, Project Manager/Project Engineer As a registered Civil Engineer, Mr. Dashieil will be responsible for project field surveys, office mapping, project design, quantity measurements and construction cost estimate. Mr. Dashiell will further act as liaison between the City of Ukiah and the project team. He will be responsible for the day-to-day logistics and most importantly be readily available Bruce E. Jarvis, Supervising Land Surveyor As Supervising Land Surveyor, Mr. Jarvis will be consulting with team members concerning surveying related issues. William M. Silva, Associate Engineer Mr. Silva has experience in Federal, State and locally funded projects and will bring this working knowledge to the team. Adam Bane, Associate Engineer Mr. Bane has recent experience in CalTrans specifications as field engineer for Kiewit Pacific on the Hwy. 53 project. Mr. Bane will assist the team in project cost estimates. John C. Scharff John C. Scharff is a survey party chief with over ten years experience in various types of surveys. He currently is registered as a professional Land Surveyor. James L. Smith, Engineering Technician Mr. Smith has six years experience in construction design projects. Mr. Smith worked extensively on the Mendocino County Storm Damage PS&E's in 1993. Randy D. Chaffin Randy D. Chaffin is a survey party chief with over ten years experience in various types of surveys. Jim Dickey, Engineering Technicial Mr. Dickey will support the project team in cross section and quantity calculations. In' addition, design engineers, technicians, draftspersons and office personnel will provide the necessary support to the above mentioned design group. SUB CONSULTANTS WHITLOCK & WEINBERGER TRAFFIC Ms. Dalene Whitlock has extensive traffic design experience. She will use the opportunity of a freshly paved street to consider a more efficient striping plan rather than just replace the existing striping. RGH GEOTHENICAL Mr. Juan Hidalgo has extensive road structural section design experience. He will prepare his recommendation based on his borings and experience. Mr. Hidalgo was the soils sub-consultant for the City of Ukiah's Water Ponds Project in 1993. SECTION III CAPACITY TO PERFORM THE SCOPE OF WORK · Introduction From the R.P.F. we understand the importance of completing the PS&E quickly so there is time to complete construction during the 1998 construction season. SCOPE OF WORK Based upon our review of the project, the City's needs, and the objectives, Carlile · Macy prepared this Scope of Work, as set forth by the City in the R.F.P. The following is a list of items from the R.F.P. that make up our Scope of Work. 1. Kickoff meeting with the City Engineer. 2. Soil sampling and testing of subgrade soils to determine Icad bearing capacity of subgrade materials. An adequate number of tests are to be performed for the purpose of determining a structural section having a 20 year life. In anticipation of an increase in traffic along this portion of Orchard Avenue, a T. I.. of 9.0 shall be used in the design. 3. Design pavement structural section based on the results of subgrade soil characteristics, in particular, R-values and sand equivalents. If subgrade soils have Iow sand equivalent, and therefore, susceptible to moisture, the installation of subsurface drains within the roadway section shall be considered in the design. 4. Utility verification with City Utility Department (water, sewer and electric), Pacific Gas and Electric (gas), Pacific Bell (telephone), and Century Communications (cable), of subsurface facilities. Underground Service Alert (USA) will be called in by the City on June 22 and City water main shall be pot-holed by or located by the City Water Department. 5. Perform field surveys to obtain elevations and locations of curb and gutter and other infrastructure and topographic features within the street right-of-way (60' ROW). Cross Sections are to be taken at 25' intervals. Surveys will be performed without lane closures using signs and taking data point shots in traffic gaps. 6. Perform cost analysis between pavement section alternatives; asphalt/base section versus full depth asphalt. The most cost effective section will be utilized in the design. 7. Design new street profile and crown which best fits existing curb and gutter. Desired crossfall is 2%, however, it is preferred that the high point of the crown is located at the centerline of pavement. 8. Once the most cost effective and/or feasible reconstruction approach is selected, a cost analysis will be performed to confirm that the estimated construction cost between the desired limits is within the . 10. 11. 12. 13. prepared budget The northerly limit (Perkins Street) can be moved Southerly if the estimated construction cost exceeds project budget. Consultant shall recommend northerly limit if different than Perkins Street. Project budget is $375,000.00 less consultants design and PS and E fee. Construction engineering and inspection will be performed by City personnel at no cost to the project budget. Preparation of plan and profile drawings depicting new centerline grade of road surface, utilities, subsurface structures, manholes, and valve boxes. Drawing size shall be 24" x 36" and a scale of 1"= 40' shall be used. Cross sections shall also be provided on 24"x 36" sheets. Preparation of Special Provisions. The City will provide the Consultant with text of the General Conditions in Word Perfect 6.1 and will provide copies of the construction contract and bond forms. Consultant shall edit generic general conditions (Sections 1 through 12) to fit the project and shall prepare the Notice Inviting Bids. Instructions to Bidders, Construction Detailed Specifications (Section 13), Exclusions from General Conditions (Section 14), Amendments to General Conditions (Section 15), and the Bid proposal forms. The City will provide the Consultant with a Special Provision of a previous project to serve as a guide. The Standard Specifications is CalTrans Standard Specifications, July 1992 edition. Preparation of an Engineer's Cost Estimate. The Engineer's Cost Estimate and bid proposal schedule shall be in sufficient detail to permit ease of field measurement and control of construction costs. Anticipated bid items are removal of existing pavement section (SY), placement of AC (tons), placement of aggregate base (tons), if used, manhole cover adjustment, vault cover adjustment (each), valve cover adjustment, traffic stripping (L.S.), and traffic loop replacement (each). Mobilization, demobilization, traffic control, and other general contract requirements shall be included in the bid items noted. Contract Document Review at 90% completion with the City Engineer. This can be completed in one meeting with Consultant. If desired, review at other completion levels is also acceptable. Preparation of schedule depicting consultants work tasks and completion dates. The schedule can be a simple bar chart or listing. Project Deliverables. One set of documents shall be provided for 90% completion review. This set will be reviewed together by Consultant and City Engineer. Twenty-five sets of the completed plans and Contract Special Provisions and one set of reproducible plans (vellum is acceptable), a copy ready set of the Contract Special Provisions and one copy of the Engineer's Estimate. The total amount of the Engineer's Estimate will be provided to the prospective bidders. SECTION IV PROPOSED COMPENSATION COST ESTIMATE We are very interested in being the consultants for this project and look forward to working closely with the City of Ukiah Public Works Department. The Scope of Services previously listed and fee for those services are presented as a first step in negotiations of the contract price. Carlile · Macy shall do the work described in Section III. Scope of work and the R.F.P. dated June 2, 1998 for $24,247.00 (twenty-four thousand two hundred and forty-seven US dollars and no cents). WORK PLAN Project Engineer 40 hours @ 80.00 per hour Associate Engineer 40 hours @ 60.00 per hour Engineering Technical Survey Crew 40 hours @ 45.00 per hour 32 hours @ 130.00 per hour Flagger-Safety 32 hours @ 45.00 per hour Drafting Technician A plan copy fee of $1,100.00 is estimated. 64 hours @ 45.00 per hour Traffic Sub-consultant fee of $3,000.00 Soils Sub-Consultant fee $3,000.00 An additional $1,267.00 in prevailing wage differential and Union training fees for field personnel is estimated, if prevailing wages are required. ~? ti.` 300 SEMINARY AVE., UKIAH, CA 95482-5400 · Al)MIN. 707/463-6200 - PUBLIC SAFETY 463-6242/6274 · FAX # 707/463-6204 · duno 3, 1998 RE: REQUEST FOR COST PROPOSAL FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF SOIL TESTING AND THE PREPARATION OF CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR THE "RECONSTRUCTION OF ORCHARD AVENUE" Dear Consultant' Your cost proposal for the performance of soil testing to determine load bearing capacity of subsurface soils and the subsequent street reconstruction design and preparation of contract documents consisting of plans, specifications, and engineering cost estimate for the "Reconstruction of Orchard Avenue" in the City of Ukiah is requested. Proposals are due no later than 5:00 p.m., Friday, June 19, 1998. The City has programmed the reconstruction of Orchard Avenue between Perkins Street and Gobbi Street and has budgeted 8375,000 for the project including costs for soil testing, field survey, design, and PS and E. The City seeks the services of a consulting engineering firm who can perform the soil testing, field surveys, design of the structural section and preparation of the contract documents within a very short time period of six (6) weeks. BACKGROUND Orchard Avenue between Perkins Street and Gobbi Street is currently a two lane major collector within a commercial zoned area. The improved width of Perkins Street is variable with curbed and uncurbed sections between the limits noted. Along those sections having curb and gutter on both sides, the curb to curb width is 47' to 48'. Commercial development is on-going along this portion of Orchard Avenue and the current ADT is 7,000 vehicles per day. It is estimated that the percent of heavy trucks is 1% to 2%. The length of Orchard Avenue between Perkins Street and Gobbi Street is 2,400'. REQUEST FOR COST PROPOSAL "RECONSTRUCTION OF ORCHARD AVENUE" PAGE 1 OF 7 '~/e Are Here To Serve" The pavement section has deteriorated requiring complete reconstruction of the structural section. A review of the records on file with the City indicates that the existing structural section is varied ranging from 2-1/2" AC/12" AB and 3" AC/8" AB to 3" AC/12" AB. A recently completed development was required to construct 3- 1/2" AC on 10" AB along the development's frontage. The soil characteristics and the load bearing capacity of the subsurface soils are unknown. The existing crown is offset to the west creating undesirable crossfall slopes. Elevation and slope references of the existing curb and gutter is needed for the purpose of establishing curb and gutter grades for future developments and to ensure adequate street drainage. SCOPE-OF-WORK The scope-of-work to be completed by the consultant shall include at a minimum the following work tasks: 1. Kick off meeting with City Engineer and site visit of the project area. w Soil sampling and testing of subgrade soils to determine load bearing capacity of subgrade materials. An adequate number of tests are to be performed for the purpose of determining a structural section having a 20 year life. In anticipation of an increase in traffic along this portion of Orchard Avenue, a T.I of 9.0 shall be used in the design. e Design pavement structural section based on the results of subgrade soil characteristics, in particular, R-values and sand equivalents. If subgrade soils have Iow sand equivalent, and therefore, susceptible to moisture, the Installation of subsurface drains within the roadway section shall be considered in the design. 