The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1997-05-07 Packet300 SEMINARY AVE., UKI^H, CA 954.82 · ^DMIN. 707/463-6200 · Public Notice Cover Sheet POLICE 463-6242 · FIRE 463-6274 LEGAL PUBLISHING DATE: # OF NOTICES ATTACHED: DATE/TIME SUBMITTED: RECEIVED BY: The Public Notice(s) attached hereto is TIME SENSITIVE and MUST be published on the Legal Publishing Date shown above. Please call Colleen B. Henderson, City Clerk immediately if this notice can not be published. (707) 463-6217 NOTICE OF PUBUC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Ukiah City Council will conduct a Public Hearing to consider herbicide use by Caltrans on Highway Rights of Way inside City of Ukiah City limits. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the public hearing will be conducted. on Wednesday, May 21, 1997, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as may be heard, and continued from time to time as the same may require, in the City of Ukiah City Council Chambers, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, at which time all interested persons may appear and be heard. Anyone wishing the City Council to consider a document exceeding 250 words must submit the original document and seven (7) legible copies to the City Clerk not less than six (6) calendar days prior to the scheduled meeting date. If you challenge the above matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Council at the time of the hearing. Please pass this notice on to your neighbors, friends, or other interested parties. You may request additional information from the City Staff at the City of Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA, 95482, (707) 463- 6200. SIGNED: Colleen Henderson, City Clerk PUBESH: May 11, 1997 MINUTES OF THE UKIAH CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting - April 16, 1997 A regular meeting of the Ukiah City Council, the agenda for which was legally noticed and posted, convened at 6:36 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. Roll was taken and the following Councilmembers were PRESENT: Chavez, Ashiku, Kelly, Mastin, and Mayor Malone. ABSENT: None. Staff Present: City Treasurer Carter, Assistant City Manager Harris, City Manager Horsley, Associate Planner Lohse, Planning Director Sawyer, and City Clerk Henderson. 2. Pledge of Allegiance Councilmember Kelly led the Pledge of Allegiance. Councilmember Mastin requested emergency consideration of Proposals for..:::Solid Waste Transfer Station Construction and Operation as presented to the M:endoci .n...~i?~Solid Waste Management Authority (MSWMA) at its April 11, 1997 meeting. Hgiii~.!t it:~.........., important to the City's interests to give direction to MSWMA at MS~..MA's ::::::::::::::::::: .... ::iiiiiiii!i!iii!ii!i!iii!i!iiiiiiiiiiiii!iiiiiiii:., ,;;:;:::;:;;:::::;:;;;:;:;, . .....................,.,.,..............,.......,. .......................,.,. ==================================================== MIS Kelly/Mastin to add Consideration of the Propos!~!i!~:i;or Solid:~~!!~ansfer Stat[~' :::::::::::::' ..:::::::::::::.' ===================================================== ..:.:.:.:.:.' Construction and Operation, as presented to MSWM~~, to the 8c carried by a voice vote of all AYE. ABSENT: ~'~Q. e ..... ::::ii:?' ":::::::iii:iiiii iiiiiii::iii::iiiiiii:ii!i!iiii:::::::: .... :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ....... :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .............................................. ================================== ================================================ - .......... .... =========================================================== 3a. Regular Meeting - April 2, 1997 .... :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .... ===================================================== ======================================================= MIS Mastin/Malone to approve the Minutes..:.O....~::~Z~::::Regular'":~:~i~!ii~f April 2, 1997, as submitted, carried by the following roll call ~.:9~i:i..:i~~i!i:i?:i~...:C.. ouncii::~i~ers Chavez, Ashiku, Mastin, and Mayor Malone. NOES: Non~i:i?ABS~Aii~iii:i:?~i~!ounc.it~'~mber ABSENT: Mayor Malone explained..::!:he...:::~'peal P~:~:~..S..: .......... ::::::::? .... ..:::., ..:-:.:.:.:-. :.:.:.:.:.:. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ........ ====================== MIS Kell'~i~~ ~o... app;~!~ ~!.ent Calendar items 5a-d as follows: a. Denie'~l!:?~ii~i!i~:!~ii?~:ii[gr Da'~~?eceived from Floyd Hawn, and referred to City ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: '-:::::.' b. R..:.~'~ved R~;?~iii~i....sbursements for the month of March 1997; c. ,:?::iii~iopted Resol~i~iiii~?:97-66 Adopting Memorandum of Understanding Between .:::i??the City of Ukia~?