1 Utility verification with City Utility Department (water, sewer, and electric), Public Works (storm drain), Pacific Gas and Electric (gas), Pacific Bell (telephone), and Century Communications (cable) of subsurface facilities. Perform field surveys to obtain elevations and locations of curb and gutter and other infrastructure and topographic features within the street right-of-way (60' ROW). Cross sections are to be taken at 25' intervals. e Perform cost analysis between pavement section alternatives; asphalt/base section versus full depth asphalt. The most cost effective section will be utilized in the design. REQUEST FOR COST PROPOSAL "RECONSTRUCTION OF ORCHARD AVENUE" PAGE 2 OF 7 7~ Design new street profile and crown which best fits existing curb and gutter. Desired crossfall is 2%, however, it is preferred that the high point of the crown is located at the centerline of pavement. 8e Once the most cost effective and/or feasible reconstruction approach is selected, a cost analysis shall be performed to confirm that the estimated construction cost between the desired project limits is within the project budget. The northerly limit (Perkins Street) can be moved southerly if the estimated construction cost exceeds project budget. Consultant shall recommend northerly limit if different than Perkins Street. Project budget is ,~375,000 less consultants design and PS and E fee. Construction engineering and inspection will be performed by City personnel at no cost to the project budget. Se Preparation of standard plan and profile drawings depicting new centerline of road surface, top of curb elevations for existing and future top of curbs, utilities, subsurface structures, manholes, vaults and valve boxes. Drawing size shall be 24" x 36" and a scale of 1" - 40' shall be used. Cross sections shall also be provided on 24" x 36" sheets. A striping plan, appropriate details, and a traffic loop replacement detail (Orchard Avenue at Perkins Street) shall also be provided. 10. Preparation of Special Provisions. The City will provide the Consultant with text of the General Conditions in Word Perfect 6.1 and will provide copies of the construction contract and bond forms. Consultant shall edit generic general conditions (Sections I through 12) to fit the project and shall prepare the Notice Inviting Bids, Instructions to Bidders, Construction Detailed Specifications (Section 13), Exclusions from General Conditions (Section 14), Amendments to General Conditions (Section 15), and the Bid proposal forms. The City will provide the Consultant with a Special Provision of a previous project to serve as a guide. The Standard Specifications is Caltrans Standard Specifications, July 1992 edition. 11. Preparation of an Engineer's Cost Estimate. The Engineer's Cost Estimate and bid proposal schedule shall be in sufficient detail to permit ease of field measurement and control of construction costs. Anticipated bid items are removal of existing pavement section, and subgrade materials (SY), placement of AC (tons), placement of aggregate base (tons), if used, manhole cover adjustment, vault cover adjustment, valve cover adjustment (each), traffic stripping (L.S.), traffic loop replacement (each), and subsurface drains (L.F.). Mobilization, demobilization, traffic control, and other general contract requirements shall be included in the bid items noted. 12. Contract Document Review at 90% completion with the City Engineer. This REQUEST FOR COST PROPOSAL "RECONSTRUCTION OF ORCHARD AVENUE" PAGE 3 OF 7 can be completed in one meeting with Consultant. If desired, review at other completion levels is also acceptable. 13. Preparation of schedule depicting consultants work tasks and completion dates. The schedule can be a simple bar chart or listing. 14. Project Deliverables. One set of documents shall be provided for 90% completion review. This set will be reviewed together by Consultant and City Engineer. Twenty-five sets of the completed plans and Contract Special Provisions, and one set of reproducible plans (vellum is acceptable), a copy ready set of the Contract Special Provisions, and one copy of the Engineer's Estimate. The total amount of the Engineer's Estimate will be provided to the prospective bidders. WORK SCHEDULE The following Work Schedule will be adhered to: Consultant solicitation Consultant award Contract documentation/preparation June 1 -June 19 July 1 July 6- August 14 Bid solicitation Bid award Start construction End construction (6 weeks) August 17 - Sept 9 September 16 September 28 November 6 COST pROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS A. Due Date and Number of Copies One set of the proposal is due no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, June 19, 1998. Proposals received after this deadline will not be considered. Proposal documents received by the City will become the property of the City and the documents will not be returned to the Proposer. Proposals are to be sealed, labeled, and addressed or delivered to: City Engineer Department of Public Works City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, California 95482 PROPOSAL: RECONSTRUCTION OF ORCHARD AVENUE REQUEST FOR COST PROPOSAL "RECONSTRUCTION OF ORCHARD AVENUE" PAGE 4 OF 7 B, proposal Contents The proposal shall contain the following elements: 1. Firm Qualifications and Resources. A brief summary of the Consulting Firm's qualifications pertaining to the expertise and practice in the type of work being planned. How long in business and size of firm. Consultant may submit the firms "Statement of Qualifications" with the proposal to satisfy this requirement. Consultant is advised that it will be necessary to dedicate considerable Staff resources to complete the project within the required time frame. 1 Name, Background, Experience of Project Manager proposed for Assignment to the Project. 3. Demonstrate Understanding of Scope-of-Work. Consultants shall demonstrate that they have full understanding of the scope-of-work and the effort needed to complete the project on time and within budget. 4. Proposed Compensation. Compensation for performing the work of the contract shall be on a time and expense basis not to exceed a guaranteed maximum amount. Consultants shall include in their proposals a guaranteed maximum amount for compensation, and a listing of their standard hourly rates for each profession, position, function or trade involved in the work, and the standard fees for typical expenses. 5. proposed Sub-Consultants and Contractors. Consultants shall list in their proposals proposed sub-consultants and/or contractors which will assist consultant in the performance of the work. Provide brief description of work to be performed by each sub-consultant and/or contractor. 6. Consultant References Consultant shall provide a list of references with contact person and current telephone number, 7. Other Information. At the consultant's discretion, other information may be included in the proposal that consultant deems appropriate to highlight the firm's experience and its ability to perform the work of the contract within the short time period allowed. REQUEST FOR COST PROPOSAL "RECONSTRUCTION OF ORCHARD AVENUE" PAGE 6 OF 7 ,Consultant Selection Criteria The following criteria will be used to rank the proposals and they shall have equal weight. · Adequate resources to perform the work within the very short time period required, and the consultant's commitment to allocate the resources to the project. :2. Past experience in performing work on time and within budget. 1 Cooperation and coordination with client. Does the consultant have a track record of providing the owner/client what they desire and can afford. Is consultant accommodating to the needs of the client. 4, Proposed Compensation. Are rates and fees reasonable? Is proposed guaranteed maximum compensation in line with available financial resources. The rating will be performed by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer and discussed with the City Manager. Telephone interviews with consultant's references will be conducted on June 22 and June 23. If rankings are very close, interviews with the consultants having the highest rankings may be conducted on June 24. On June 25, a recommendation for contract award will be prepared for presentation to the City Council on July 1, 1998. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Pursuant to City policy, it will be necessary that the successful Consultant obtain the following insurance coverages and limits for this project' · General Liability: $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance of other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. , Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage. w Worker's Compensation and Employers Liability' Worker's compensation limits as required by the Labor Code of the State of California and Employers Liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident. REQUEST FOR COST PROPOSAL "RECONSTRUCTION OF ORCHARD AVENUE" PAGE 6 OF 7 . Professional Liability' Not less than ,~500,000 and shall remain in force for two (2) years after completion of consultant's work product and acceptance by City. Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City officers, agents, and employees from and against all claims, demands, liability, costs and expenses, including court costs and counsel fees, arising out of the injury to or death of any person or loss of or physical damage to any property resulting from any negligent or wrongful act or omission committed by consultant or its officers, agents, or employees while performing the services under the contract. Any questions concerning the City's insurance requirements should be directed to Michael F. Harris, Risk Manager at (707) 463-6287. CONSULTANT AGREEMENT The successful consultant will be required to enter into a written contract with the City prior to performing the proposed work. The contract will be prepared by the City and the contract must be executed by the consultant on or prior to July 6, 1998, in order to facilitate a start date of July 6, 1998. A sample Professional Consulting Services Agreement will be provided to the consultant upon request. Please direct any questions concerning this Request for Proposal to the Director of Public Works/City Engineer by faxing your inquires to (707) 463-6204. In recognition of the efforts and resources required to prepare an adequate proposal, and the short duration in which the proposal is to be prepared, the consultants are encouraged to keep the proposal "basic" and to the point; high quality graphics, etc., and voluminous proposals are not necessary or desired. Sincerely, Rick H. Kennedy Director of Public Works/City Engineer RHK.*kk A:$PEC3 ORCHARD REQUEST FOR COST PROPOSAL "RECONSTRUCTION OF ORCHARD AVENUE" PAGE 7 OF 7 ITEM NO, DATE: July 1,1998 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: SETTING DATE FOR THE CITY OF UKIAH EMPLOYEES' BI-ANNUAL PICNIC It is time, once again, to begin planning for the bi-annual employees picnic. Staff felt it would be a wonderful idea to have it in conjunction with one of the Sunday Concerts in the Park. Staffs' first suggestion for a date is August 16, 1998, when the Zasu Pitts Memodal Orchestra will be playing. If Council is not available on that date, an alternate date would be August 2, 1998, when Carreg Lafar, a Welsh/Irish band will be playing. The barbecue pit is available for both of these dates. This event has meant a lot to our employees in the past and provides the City Council an opportunity to visit one-on-one with everyone. We provide volleyball, and the swimming pool will be available for anyone who wants to cool off. We think that topping off a full afternoon of activities with this fun, early evening concert will make for a great day for everyone. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council determine Employees' Picnic will take place on August 16, 1998. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1 Council determine Employees' Picnic will take place on August 2, 1998. 2. Council select date that does not coincide with a summer concert date. Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: N/A Prepared by: Karen Yoast, Executive Assistant Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager Tammi Weselsky, Community Services Supervisor Attachments: None. APPROVED:"--~ ~~.~. Candace Rorsley, City~N~anager 4/Can. ASR.Picni.wpd ITEM NO. 6j DATE: July 1, 1998 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: NOTIFICATION TO COUNCIL REGARDING THE AWARD OF BID FOR THE PURCHASE OF SENSORLINK METERING EQUIPMENT TO YOUNG AND COMPANY C/O CHARLES GRANNIS IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,605.28. In compliance with Section 1522 of the City of Ukiah Municipal Code, this report is being submitted to the City Council for the purpose of reporting the acquisition of material costing more than $5,0000 but less than $10,000. A quotation was requested for the purchase of SensorLink metering equipment to Young and Company who is the exclusive representative for Sensorlink as per letter attached. The metering equipment has been budgeted in the 1997/98 Fiscal Year in Account Number 800-3646-800-000. SensorLink is the sole manufacturer of specialty instrumentation designed for the power utility industry. It was evaluated by Staff and will meet the needs of the Electrical Department for primary and secondary voltage and current monitoring. A purchase order was issued to Young and Company c/o Charles Grannis in the amount of $9,605.28 including tax and freight. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file report regarding the award of bid to Young and Company c/o Charles Grannis in the amount of $9,605.28. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Stan Bartolomei, Electric Supervisor Prepared by: Judy Jenney, Purchasing & Warehouse Assistant Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: Letter from vendor. Candace Horsl y~ City Manager SensorLink Corporation 9 . ooo I I I . ~ Ill Il .... I . · , I 'Electronics- Instrumentation an-d Manufacturing PO Box $01-1975 Valley Hwy '9' Acme, WA 98220 USA Fcic.: (,360) 595-1001 E-MatI: tn/o@sensorltnk, com Juae 15, 1998 Mr. Stan Bartolomei City of Uki~ 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Fax # (707) 467-281t~ Dear Stan, SensorLink is the sole manufacturer of specialty inst~.,mentation that is designed for the power utility industry. All quotations and order processing should be directed to our exclusive rvpre$¢ntafive for California, Young and Company. The following is their contact information: Young and Company c/o Charles C.~rmmis 111 Doorwood Road, ,8200 San Ramon, CA 94583 Phone (510) 855-3285 Fax # (510) 855-3286 If you or your purchasing department have any questions regarding this matter please contact me at (360) 595-1000. Sincerely, Ken Borbe Marketing Manager CC: Charles G~_.nnls AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. DATE: REPORT Sa July 1, 1998 SUBJECT: ANNUAL NOMINATION AND APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSION AND BOARD MEMBERS i. Planning Commission (3 Vacancies) ii. Airport Commission (4 Vacancies) iii. Parks and Recreation Commission (3 Vacancies) iv. Golf Course Committee (2 Vacancies) v. Investment Oversight Committee (1 Vacancy) Currently there exists three vacancies on the City Planning Commission, four vacancies on the Airport Commission, three vacancies on the Parks and Recreation Commission, two vacancies on the Golf Course Committee, and one vacancy on the Investment Oversight Committee. Notice of these vacancies was published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on May 27, 1998, see attached Public Notice. A press release regarding the vacancies was sent to all area news media, the Mendocino County Library, and posted at the Civic Center. (Continued to page 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution Confirming Appointments to the Planning Commission, Airport Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Golf Course Committee, and the Investment Oversight Committee. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Make some or none of the appointments and readvertise for applicants. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A N/A Marie Ulvila, City Clerk Larry DeKnoblough, Director of Community Services, Karen Yoast, Executive Assistant, and Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Resolution Confirming Appointments to the Planning Commission, Airport Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Golf Course Committee, and the Investment Oversight Committee 2. Public Notice 3. Press Release 4. Applications from applicants Canda Manager Planning Commission: Eric Larson, Jennifer Puser, and Mike Correll have submitted letters of interest in being reappointed to the Planning Commission. Additionally, an application was received from Mr. James Mulheren requesting appointment to the Planning Commission. Three appointments are in order. Airport Commission: Ken Fowler has submitted a letter of interest in being reappointed to the Airport Commission. Applications were also received from Michael Whetzel and James Katzel. Four vacancies are currently available. Parks and Recreation Commission: Fredrick Koeppel and Jon Henderson submitted applications for appointment to the Parks and Recreation Commission. This Commission currently has three vacancies. Golf Course Committee: Letters of solicitation for the Golf Course Committee were sent to the Ukiah Men's and Ukiah Women's Golf Clubs and to the Chairman of the Parks and Recreation Commission. Letters were received from Faye Hefte, Women's Golf Club representative, and Elsie Nielson, Public Member, requesting reappointment to the Golf Course Committee. Investment Oversight Committee: Monte Hill has submitted an application requesting reappointment to the Investment Oversight Committee as its Public Member. Per Resolution No. 95-48, Councilmember Mastin is entitled to make the first nomination to the Planning Commission and the Airport Commission; Councilmember Ashiku is entitled to make the first nomination to the Golf Course Committee; and Mayor Malone is entitled to make the first nomination to the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Investment Oversight Committee. c:asr, mu/7/1 , 10 11 12 13 14 3.5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 99- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH MAKING APPOINTMENTS TO THE PLANNING, AIRPORT, AND PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSIONS, AND THE GOLF COURSE AND INVESTMENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEES WHEREAS, the annual expiration of terms for City Boards and Commissions occured on June 30, 1998, and, WHEREAS, the vacancies were duly advertised until the close of applications on June 24, 1998, with submitted applications timely received and submitted to Council for consideration, and, WHEREAS, the City Council previously requested Planning Commission applicants who were intereviewed on July 1, 1998, to be reforwarded for consideration at this time, and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Ukiah City Council approved the nominations submitted per procedures outlined in Resolution No. 95-48, and do hereby appoint the following persons to terms on the following Commissions and Boards: PLANNING COMMISSION AIRPORT COMMISSION to fill a term to June 30, 2001; to fill a term to June 30, 2001; to fill a term to June 30, 2001. to fill a term to June 30, 2001; to fill a term to June 30, 2001; to fill a term to June 30, 2001; to fill a term to June 30, 2001. l0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2.2 23 25 26 2.7 28 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION to fill a term to June 30, 2001; to fill a term to June 30, 2001; to fill a term to June 30, 2001. GOLF COURSE COMMITTEE to fill a term to June 30, 2000; to fill a term to June 30, 2000. INVESTMENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE to fill a term to June 30, 2000. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of July, 1998, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Sheridan Malone, Mayor Marie Ulvila, City Clerk OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE YOUR COMMUNITY The City of Ukiah announces upcoming Commission and Board vacancies. Drop by the Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, to pick up an application or contact City Clerk Colleen Henderson, 463-6217, to have an application mailed to you. COMMISSION VA CANCIES TERM J~ RESIDENCy OR BOARD (eliaibilitv 9~ REQUIREMENT current members) AIRPORT 4 3 years June 24, 1998 3 City Limits (3 eligible to be I Sphere of reappointed) Influence PARKS AND 3 3 years June 24, 1998 2 City limits RECREATION (none eligible for 1 Sphere of reappointment) Influence PLANNING 3 3 years June 24, 1998 City limits (all eligible for reappointment) GOLF COURSE 1 public 2 years June 24, 1998 City Limits I Women's Golf . Club (both eligible for reappointment) INVESTMENT I public member 2 years June 24, 1998 City Umits OVERSIGHT (eligible for reappointrnent) .