~Management Unit; and d.,.~ii~:!iiiiiiiiii?: Adopted Reso!~.fion No. 97-67 Adopting the Addenda for the 1996-97 Fiscal Year ........... .>: -.:,. :~ii!iiiiiiiiiiii!i!!!ii:: Between the..:~i!~ of Ukiah and Department Head, Police, Fire, Miscellaneous, and :ii:iiii:iii!i:iiiil;i:::::i::... Electric Uni:t~::::" :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ..... =========================== .... T~:i::~:t.::i:~::::~:~ carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Chavez, · .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:,:.:.:.:,;.:.:.:.:.:,:.:.:.:., · As~:i:E~?K:~"ily, Mastin, and Mayor Malone. NOES: None. ABSTAIN' None. ABSENT: None. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Jennifer Puser, Field Representative for Assemblywoman Virginia Strom-Martin, announced the opening of Assemblywoman Strom-Martin's office in Ukiah, at 104 West Church Street, and noted there are discretionary State of California funds available for one-time capital improvement projects. Regular Meeting - April 16, 1997 Page 1 Si NEW BUSINESS Set Date for Commissioner Appreciation Event City Manager Horsley explained it has been customary for the Council periodically to host an event in appreciation of the City Commissioners. She queried the Council as to its preference of hosting or not hosting an event, and if it preferred to do so, what kind of event. After some discussion, it was the consensus of the Council to have a coffee and dessert reception on a Saturday afternoon at the Grace Hudson Museum meeting room in order to honor and thank the City's Commissioners. City Manager Horsley will find an available date. 8b. Consideration of Report from City Treasurer City Treasurer Allen Carter reported that the Investment Oversig.ht Com~iiitee had met and joined in a conference call with the City's financial consulta~:.t:s at:~lic Financ!,al Management (PFM) in San Francisco. He outlined several wayS!i~!!~Si!~cture the City s investment ort olio to b tt r m ximi its inv stm .... ?hil necessary to meet its obligations. No action was 7a. Planninq and Technical Assistance Co~!~!~!i~::'Developmen(:~::i~l!~k Grant (CDBG) Application for Proposed Ukiah ~!!!~i~.i.~..S..,. and Recreation Center Madelin Holtkamp, Ukiah Business Developrff~t CeCi~i~?~i!~:~)..e.d a Public Hearing is necessary to provide input to help shape....::.:.t..bj~!?::i.B/annin~:::ii!~i:i:i:~bhnical Assistance Community Development Block Grant (CDBG:iiiiii~!~ii~tion for (~:~i~ii~Oposed Ukiah Valley ...... ' ............ :': ':':':'"": '":' >:':'":':':'"'"'" '"' '" Arts and Recreation Center. ..;¢ilili? .................. ~!~ii~;ili~i;~iiiii~i~i!iiiii~iiil;~!~!i~ii~ii:;::~ ........ Mayor Malone opened the Public H~i~'ring a.~::i!¢!!~08 ..:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:,:,:. Marvin Trotter, M.D., lent his;~i~!~rt to.:t~!i=S CDBGili~:Pplication. Mayor Ma:[~e closed th~ iR.~i~:ic Hear:i~ ====================================================== No was i* i iib B?:i r taken.' .... 7b. Conti~!~!!!b[.App~i:.~!i;~ P;i~'nning Commission's Denial of Use Permit No, 97-067:i~ii~!i~i~;!~ori B~:~, Little Friends Preschool and Day Care Center, ======================= - .... ======================================================= :.: As.s;~'iate Planner :::::~:;:::gave a brief overview of the history of this appeal by Tori B:~n of Little Friend.~!iii~reschool ...... and Day Care Center. Since the April 2, 1997 Council ~;~[ing, City staff::~¢:~St with the applicant and a group of neighbors to discuss ways to ~i.t:'~te the neigh-b~' concerns of noise and privacy issues and to arrive at a compromise :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .-.-:-:::.:-:::::.. ~.i.~!.i{~§g~.i.?~everal proposed compromise situations were formulated and are in the ¢~!8~i~?!8¢~:~i:'~'g implemented on a trial basis by the applicant. · :-:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ..... Mayor Malone opened the Public Hearing at 7'14 p.m. Marlene Werra, 721 S. Dora Street, property owner adjacent to the Preschool, spoke in opposition to the appeal and the compromises offered. Glen Donalson, 473 Observatory Avenue, spoke against the appeal and any additional children being allowed out on the playground. Wayne Fackrell, 474 Observatory Avenue, was willing to work towards a compromise for several more weeks. Regular Meeting - April 16, 1997 Page 2 Susie Marshall, 227 Washington Street, spoke to the location of the play structure and hopes an agreeable conclusion may be reached. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:27 p.m. Discussion ensued regarding aspects of the proposed compromise and the necessity of a trial period once the play structure is relocated. Councilmembers indicated they had all viewed the Preschool site. The Public Hearing on the appeal was continued to the Regular Meeting of May 7, 1997. SC. Consideration of Proposals for Solid Waste Transfer Station Construction and Operation as Presented to Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority Councilmember Mastin reported the Mendocino Solid Waste Manage.~iht Authority received, and is evaluating, four proposals for the construction .a...~. op.~'t'ion of a solid waste transfer station· He requested direction from the Counc::..i!:::::~i~iiii.t.~?:=~i:ts preference of using trucks or trains to ship MSWMA's waste out ofi!i!~ndoci::~~hty. The Council discussed the various proposals. :~iiiil.i.i.iii? ....... Mike Sweeney, Mendocino Solid Waste Man~..men..:...t:iii!!~i~/~'~thoritY'?ii~.i.iiiii~!~'t to address Council's questions ............................................... ' .................... :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: -.:.:.:,:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:,:.:.:.:.:.:.:,:.: ............. · ..:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:,:.:.:,:,:.:,:.:.:.:.:.:.. ,.-,:,:.:.:.:.:. ..:.:,:.:.:.:,:.:.:.:,:.:.:.:,:.:.:.:,:.:.:.:,. ~.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: ================================================== Councilmembers preferred shipment by rail, but on:l~i!:::i~iii~:./~~ically feasible. ===================================================== MIS Mastin/Ashiku to report to the Mendocir~..o..:~S~!jd Wast~ii*:M!~:~*.~!~,ment Authority the City of Ukiah prefers shipment of the sol!.dli!i~i.~i~.!.:~i.::.:r, ail if e: A i'cally feasible. The motion carried by the following roll ca I:~ot'e: AYEiS::Gouncllmembers Chavez, Ashiku, · -::: :::" :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ..... ::::i::::" Kelly, Mastin, and Mayor Malone. NO:ES: Non.~FABSTA:!:~:i::::i::N'one. ABSENT: None. RECESSED: 8:10 p.m. ==========?========??=: .::::::::i! :ii:::::" =====?:==:======= .......... RECONVENED: 8:20 p.m. Councilm~ber Chav.:~: :~:::raged t~:!:~:~':,'i to attend the American Cancer Society's fundrai~!i~.!.~i~:..on A~!~iil.ii~i.i.i.ii.~i7 at the'0kiah Grange Hall. She reported she attended a Main str'~iii~iig=g wh~::~iiii~i~i~Ar..s had a productive brainstorming session in lieu of a formal me~!~:~i~!iii!iii~?ii~:~.re w~!§ii!iii~i!ii?~uorum present, and mentioned that plans for the upcoming Ci~i:i:~?:M:~:.celeb'~fi:6'n are progressing well. Coun¢il~ember............. ...... Ash'i~i::ii~!:~ Ken Engels of Russian River Artists is willing to sponsor a b~'fit concert for t~!":~:~osed Ukiah Valley Arts and Recreation Center. :.:.:.:.:.:.:.: ..,.....-. ........ ~:~:~hcilmember K..:.:~.i:i~/ mentioned her attendance at the League of California Cities ~~:~nity Ser..v...:i~§ Committee meeting, her participation in the Observatory Park ~i~i!~i~i[~9:.o:.:~i=ii~ting on April 7, 1997, her visit to the Animal Control Shelter with the 0~i~ii~~'i'sors Committee, and gave the Council an update on the Arts and R(~'~:i~::':Center and Skateboard Park projects. She also noted she had attended the reception for the Grace Hudson Museum's Early California Impressionists exhibit and commented on what a fine job Rob Wilson did in his presentation and remarks about the exhibit. She further noted she understands the County of Mendocino is moving ahead with air quality studies and she will be meeting with Assemblywoman Virginia Strom- Martin. Councilmember Mastin noted his recent attendance at a Mendocino Council of Governments meeting in his capacity as president of the Mendocino Transit Authority Board of Directors and detailed his two-day MTA bus trip to Santa Rosa, up the Coast to Fort Bragg and back to Ukiah via Willits. He also mentioned he will be judging the Mendocino County Science Fair again this year. Regular Meeting - April 16, 1997 Page 3 Mayor Malone encouraged Councilmembers to join him at the Redwood Empire Division of the League of California Cities meeting at Benbow Inn, noted he also viewed the Animal Control Shelter with the Council/Supervisors Committee, and attended a Ukiah Chamber of Commerce meeting. 10. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENT HEAD REPORTS City Manager Horsley asked the Councilmembers if they would prefer to cancel the Budget Goal Setting Workshop scheduled for April 21, 1997, until funding options are also available. It was the consensus of the Council to do so. City Manager Horsley commented on the progress being made by City Clerk Henderson. Councilmember Kelly noted she appreciates the new format of the financial information presented to the Council ....... ..:.:.:.:.:.:.- 11. CLOSED SESSION ............... .............. ::iiiii ........ · '"'"'"'"'"' 5:;::::::::" :.:.:.:.:.;.:.:.:.:.; .....,.,.... · :.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:., .,:.:.;.:,:,- ..................... · :-:.:-:-:.:-:.:-. .-i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:!:!:i:i:i:i:i:i:i::.> There was no Closed Session. :~%iiiiii!i!i!i!i:i:: '":<!ii!i}ii!iiii}iiiiiiii!i!i!iiiiiii!}iiii!%~ ===================== ===================================================== ..................-.........-...................,. ....:.:.:.:.:.:. ..... ... .... '.::...................._._...........:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.::. :::::::::::::::::: .... :::::::::' ============================================================ MIS Mastin/Malone to adjourn the meeting carried :~ili~ili~i~e vote of all .-.-.-.....--f:.:-:-:,:.:.:.:.:.:-:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:-:-:.:.:. .-.....-......:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:,. ..:,:.:.:.:.: ==================================================== The meeting was adjourned at 9'00 p.m. ":::~ ........................................................ . ...-...-...-...-.-............. .............................-...... ..:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:,:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.; ,.:.:.:.:.:,:.:.:.:.:.:,:.:.:-:,:.:.:-:.:.:.:,:,:.:.:,, =============================================================== ========================================================================== ======================== ..... ==================================================== ,:::::::::::::,' ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ..:::::::' ..:.:.:.:.:..., .,.....,....,...,.,....,.,,.,,....,.......,............ .......... ............ ============================================================= .......... ..:.:.:.:.:.. ......... ... ..::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .-:-:-x-' ........ ..:.:.:.:.: .:::::::::. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ..::::::::.'.:::::::::' ================================================= :.:.:,x. ...-.....- ......-,......-.-...,.........v........ ..:,:.:.:.. ..:,:.:.:.. :.:.:.:.:.:.;.:.:.:,:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.. ~.-,....v .,;.:.:.:,' :-:-:.:.:.:-:-:.:.:-:-;.:.:-:-' ..:.:.;.;.: ..:.:,:+. .:.:.:.:.:.-...:.:.:.....- ..:;:....:::::::::: :;:;:::::: .:::::::;:- ====================== .-.-.,.-.- .......... ............ · :.:.:,:.; ;.:.:.:.: ======================== :-:,:.:.;.' ......... ......,.......,...,,...... .-.-.-.-,-. .:.:.:.:.. ..:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.:.;.:. .;:::::::::.' ..:.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.., ..:.:.:.:.:.: ..:.:.:.:.: ===================== ..:.:,:.:.:,: .........., ........... .,..-...,,... .,:.:,:,:.: ........,......,. ..:,:.:,:,:,:.: .,.......-., ,-.....-........ ...,..........,.. ..:::::::::::: :.:.:.:.:.:.:,:. ,.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. ..:.:,:.:.:,:.. :.:+:.:,:,:.. :,:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: ..:,:,:.:.:.:.. ..::'::.: ::::::::::::" .-...-.-.-.-...... ............ ................... ....................... :}:!:i:i::iiii::i!i:i:i:::i:::::i~b]l~en B Henderson City Clerk -::i::.. .':':':':':':':'- :':':':':': · '.','.'-', ;':':':':':':':':':'- ':':':':': i · .........................., ..:.:.:.:.:.;,:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:,:,:.:.:.: · ..-.-.-.-...-,-...-.-.-.,.... ==================================================== .... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .... :: .... ....-...-...-.-.......-.-...................,....-. ===================================================== .... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .... · .................................................... -.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:,:.:.:.:.:.:,:.:.:.. ==================================================== ==================================================== :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ==================================================== ====================================================== ================================================== ====================================================== :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ================================================== ............................. ............................... =========================== ========================================================================== ..:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: ======================================================================================= ::::::::::::::::::::::: ....... ========================================================== ..::::::::::-' ..:.:.:.;.:.. ..::::::::;:.' ..:.:.:.:.:.