- 300 S~Mli'~RY,AVE., UKIAH, CA 95482-5400 · ADMIN. 707/4634200 · PUBLIC SAFETY 463-6242/6274 · FAX # 707/463-6204 · NEWS RELEASE OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE YOUR COMMUNITY DATE: May 27, 1998 FOR RELEASE: Immediately GOOD THROUGH: June 24, 1998 SUBJECT: Vacancies on City of Ukiah Boards and Commissions CONTACT: City Clerk Colleen Henderson, 463-6217 UKIAH, CA -- The City of Ukiah announces vacancies on the City's Boards and Commissions with the expiration of current terms on June 30, 1998. The deadline for submitting an application for appointment is June 24, 1998, with appointments being made by the City Council on July 1, 1998. The Airport Commission has four vacancies with three of the four members currently serving being eligible for reappointment. Airport Commission terms are for three years. Applicants must reside within the Ukiah City Limits or the City's sphere of influence. One of these four vacancies may be filled by someone residing within the City's sphere of influence. The Planning Commission has three vacancies occurring on June 30, 1998. All members currently occupying the expiring terms are eligible for reappointment. Planning Commission terms are for three years and members must reside within the City limits. Applicants for Planning Commission will be interviewed by the City Council. The Parks and Recreation Commission has three vacant positions. Appointees must reside within the Ukiah City Limits, except for one who may reside within the City's sphere of influence. Park and Recreation Commission members are appointed to three year terms. The three individuals currently filling these positions are not eligible for reappointment. The Golf Course Committee has two vacancies. Both' the Public Member and the Women's Golf Club representative are eligible for reappointment. Applicants must reside within the City Limits. The term of service is two years. The Investment Oversight Committee has an opening for a public member. The current public member is eligible for reappointment. The term of service is two years. Applicants must reside within the City Limits. Any qualified individual who would like to serve the community in this volunteer capacity is encouraged to apply for one or more of these positions. Applications are located in the Administration Wing of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, or call City Clerk Colleen Henderson, 463-6217, to have an application mailed to you. Candace Horsley, City M~nager c: Media News Fax Group #32 "~e Are Here To Serve" 1998 CITY OF UKIAH Wednesday, June 24, 1998 To whom it may concern, I Mike Correll, respectively request to be considered for reappointment to the Planning Commission. Mike Correll JUN 2 Ci |'Y CLE~tK [,~EP/~,~ IMEN1 CITY OF UKIAH APPLICATION FOR PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENT I am applying for an appointment to the City of Ukiah's Planning Commission. RECEIVED JUN 2 4 1998 1. Name %---'~-©~'\ 2. Residence Address 3. Business Address Res. Phone Bus. Phone qb?-qy ,o 4. Employer :Y~-~'Z' ~.q ¢,~0% Job Title O~3{~g~/" Employed Since c[ ~ ( - 5. How long have you resided in Ukiah? years; Mendocino County? California? ~ 6. Please list community groups or organizations you are a~liated with and indicate any offices held. Please answer the following questions on separate sheets of paper and attach to application.- .<-~ 7. Why are you applying to serve on the City of Ukiah's Planning Commission? 8. What is your understanding of the purpose, role and responsibility of the Planning Commission? 9. What is, or should be the relationship between the City's Planning Commission and the City Council, and between the Commission and Staff? 10. How do you believe your own skills, experience, expertise and perspective will be beneficial to the work of the Planning Commission? 11. What do you believe is the most important land use related issue presently facing our community? 12. As a member of the Planning Commission, how would you attempt to address this priority issue? 13. In your opinion what type(s) of growth, if any, should the City encourage? 14. In your opinion, what type(s) of growth should the City discourage? 15. Are there any changes to the City's current planning review process that you would like to see implemented? 16. What kind of ideal community do you envision for Ukiah? 17. Are there any other City of Ukiah Committees/Commissions in which you are interested and on which you would be willing to serve? Your name will be kept in an applicants' pool for one year from the date of your application, and we will notify you of vacancies as they occur. For more information or if you have questions, please contact the City Clerk's office at 463-6217. Thank you for your interest in serving the City of Ukiah. commpc.wpd Jennifer Puser Planning Commission Application June 23, 1998 7. I am re-applying for the Planning Commission to continue to serve the community and continue my role in making planning decisions. I especially look forward to the opportunity of being a part of implementing the many excellent General Plan policies and goals into the City's Land Development Code. 8. My understanding of the purpose of the Planning Commission is to serve as non- partisan citizens so as to remove local planning decisions from politics. The role of the Planning Commission is to review and make decisions on project use permits and site development permits as well as recommend to the City Council the approval or denial of zoning ordinances, land development code updates, etc. The responsibility of the Planning Commission is to dedicate time to reviewing materials thoroughly, making informed and legally sound decisions regarding local planning policy. In addition, planning commissioners must take into consideration the long and short-term effects that their planning decisions have on their community. These effects include air quality, transportation, usurpation of farm land, the sense of place in the community and the community's overall growth and development patterns. 9. The relationship between the City's Planning Commission and the City Council should be a joint responsibility to make the best planning decisions for the community. Because the Planning Commission makes recommendations to the City Council frequently, the City Council should take their recommendations under thoughtful consideration. 10. I believe my own skills, experience, expertise and perspective will be beneficial to the work ofthe Planning Commission in many ways. I hold a Masters degree in political science with an emphasis in urban and regional planning and I have worked for several years with local governments on land use, air quality and transportation issues. My education and job experience has enabled me to learn first hand from many of the top planners and architects in the country including: Peter Calthorpe, Andres Duany, Michael Freedman and others. These experts have empowered communities to take charge of the way they want to grow and do so in responsible, environmentally sound and economically feasible ways. Because I was born in Ukiah and my family has resided here for years, I have a vested interest in the way Uldah grows and want to help shape that growth in a positive way for all Ukiahians. I want to continue to use my experience to help shape planning policy in the community for the better. 11. I believe the most important land use related issue presently facing our community is implementing the vision, contained in the General Plan, through its goals and policies, and continue to include citizens in creating and updating this plan. The City needs to strongly encourage the types of growth and development that are beneficial to the community and consistent with the General Plan. In addition, it needs to educate the public about the connections between land uses and the effect on other areas of the community such as air quality, transportation and the overall quality of life in the community. 12. As a continuing member of the Planning Commission I would attempt to address thi~ priority issue by continuing to be a voice that calls for the details in the General Plan to be implemented in the Land Development Code. I would also continue to point out examples from other communities and professionals that the Commission can learn from. 13. In my opinion, the types of growth the City should encourage are pedestrian and transit-oriented development that is compact, mixed-use, and environmentally and economically sound. I would like to see growth and development that is built around the community; people and families, not the automobile and big box retailers. I would also like to see an emphasis on in-fill and redevelopment rather than new structures on the periphery of town on valuable farm land and strain our transportation infrastructure. For housing developments, I would like to see a more nco-traditional approach that would create neighborhoods where people can walk or ride a bicycle to a neighborhood store, where children can get around without relying on their parents to drive them, and where elderly and handicapped people are not prisoners in their homes if they are unable to drive. I would like to see continued changes in the Land Development Code. Over the last year, several excellent changes have been made that affect garage setbacks, landscaping requirements, bicycle parking, pedestrian paths and more. I would like to see this trend continued. I would also like to see development patterns that encourage alternative transportation, and give people a choice between driving and other modes of transport. 14. In my opinion, the types of growth the City should discourage are big box retail development that will not locate in existing structures within the city's core, development that does not have adequate transportation infrastructure, and the kinds of development and architectural themes that do not fit with existing buildings. It should also discourage the types of sprawl development that is prevalent in so many communities across our state and country. Ukiah is small and has not had the growth pressures that many communities have had yet the pressures are there. I would like to see us recognize the two paths that lie ahead: suburban sprawl, air pollution and a disjointed community or a thriving downtown business core, healthy neighborhoods, clean air, and people who are not prisoners to their cars in a unique community where people can live and raise their children in a positive environment. 15. I would like to see discussion of some type of architectural review board implemented as a part of the planning review process. It would be beneficial to the community to have a board that is expert in this area to guide project architecture. 16. The kind of ideal community I envision for Ukiah is one that takes advantage of the many gifts that we have such as ideal weather and flat streets that should encourage walking and biking to its full potential. A compact community that focuses its resources on the downtown core, traditional neighborhoods that are built around the family not the automobile. And, a community that integrates planning decisions with those that take into consideration air quality and transportation issues including alternative transportation, a community planning process that involves the local citizenry to determine the kind of community the people want and then implement real and lasting changes. I want Ukiah to be an example of a livable community that is recognize3 not only by its citizenry, but planning professionals and journals as well. I want people to come to Uldah from all over the country and say this is what we should be doing. 17. There are no ot _ha~ C..~ees/Commissions that I am interested in serving on. CITY OF UKIAH APPLICATION FOR PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENT ECEIVED CITY [~F [IKIAH Date JUN i L? 1990 I am applying for an appointment to the City of Ukiah's Planning Commission. Ci'I'Y CLEt~K L)~.PAFiMENT 1. Name James D Mulhere21 2. Residence Address 3. Business Address 902 Waugh Lane Res. Phone 4~-6qn~ Bus. Phone 462-8743 4. Employer Self/U~iah Custom Cabinets Job TitleOwner/Par~er Employed Since 01-01-98 5. How long have you resided in Ukiah? 24 years; Mendocino County? 24 California? 26 6. Please list community groups or organizations you are affiliated with and indicate any offices held. Greater Ukiah Chamber of Commerce and past Board of Directors North Coast Builders Exchanqe Please answer the following questions on separate sheets of paper and attach to application. 7. Why are you applying to serve on the City of Ukiah's Planning Commission? 8. What is your understanding of the purpose, role and responsibility of the Planning Commission? 9. What is, or should be the relationship between the City's Planning Commission and the City Council, and between the Commission and Staff? 10. How do you believe your own skills, experience, expertise and perspective will be beneficial to the work of the Planning Commission? 11. What do you believe is the most important land use related issue presently facing our community? 12. As a member of the Planning Commission, how would you attempt to address this priority issue? 13. In your opinion what type(s) of growth, if any, should the City encourage? 14. In your opinion, what type(s) of growth should the City discourage? 15. Are there any changes to the City's current planning review process that you would like to see implemented? 16. What kind of ideal community do you envision for Ukiah? 17. Are there any other City of Ukiah Committees/Commissions in which you are interested and on which you would be willing to serve? Your name will be kept in an applicants' pool for one year from the date of your application, and we will notify you of vacancies as they occur. For more information or if you have questions, please contact the City Clerk's office at 463-6217. Thank you for your interest in serving the City of Ukiah. commpc.wpd . Having lived in Ukiah for over 24 years now, I feel it's important for me to give back to the community a small portion of what I have received. The Planning Commission seems appropriate since I have been involved in various stages of the construction industry for the last quarter of a century. 8. To assist in fairly and appropriately determining building and land use issues. . 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. The relationship as I understand it is to gather facts through staff and using all the information at hand determining what to recommend to the council for voting. My past experience includes managing a local business for the past 20 years, at one point having 58 employees, with a multi-million dollar sales revenue. Currently having formed a new partnership and new business within the city of Ukiah, we have 4 employees and would very much like to see it grow to its full potential. I am a past member of the Board of Directors for the Greater Ukiah Chamber of Commerce, during which time I sat on various committees, including the Economic & Development Committee. A couple of years back I was the Mendocino County representative to the North Coast Builders Exchange where I sat on their Board of Directors. What the Commission would get from me that would be beneficial is a diligent, hard working member of the community that wants to see Ukiah be the envy of all other small towns. Preservation of agricultural land. I would attempt to address this issue by not recommending any inappropriate use of agriculture land thereby preserving this valuable resource for future generations. I believe the city should encourage growth in affordable housing so our children and employees can take ownership and feel more a part of the community. The city should discourage inappropriate land use. To be perfectly honest, I am not familiar enough with the planning review process to make any recommendations for change at this time. The ideal community that I see for Ukiah is a place where our children can grow, work, live andbe proud to call their home. I see a place where people can live out their lives enjoying all the natural beauty Ukiah has to offer. Yes, I would be glad to serve on other committees provided they made use of my experience and desire to do something beneficial for the community. Sincerely, James D Mulheren PONTIAC · CADILLAC ,BMC ~ · BUICK · ~LIBARU 2150 North State Street · Ukiah, CA 95482 (707) 468-0101 ECE VED c~v ~' ~KIAH JUN o :. 1998 CiTY CLERK DEPARI-MEN'i' June 2, 1998 Colleen Henderson, City Clerk City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah, CA 95482 Dear Mrs. Henderson, This letter is in reply to your letter of June 1 st regarding the expiration of my current three year term on the Ukiah Airport Commission. I would very much like to continue to serve as a member of the commission for an additional term. The commission is on the verge of considering a number of important improvements to the Ukiah Regional Airport and I would appreciate being part of the effort to bring those about. Please consider this letter my request to serve an additional three year term as commissioner. Should any additional information be necessary please let me know. Date CITY OF UKIAH APPLICATION FOR AIRPORT COMMISSION APPOINTMENT I am applying for an appointment to the City of Ukiah's Airport Commission. JUN 9 1998 1. Name /~/ 2. Residence Address 3. Business Address 4. Employer ~ 5. How long ha,~ you resided in Ukiah'~ California? ~3 "/' ' Res. Phone//7~"/)/--/~- ~$/~ Bus. Phone (_-/o'7.) Job Title .~; ~~-'-~7'Z-- Employed since '~ years; Mendocino County? 6. Pie~/s~;ist community groups or organizations you are affiliated with. Indicate office held. Please answer the following questions on separate sheets of paper and attach. 7. Why are you applying to serve on the City of Ukiah's Airport Commission? 8. What is your understanding of the purpose, role and responsibility of the Airport Commission? . 10. How do you believe your own skills, experience, expertise and perspectives will be beneficial to the work of the Airport Commission? What do you believe is the single most important Airport related issue facing our community? and why? 11. In your opinion, what type of Airport programs or Airport development should the City encourage? 12. In your opinion, what type of Airport programming or Airport development should the City discour~'ge? 13. 14. What kind of ideal community do you envision for Ukiah? Are there any other City of Ukiah Committees/Commissions in which you are interested and on which you would be willing to serve? Your name will be kept in an applicants' pool for one year from the date of your application, and we will notify you of vacancies as they occur. For more information or if you have questions, please contact the City Clerk's office at 463-6217. Thank you for your interest in serving the City of Ukiah. commapc.wpd Answers to Questions 7-14 for City of Ukiah Application for Airport Commission 7. I am applying for a position on the Airport Commission to take an active role in the decisions that effect the Airport and its surroundings. 8. I understand that the Airport Commission is an advisory only commision, that recommends or can voice its objections to the Ukiah City Council. 9. I have been around aviation and airports for the last ten years. I hold an Pilots License, Aircraft Mechanics License, and a Aircraft Inspectors Authorization from the Federal Aviation Administration. I have been involved in many Airport related function, such as Fly-in's and Air Racing. 10. I believe the single most important Airport related issue has got to be the encroachment of development around the Airport. The development of the area around the airport brings with it the chance of more and more restriction on the Airport for noise and enviromental concerns, this has lead to the closure of many small city Airports. 11. I think that the City of Ukiah should encourage Airport Appreciation days, to let the city resident come out and see what the Airport does for them and the surrounding areas. The city should encourage all Aviation related business and the benefit of the extra dollars to the community that it would bring. 12. I feel that any Airport related program or development must be looked at from both sides, but they should not be discourage from or by the City. 13. I envision a Ukiah that my children will not be embarrassed to call home, where they will be able to raise their children. 14. I would be interested to serve on the City Planning Commission or the city Golf Course Commission. CITY OF UKIAH APPLICATION FOR AIRPORT COMMISSION APPOINTMENT RECEIVED ! am applying for an appointment to the City of Ukiah's Airport Commission· JUN '~! 1998 1. Name ""--,-.,/~'¢ ~.-.~- 2. Residence Address. Ci'IY CLILRK DbP~ I MEN'f Res. Phone ~//'¢ ,3- /¢ ~' ~ 3. Business Address 4. Employer ~¢ 5. How long have you resided in Ukiah? California?.. ~ Bus. Phone Job T~tle ¢.z.~,¢-.¢.¢~-~ Employed since / / ~ years; Mendocino County? ~ 6. Please list community group_s or organizations you are affiliated with. Indicate office held. Please answer the following questions,-,*--~ r-,.~ =~_.~, ...... .,,~'" "~'""*- "' ....... '~ .,,,o,.h.""- - . Why are you applying to serve on the City of Ukiah's Airport Commission? What is your understanding of the purpose, role and responsibility of the Airport Commission? /~¢, ,,,¢',,¢ ,,,~-/,,~,-~z,_~,- ,¢~ . 10. 1!. 12. 13. 14. How do you believe your own skills, experience, expertise and perspectives will be beneficial to the work of the. Airport Commission? ;¢- C- What do you believe is the single most impodant Airpod related issue facing our community? and why? ~,¥?,~¢ ¢~ .i~ ~~ ~ ~~,.~ ~¢.