- .;i::::::::::' ..;:::::::::;:, .,:::::::::::: ..::::::::::::: ..... .:::;::::::::::: .;:::::::;' ;:::::::::::::::. :::::::::: ====================== ..:::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::..::::::::;;:' :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ..::::::::::::.' · :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:-:-:.:.:.:.. ..:.:.:.:.:.:.: .......................,............ ........ :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. . ..:::::::;:::::;-' :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .... ====================== :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:,:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:,:.:.:.:.:.:.:..... ..,..:.-.......-.-...-.-.-.. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ================================================================================ ~.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:,:.:.:.:,:.:.:.:.. ========================================== Regular Meeting - April 16, 1997 Page 4 MINUTES OF THE UKIAH CITY COUNCIL Adjoumed Regular Meeting - April 14, 1997 An adjourned regular meeting of the Ukiah City Council, the agenda for which was legally noticed and posted, convened at 7:06 a.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. Roll was taken and the following Councilmembers were PRESENT: Chavez, Ashiku, Mastin, and Mayor Malone. ABSENT: Councilmember Kelly. Staff Present: Customer Service Supervisor Archibald, Public Utilities Director Barnes, Electric Supervisor Bartolomei, Community Service Director DeKnoblough, Finance Director Elton, Compliance/Customer Service Officer Goodrick, City Manager Horsley, and City Clerk Henderson. 2. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Mayor Malone welcomed comments from the audience. No one me fo~'to address the Council. ~ca 3. SDecial Order of Busines~ 3a. Electric Workshoo Public Utilities Director Barnes outlined the provi~i:~s, ofi~!;lifornia Sta<~!i~~iy Bill 1890 for the Council. The bill provides the framew0'~.!f0~i[~:.pending restru'~i'~'~ing of the electdc utility industry in California, allowing the indu..~:'tC~:~become competitive. The bill sets timetables for retail competition within the:'~:~i'nd~!~ii.i:.!~r;o~/ides for independent operation of the State's electric transmission system, outli':~s;~ii~ecovery by utilities of previous investments in powerplants, and formdtatesa market ~e designed for future competition within the industry. The bill makesPr°vi~i°r~i~for comP:erSt'ion transition charges to be collected by both investor-owned:and pubiiCiY:0~ned.~dfilities. Mr. Barnes noted publicly-owned utilities are not mandated to.~:i~doi~:i:~etaii:;i~mpetition; however, State sanctioned competitive transition~:i~harges-:'!~re co~ii~'~:~t upon implementing retail competition, i::i:?i ..:~iiii!i!.~ ?' AB 1890 mandates a minimum levet:i'iof:~.fund~g for public policy programs. The investor-owned utility poliCY Programs Will.be administered by the California Public Utilities C°mmis~ion::-:ar)d the'::'~:Galif°mia Ene~:gy:.'~C°mmission, while the policy programs for publicly~edutiiities will ~ administered by their elected boards or councils. If a utility chooses to 'P~meCOmpetit~i~eand ~llects competitive transition charges, it must create a fund to be uSecl:.in'One or moreoft~ following areas: conservation programs, renewable technolocjyi::fesearch and development, and Iow income assistance. In order to become competitive, Ukiah w~!i~bei~equired to raise $350,000 which will amount to a 2.85 percent increase in rates. Ma~Y:provisions of the bill still need to be clarified. .~=:iiii~i::::~: ~:!!!ii!ii ~uncilmember Kelly: arrived at 7:24 a.m. ::i.i:i:!::~::~i': .'::~:::' ~:::::':':-:'::::::.'::~ ...... ~!:~e~P°nse to questioning Mr. Barnes noted the City's Electric Utility is exempt from the i~aFernents:~f:Proposition 218. In order to initiate a competitive program, public utilities ~!