~. In your opinion, what type of Airpod 9rograms or Airpod development should the City encourage? ~ 3~ ~ , .~~ ~~ ~/~,~ .~ In your opinion, what type of Airpod programming or Airpod development should the City discourage? ~¢ ~~ What kind of ideal community do you envision for Ukiah? ~,¢ ~~ Are there any other City of Ukiah Committees/Commissions in which you are interested and on which you would be willing tc se~e? ~.¢ ~~ ~, Your name will be kept in an applicants' pool for one year from the date of your application, and we will notify you of vacancies as they occur. For more information or if you have questions, please contact the City Clerk's office at 463-6217. Thank you for your interest in serving the City of Ukiah. commapc.wpd Date CITY OF UKIAH APPLICATION FOR PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION APPOINTMENT ~/~~/~ I am applying for an appointment to the City of Ukia~U~ ~a~ and Recreation Commission. 2. Residence Address /~-/ ¢~/~/~~ ~-~~/~.~.¢ Res. Phone 3. Business Address /~/ ~/~z~/ ~/~~' ~/' ~/~,2~.~. Bus. 4. Employer /2?~f~/~b/~ _/'//~-/~/-~2¢~ Job title//~.~Employed since~.p/z,~ /~f~ 5. How long have you resided in Ukiah? .~ years; Mendocino County? California? 6. Please list community groups or organizations you are affiliated with. Indicate offices held ~'' ~/.~ ..,",~"' d"~' ,~.."~~ ~'/P ~// ~'~~ ~'t~.-~.-"¢'-'2'~-.~~. Please answer the following questions on separate sheets of paper and attach to application. · Why are you applying to serve on the City of Ukiah's Parks and Recreation Commission? · What is your understanding of the purpose, role and responsibility of the Parks and Recreation Commission? · How do you believe your own skills, experience, expertise and perspectives will be beneficial to the work of the Parks and Recreation Commission? 10. What do you believe is the single most important parks and recreation related issue facing our community? and why? 11. In your opinion, what types of recreational programs or parks development should the City encourage? 12. In your opinion, what type of recreational programming or parks development should the City discourage? 13. What kind of ideal community do you envision for Ukiah? 14. Are there any other City of Ukiah Committees/Commissions in which you are interested and on which you would be willing to serve? Your name will be kept in an applicants, pool for one year from the date of your application, and we will notify you of vacancies as they occur. For more information or if you have questions, please contact the City Clerk's office at 463-6217. Thank you for your interest in serving the City.of Ukiah. commprc.wpd CITY OF UKIAH APPLICATION FOR PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION APPOINTMENT 7) I have several reasons for applying to serve on the City of Ukiah's Parks and Recreation Commission, they are as follows~ I am and have been an avid user of the City's parks for the past nine years. For the past three years I have visited three of our City's parks a minimum of one time per week. I visit Oak Manor Park nightly while exorcizing and training my Australian Shepherd. Every Sunday morning and Wednesday evening I play one to two rounds of "disc golf" with a few friends at beautiful Low Gap Park. And finally, every Saturday morning I am a participant in an organized sport called "Ultimate Frisbee" I feel that being such an avid user of our City's parks that I would have firsthand knowledge of any improvements, maintainence, or modifications that may need to be done to keep our parks in their best possible condition, thus increasing use by our neighbors. I feel the best possible way to improve relationships between our residents would be to make sure all of our parks have a clean, friendly, and welcoming atmosphere during all operating hours. I believe people of all ages would come enjoy an area that belongs to the people if we had an atmosphere such as we do at the Sunday evening concerts in Todd Grove Park. My final reason for applying to serve on our City's Parks and Recreation Commission, several people, friends as well as strangers, have begun to tell me of their thoughts and feelings about our City's parks. I feel that this information, that I receive on a near daily basis, is exactly what is needed for a committee member to effectively manage our City's parks and recreation areas. 8) My understanding purpose and responsibility of the Parks and Recreation Commission is this, the commission members are appointed to serve the residents ef Ukiah by doing all that is in their power to ensure that our beautiful parks will always be as beautiful as they are now, for residents of all ages to enjoy today, tomorrow, and for many, many years to follow. 9) I believe that my ability to talk to many of our City's residents will be one of the most beneficial items that I can bring to the Commission. I care and value others opinions and feeling about our City. Most people know me as a hard worker, a man that stands by his word, and a caring person that will do everything in my power to help better the lives of the people that I am surrounded by. Prior to moving to Ukiah, I was a resident of Santa Rosa, Ca. Santa Rosa is a high paced, fast growing city. While growing as quickly as it has been for the past several years some things can be overlooked, like the quality of the parks and recreation areas. I believe the City of Santa Rosa has some of the most beautiful and useful parks I've seen, but it also has a few of the most rundown, abused, and neglected parks that I have seen. I would do everything possible to ensure this does not happen in Ukiah. 10) I believe that the single most important issue regarding Parks and Recreation is use. All residents should frequently use our parks for outdoor activities. I feel that in order to achieve a friendly, happy atmosphere throughout our community, we must have a place for all to go for any, or no reason at all. We must also keep all of our City's park in their most pristine condition in order keep all residents assured that the City's managers have not forgotten about them. It is up to the City's managers to reassure all residents that their tax dollars are being well spent on the maintenance and immurements to the City, after all, a city's parks are a reflection of what the city's managers think of their residents. 11) It is my opinion that the City should continue to encourage any and all events that bring together a large number of our city's residents, such as "Sunday's In The Park'', I think that it has been a great success in the past and will continue to be a great success in the future. 12) At this time, I do not feel that the City should discourage any type of recreational programs or development. Any type of program or development that would encourage use by our City's residents is a good idea. 13) The ideal community for Ukiah .... Ukiah should be the type of town where people walking down any street should be greeted with a "How do you do?" or other friendly gesture. Ukiah should also be a City known for its friendly residents and how much they care about their fine city. This will all take a great deal of time and work, but it can be done, and the place to start is in our parks. 14) I would be willing to serve on any Committee for the City of Ukiah that I may be able to help better our community. CITY OF UKIAH APPLICATION FOR PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Date June12~ 1998 I am applying for an appointment to the City of Ukiah,s Parks an4 Recreation Commission. 1. Name Jon Henderson 2. Residence Address 270 Wabash Ave. Res. Phone 462-1244 3. Business Address 751 E. Gobbi St. Bus. Phone 463-5591 4. Employer Maverick Enterprises Job titleAcct.Mgr Employed since1997 5. How long have you resided in Ukiah? 35 years; Mendocino County? 35 California? 47 6. Please list community groups or organizations you are affiliated with. Indicate offices held Past member of St. Mary's Mardi Gras Board Past member of Leadership MenOoclno Please answer the following questions on separate sheets of paper and attach to application. · Why are you applying to serve on the City of Ukiah's Parks and Recreation Commission? · What is your understanding of the purpose, role and responsibility of the Parks and Recreation Commission? · }{ow do you believe your own skills, experience, expertise and perspectives will be beneficial to the work of the Parks and Recreation Commission? 10. What do you believe is the single most important parks and recreation related issue facing our community? and why? 11. In your opinion, what types of recreational programs or parks development should the City encourage? 12. In your opinion, what type of recreational programming or parks development should the City discourage? 13. What kind of ideal community do you envision for Ukiah? 14. Are there any other City of Ukiah Committees/Commissions in which you are interested and on which you would be willing to serve? Your name will be kept in an applicants, pool for one year from the date of your application, and we will notify you of vacancies as they occur. For more information or if you have questions, please contact the City Clerk,s office at 463-6217. Thank you for your interest in serving the City.of Ukiah. commprc.wpd Application for Parks & Recreation Commission Appointment Applicant: Jon Henderson Page 2 7. I was bom and raised in this community and have fond memories of my early years here. I participated in various sports during my youth and interacted with many adults who donated their time, energy and money. I too, became a coach upon my return to Ukiah, and now that my two sons are older I feel it is time to devote my attention to other areas. 8. My understanding is that the P & R Commission's main goal is to maintain the accessibility of those recreational facilities for the common good of its users. 9. I believe that my upbringing in Mendocino County coupled with my appreciation for the outdoors offers me a unique awareness and perception of the value of the various recreational facilities available in this community. I also feel that I can interact and communicate well with other people in order to accomplish tasks at hand. 10. Without any in-depth knowledge I would imagine the biggest obstacle facing the P & R Commission would be to keep all parks and recreational facilities open, clean and safe with a continually shrinking budget. 11. I would speculate that the types of recreational programs or parks development the city should encourage would be those that attract the largest sector of the population and at the same time fits into the allotted budget. I would also encourage the Commission to investigate the various options available to us to provide a indoor/outdoor facility where the youth of the community could meet and expend energy in some endeavor; skateboard, bike trails, basketball, etc. 12. Conversely, those programs that are high maintenance, low appeal should be discouraged. 13. As far as P & R Commission's concerns, the ideal community offers a myriad of recreational facilities that a majority of the community enjoys and ultimately, uses. These facilities should entice people of all ages, gender and social background. 14. I would consider other committees/commissions. Not sure which ones at this point in time. RECEIVED CITY OF UK!RH JUN 1 7 1998 June 16, 1998 CITY CLERK DEPARTMENT Colleen Henderson, City Clerk City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah, Ca 95482-5400 RE: Golf Course Committee Appointment Dear Ms. Henderson: In response to your memorandum dated June 1, 1998, it is my choice to depend on my former application for Golf Course Committee Appointment instead of submitting a new one. At our June 16th general meeting, the Ukiah Women's Golf Club has again appointed me to represent them as a member of the Golf Committee. I appreciate this opportunity and have enjoyed working with member's of the Ukiah City staff Sincerely, / ~..~.~.~[~..~_ I ;f ' . Faye Hefie 641 Chablis Ct. Ukiah, CA 95482 462-4075 June 19, 1998 Colleen B. Henderson City Clerk 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah, Ca. 95482-5400 CITY OF JUN 1 9 1998 CITY CLERK OEPARTMEN] Subject: Commission application for Golf Committee Per your letter of June 1, this is to inform you that I wish to continue for another term on the Golf Committee. Please use my previous application. As a brief update: Since working w~th the Golf Committee and Mr. Deknoblough we have accomplished many objects that were of great importance to me and the Golfing community of Ukiah. i.e. reducing a projected shortfall for 1996-97 of $105,000.00 in the Golf Enterprise Fund and increasing the fees for Friday play to reflect same as the weekend fees. This enabled the fund to end the fiscal year with a$47,700.00 plus balance. i.e. Thru many suggestions and ideas I feel that the Golf committee has helped to solve many of the problems that were facing the Golf Course in the past two years. Thanking you in advance, Elsie Nielson 980 St. Francis Way Ukiah, Ca. 95482 CITY OF UKIAH APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC MEMBER INVESTMENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE JuN 2 4 199 ,.J ~.r .*~,r~ I'M ENT' I am applying for appointment as the Public Member of the Investment Oversight Committee for the City of Ukiah. RESIDENCE ADDRESS' RESIDENCE PHONE: ~G Z. - ,2_ ~ 7 BUSINESS PHONE: ¢"'/L~'2 - 7~-"/_~ EMPLOYER: POSITION/JOB TITLE: EMPLOYED SINCE: RESIDED IN THE CITY OF UKIAH SINCE: /?77 RESIDED IN MENDOCINO COUNTY SINCE: Please list any elected or appointed position you have held: Please answer the questions on the next page using extra sheets of paper as needed. When submitting this application, please attach a complete resume covering your ed~ence. ~' o~ F'( '.- ~ X) ~i ...... "'-~"'"' "Z' c~- 'x~:; i~'-atu re',..,J Date SUBMIT APPLICATION TO: City Clerk, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482 o ° . . . . . CITY Of UKIAH APPLICATION QUESTIONNAIRE PUBLIC MEMBER -INVESTMENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE Why did you apply to serve the City of Ukiah in this capacity? What experience do you have that qualifies you to carry out the duties and responsibilities as a member of the !nvestment Oversight_Committee? Do you currently conduct any business with the City as a vendor, supplier, or independent contractor? ,,¢_Jz~ Please be specific in describing your experience in the management of a ,L~t~aceted investment 13ortfolio. How extensive is your experience relating to municipal investing? Are you familiar with the State requirements associated with local government investments? Describe any previous experience you have had with municipal government finances..7_ /.,,~,,,~ What types of internal controls would you recommen? for the City's investment committee? P-~'- ~~ Why should the City Council appoint you to this position? clerk a:invest.app RESUME MONTE J. HILL NAME: MONTE J. HILL BIRTHDATE: SEPTEMBER 5, 1941 PLACE: SEBASTOPOL, CALIFORNIA EDUCATION: ELEMENTARY: SEBASTOPOL, CA HIGH SCHOOL: ANALY HIGH SCHOOL 1958 COLLEGE: B.S. PHARMACY UNIVERSITY OF PACIFIC, Stockton, CA - 1963 MILITARY: California Army National Guard (CALARNG) 1963-69 State Service Ribbon-2 clusters Honorable Discharge Rank: E-6 (Staff Sergeant) FAMILY: Married 11/14/64 Wife: Kay - Resource Specialist - Yokayo Elementary School Children: Kristine: BA Business - Marketing Sacramento State University - 1988 Craig: BA Industrial Technology - Polymer Science Chico State University - 1990 CHURCH: St. Mary's of the Angels Lector, Finance Committee, Physical Plant Study Committee, Parish Council, Building Committee, Knights of Columbus, St. Mary's School Board of Education (1973-75) CAREER: 1965-78 Managing Partner - Medico Drug Co., Ukiah, CA 1978-81 Winemaker- Parducci Wine Cellars, Ukiah, CA 1981-84 Stockbroker - Paine Webber, Ukiah/Santa Rosa, CA 1984-present Stockbroker - EVEREN Securities, Inc., Ukiah, CA (formerly Kemper Securities, formerly Bateman Eichler, Hill Richards) PROFESSIONAL: Mendocino County Pharmaceutical Assoc. - Founding Member Redwood Health Foundation - Peer Review Committee (1968-78) Dale Carnegie Graduate - Speaking and Human Relations Bateman Eichler, Hill Richards - Century Club (1986-90) Kemper Financial Services - Executive Council Kemper Securities - Chairman's Circle of Excellence California Community Colleges - Lifetime Limited Service Credential LICENSES: California State Board of Pharmacy, California General Life & Variable Annuity, Securities Exchange Commission Series 7, Chicago Board of Trade Series 3 SERVICE CLUB: Ukiah Rotary Club (1966-present) President (86-87), Paul Harris Fellow, Chairman Polio Plus Drive COMMUNITY: Heart Fund Drive - Chairman (1966) Junior Achievement - Board of Directors (1967-69) Downtown Merchants Association - President (1969) CYO - Basketball Coach (1972-75) Mendocino Community College - Citizen Advisory Committee - Athletics (1975-76) Campaign to Re-elect Don Clausen - County Chairman Mental Health Association - Board of Directors RESUME: Monte J. Hill COMMUNITY: cont. Chamber of Commerce - Board of Directors (1968-70) (1992-96), Chairman 4th of July show 1993, 94, 95, 96, Economic Development Committee - Vice Chair Grace Hudson Museum Endowment Fund - President (1992-present) Masonite Corporation - Citizens Advisory Committee (1995-96) CIVIC SERVICE: County Board of Supervisors: Private Industry Council - Vice Chair (1987-present) Overall Economic Developemnt Committee - (1991 - present) Option 9 CERT Project Review Committee (1994-present) Mendocino Council of Governments: Development Corporation Steering Committee Economic Financing & Development Corporation - Board of Directors (1995-96) City of Ukiah: Ukiah Business Development Center - Loan Committee Investment Oversight Committee (1996-present) MEMBERSHIPS: American Legion Cai Trout Cannibal Club USA Friends of Wine HOBBIES: Flyfishing, traveling, gardening, woodworking, cooking, wine tasting Date: To.' Subject: From: MEMORANDUM July 1, 1998 Ukiah City Council Airport Commission Appointments Parks and Recreation Commission Appointments Marie Ulvila, City Clerk AIRPORT COMMISSION As background, the Airport Commission consists of five (5) members which include three (3) members residing within the City Limits of Ukiah and two (2) members who reside within the Sphere of Influence. Currently the Airport Commission has three (3) vacancies for members who reside within the City Limits, and only one (1) vacancy for a member residing within the Sphere of Influence. The following applications were received in the City Clerk's office: City of Ukiah resident Sphere of Influence resident Michael Whetzel Ken Fowler (applied for reappointment) Doug Crane (late application) James Katzel Mark Ashiku (late application) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Add the applications of Doug Crane and Mark Ashiku as residents within the City Limits of Ukiah, for consideration of the Airport Commission appointments. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Make some or none of the appointments and readvertise for applicants. 2. Revise Resolution allowing for third member to reside in the Sphere of Influence rather than two and bring back for a future meeting to make appointments. PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION The Parks and Recreation Commission, has a similar situation existing. The Parks and Recreation Commission consists of seven (7) members, which include five (5) members who reside within the City Limits of Ukiah and two (2) members who reside within the Sphere of Influence. Currently the Commission has three (3) vacancies, two (2) for members who reside within the City Limits, and one (1) vacancy for a member residing within the Sphere of Influence. One of the vacancies for a member residing within the City Limits is to fill the unexpired term of Jeffrey Anderson, whose term expires June 30, 1999. The following applications were received in the City Clerk's office: City of Ukiah resident Sphere of Influence resident Fredrick Koeppel None Jon Henderson ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Make some or none of the appointments and readvertise for additional applicants. mu/m701cc CITY OF UKIAH APPLICATION FOR AIRPORT COMMISSION APPOINTMENT Date I am applying for an appointment to the City of Ukiah's Airport Commission. 1. Name ~ ~3',..)~.~ (..,A~- ~'". ~~...~ RECEIVED CITY OF UKIAH CITY CLERK DEPARTMENT 2. Residence Address J ~.cj, 5' ~"~ A~,-iP 0 c_"(-- Res. Phone ,~1:~ Z.-- 5' (,o"~ ~-' 3. Business Address ~ "'~~,~z~ '~>~,~. Bus. Phone ~G'2, "- J~ J ?.., 4. Employer C../~,-,~;. 5. How long haye you resided in Ukiah? ~'(.~ years; Mendocino County? ~::, California? 6. Please list community groups or organizations you are affiliated with. Indicate office held. U~4~ ~.~. Please answer the following questions on separate sheets of paper and attach. 7. Why are you applying to serve on the City of Ukiah's Airport Commission? 8. What is your understanding of the purpose, role and responsibility of the Airport Commission? . 10. How do you believe your own skills, experience, expertise and perspectives will be beneficial to the work of the Airport Commission? What do you believe is the single most important Airport related issue facing our community? and why? 11. In your opinion, what type of Airport programs or Airport development should the City encourage? 12. In your opinion, what type of Airport programming or Airport development should the City discourage? 13. 14. What kind of ideal community do you envision for Ukiah? Are there any other City of Ukiah Committees/Commissions in which you are interested and on which you would be willing to serve? Your name will be kept in an applicants' pool for one year from the date of your application, and we will notify you of vacancies as they occur. For more information or if you have questions, please contact the City Clerk's office at 463-6217. Thank you for your interest in serving the City of Ukiah. commapc.wpd ~OLlgl~qS F. Ci~qffl(~ 1295 Yokayo Court, Ukiah, CA 95482 707-462-5635 June 30, 1998 City Clerk City of Ukiah Response to questions seven through fourteen, Application for City of Ukiah Airport Commission appointment. 7. Why are you applying ....? At the request of Dr. Phillip Ashihu. 8. What is your understanding of the purpose, roll .... responsibility....? A commission of citizens, advisory to the City Council, to make recommendations, to operate, maintain and improve the airport, a city asset. 9. How do you believe your own skills ...... will be beneficial...? I am a native of Ukiah and a graduate of Leadership Mendocino Class 1, a pilot though not current, am professionally engaged in the maintenance and improvement of real property and have a working knowledge of public works construction and maintenance. Have served on the Mendocino County Overall Economic Development Plan Committee for several years. 10. What do you believe is the single most important Airport related issue .... why? Underutilization of the Airport as an additional source of economic diversity and stability for our community through the attraction and retention of air commerce related jobs and other assets. Jobs with the potential to support families, assets to increase the tax base. 11. In your opinion, what type of .... programs .... development...encourage? The attraction of people and resources to increase the use and development of the Airport as an economic asset to our community. 12. In your opinion, what type of .... programs .... development...discourage? Discourage any activities or developments on or off the airport that diminishes the potential for utilization and development of the Airport for air commerce related uses. 13. What kind of ideal community do you envision for Ukiah? A more diverse economic base providing more economic stability with more opportunities for owner operator business in our community to build and sustain more participatory citizenship. 14. Are there any other ....... committees/Commissions ...... willing to serve? Not at this time. Douglas F. Crane CITY OF UKIAH RECEIVED APPLICATION FOR AIRPORT COMMISSION APP~It~I(MEIIJ:IA. Date "~-/'- JUL I 1998 ,'-T CLgRK DEP.~RTMEN'[' ,, . ~,1 .¥ I am applying for an appointment to the City of Ukiah's Airport ~omm~ss~on. 1. Name 4. Employer ~.e.~,~ Job Title 5. How long have you resided in Ukiah? California? Res. Phone ~-- 2 5/- 5 Bus. Phone /-~f'- ~.~: Employed since 1¸'7 years; Mendocino County? 6. Please list community groups or organizations you are affiliated with. Indicate office held. Please answer the following questions on separate sheets of paper and attach. 7. Why are you applying to serve on the City of Ukiah's Airport Commission? 8. What is your understanding of the purpose, role and responsibility of the Airport Commission? . How do you believe your own skills, experience, expertise and perspectives will be beneficial to the work of the Airport Commission? 10. What do you believe is the single most important Airport related issue facing our community? and why? 11. In your opinion, what type of Airport programs or Airport development should the City encourage? 12. In your opinion, what type of Airport programming or Airport development should the City discourCge? 13. What kind of ideal community do you envision for Ukiah? 14. Are there any other City of Ukiah Committees/Commissions in which you are interested and on which you would be willing to serve? Your name will be kept in an applicants' pool for one year from the date of your application, and we will notify you of vacancies as they occur. For more information or if you have questions, please contact the City Clerk's office at 463-6217. Thank you for your interest in serving the City of Ukiah. commapc.wpd Mark Ashiku Addendum to application for Airport Commission Appointment , o 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. I feel that I have the knowledge and expertise to contribute as a commissioner. My perception of the role of the Commission is to act as an advisory commission to the Council and to provide overview of the airport's operation and implementation of its master plan. As a pilot I have perspective of the safety issues. As a small businessman I understand the value of the airport to the local economy and as a citizen I realize the growth challenges faced by the small airport. (citizen). I believe the most important Airport related issue facing the community is the increased urbanization of land surrounding the airport and how it relates to operational safety. Development that should be encouraged is Development that goes hand in hand with economic developments within the community and preserves the airport as an economic resource as opposed to a hobbiest enterprise which benefits few. Development that should be discouraged would be loud enterprises which threaten the quality of life in the community and those who do not contribute to the economic viability of the community and the airport. My ideal envisionment for Ukiah, would be a community that is economically thriving, having a low crime rate, good schools and one that maintains its small town atmosphere. No. ITEM NO, 9a DATE: July 1,1998 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH KAGELINI KABINETS, INC. Staff is recommending approval of a Settlement Agreement with Kagelini Kabinets, Inc. (aka B.J. Bell), relative to his claim of December 15, 1997. Discussion will be held in Closed Session regarding the details of the proposed settlement. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council approve settlement agreement with Kagelini Kabinets, Inc., as discussed dudng Closed Session. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Council determine further negotiations are necessary pdor to approving settlement agreement. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Candace Horsley, City Manager Coordinated with: David Rapport, City Attorney Attachments: 1. None. APPROVED: Candace Horsley, Cily Manager 4/Can.ASRClaim l0 11 3.2 13 3.4 15 16 17 3.8 19 20 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 99- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH MAKING APPOINTMENTS TO THE PLANNING, AIRPORT, AND PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSIONS, AND THE GOLF COURSE AND INVESTMENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEES WHEREAS, the annual expiration of terms for City Boards and Commissions occured on June 30, 1998, and, WHEREAS, the vacancies were duly advertised until the close of applications on June 24, 1998, with submitted applications timely received and submitted to Council for consideration, and, WHEREAS, the City Council previously requested Planning Commission applicants who were intereviewed on July 1, 1998, to be reforwarded for consideration at this time, and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Ukiah City Council approved the nominations submitted per procedures outlined in Resolution No. 95-48, and do hereby appoint the following persons to terms on the following Commissions and Boards: PLANNING COMMISSION to fill a term to June 30, 2001; to fill a term to June 30, 2001; to fill a term to June 30, 2001. AIRPORT COMMISSION to fill a term to June 30, 2001; to fill a term to June 30, 2001; to fill a term to June 30, 2001; to fill a term to June 30, 2001. OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE YOUR COMMUNITY The City of Ukiah announces upcoming Commission and Board vacancies. Drop by the Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, to pick up an application or contact City Clerk Colleen Henderson, 463-6217, to have an application mailed to you. COMMISSION VACANCIES OR BOARD (eliaibilitv of current members) AIRPORT 4 (3 eligible to be reappointed) PARKS AND 3 RECREATION (none eligible for reappointment) PLANNING 3 (all eligible for reappointment) GOLF COURSE 1 public I Women's Golf Club (both eligible for reappointment) INVESTMENT I public member OVERSIGHT (eligible for reappointment) TERM DEADLINE RESIDENCy REQUIREMENT 3 yeam June 24,1998 3 yeam June 24,1998 3 City Limits 1 Sphere of Influence 2 City Limits 1 Sphere of Influence 3 years June 24, 1998 City Limits 2 years June 24, 1998 City Limits · 2 years June 24, 1998 City Limits 300 SEMINAI~,AVE., UKIAH, CA 95482-5400 · · ,,,,, · NEWS RELEASE · FAX It 707/463-6204 · OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE YOUR COMMUNITY DATE: May 27, 1998 FOR RELEASE: Immediately GOOD THROUGH: June 24, 1998 SUBJECT: Vacancies on City of Ukiah Boards and Commissions CONTACT: City Clerk Colleen Henderson, 463-6217 UKIAH, CA -- The City of Ukiah announces vacancies on the City's Boards and Commissions with the expiration of current terms on June 30, 1998. The deadline for submitting an application for appointment is June 24, 1998, with appointments being made by the City Council on July 1, 1998. The Airport Commission has four vacancies with three of the four members currently serving being eligible for reappointment. Airport Commission terms are for three years. Applicants must reside within the Ukiah City Limits or the City's sphere of influence. One of these four vacancies may be filled by someone residing within the City's sphere of influence. The Planning Commission has three vacancies occurring on June 30, 1998. All members currently occupying the expiring terms are eligible for reappointment. Planning Commission terms are for three years and members must reside within the City limits. Applicants for Planning Commission will be interviewed by the City Council. The Parks and Recreation Commission has three vacant positions. Appointees must reside within the Ukiah City Limits, except for one who may reside within the City's sphere of influence. Park and Recreation Commission members are appointed to three year terms. The three individuals currently filling these positions are not eligible for reappointment. The Golf Course Committee has two vacancies. Both the Public Member and the Women's Golf Club representative are eligible for reappointment. Applicants must reside within the City Limits. The term of service is two years. The Investment Oversight Committee has an opening for a public member. The current public member is eligible for reappointment. The term of service is two years. Applicants must reside within the City Limits. Any qualified individual who would like to serve the community in this volunteer capacity is encouraged to apply for one or more of these positions. Applications are located in the Administration Wing of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, or call City Clerk Colleen Henderson, 463-6217, to have an application mailed to you. Candace Horsley, City M~,nager c: Media News Fax Group #32 '~Ve Are Here To Serve" JUN 2 4= 1998 CITY OF UKIAH Wednesday, June 24, 1998 To whom it may concern, I Mike Correll, respectively request to be considered for reappointment to the Planning Commission. Mike Correll