~i~,e{ail competition must hold a Public Hearing by July 1, 1999 and must begin the ph~'sing in of such a program by January 1, 2000. In the near future, staff will present to Council the pros and cons of various options which it may choose to develop into a strategic plan for the implementation of Assembly Bill 1890. Adjourned Regular Meeting -April 14, 1997 Page 1 4. ADJOURNMENT MIS Ashiku/Mastin to adjourn the meeting was carried by a voice vote of all AYE. ABSENT: None. Mayor Malone adjourned the meeting at 7:37 a.m. Colleen B. Henderson, City Clerk Adjourned Regular Meeting - April 14, 1997 Page 2 wHeREAS, riding a bicycle promotes a healthy mind and body and greatly reduces the anxieties of everyday life; and WtlF21EA~, the amount of air pollution, trq~ic congestion, and noise can greatly be reduced by riding a bicycle rather than using a private automobile; and wH~R~4S, the use of bicycles for transportation is steadily growing in Ukiah; and Wn~.R~.4S, twelve bicycles can be parked in the space occupied by one car and each person riding a bicycle for business in downtown Ukiah and free up parking spaces for those who choose not to ride; and ~v~, bicycles are the most energy efficient form of transportation in helping to reduce our society's dependence on oil and fossil fuels; and wa~_AS, bicycle transportation is an integral part of the '~nulti- modal" transportation system planned by federal, state, regional, and local transportation government agencies; and Wa~:~_.~, the California Bicycle Coalition, the American Lung Association of California, and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) have worked cooperatively with many public and private groups and individuals to promote a single day for bicycle commuting; and wiIF~REAS, the month of May is '~alifornia Clean Air Month" as part of the American Lung Association of California's efforts to promote air quality and National Bike Month to promote the bicycle as a means of transportation and recreation. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Sheridan Malone, Mayor of the City of Ukiah, on behalf of my fellow City Councilmembers, Jim Mastin, Kristy Kelly, Phillip Ashiku, and Guadalupe Chavez, do hereby proclaim Tuesday, May 20, 1997, as BIKE TO WORK DAY in the City of Ukiah, and urge all who are able to take advantage of the benefits offered to those who ride a bicycle to do so on this day and throughout the year. Sheridan Malone, Mayor WI~.R~4S, across America, in large cities and small towns, letter carriers travel their routes everyday throughout all communities; and WI~.RF_AS, these men and women are keenly interested in the well-being of their friends and neighbors and uniquely aware of the hunger facing many families; and wa~AS, these individuals and the U.S. Postal Service have embarked on an ambitious project to help feed the hungry through the annual National Association of Letter Carriers (NAI~) Food Drive; and W~iF. iRF. AS, postal customers simply leave food items in bags by their mail boxes on the Food Drive day. When the city letter carrier comes by that day delivering mail, the food is collected, taken back to a postal station, then delivered to the local food banks; and w~, what began as a pilot program in 10 cities in 1991 has grown quickly into the largest one-day food collection in our nation. NOW, Tn~.RE~ORE, I, Sheridan Malone, Mayor of the City of Ukiah, on behalf of my fellow City Councilmembers Jim Mastin, Kristy Kelly, Phillip Ashiku, and Guadalupe Chavez, do hereby proclaim May 10, 1997, as NALC NATIONAL FOOD DRIVE DAY and urge all citizens to take part by placing a food donation by your mail box on Saturday, May 10. Your letter carrier will pick it up and deliver it to the Food Bank. Sheridan Malone, Mayor ~R~4S, the travel and tourism industry is tremendously important for Ukiah, contributing to employment, economic prosperity, understanding, and good will; and ~, every citizen benefits from the effects of travel and tourism. The industry substantially enhances our personal growth and education while promoting intercultural understanding and appreciation of Ukiah's geography, history, and culture; and w~:R~.4S, in recognition of the unique signO~icance of the travel and tourism industry in the lives of the citizens of Ukiah, and in coordination with the 14th Annual National Tourism Week. 1VOW, Ti~.REi~RE, I, Sheridan Malone, Mayor of the City of Ukiah, on beha{f of my fellow City Councilmembers, Jim Mastin, Kristy Kelly, Phillip Ashiku, and Guadalupe Chavez, do hereby designate the week beginning May 4, 1997, as and call upon the people of Ukiah to observe this weekbyjio'znzng' in the various ceremonies and activities taking place in the region. Sheridan Malone, Mayor wH~tFAS, public transportation is vital to the quality of life and economic well-being of the citizens of the City of Ukiah; and, WilF~iF_A~, increased public investment in transit services provides the potential to create jobs and enhance business prosperity; and, w~, workers, school children, senior citizens, people with disabilities, and those unable to afford an automobile use public transportation to gain access to jobs, schools, medical facilities and other fundamental services; and, w~, the nation, the people of California and our communities face the risks to health and the environment that are brought on by automobile exhaust emissions; and wH~:~ the California Transit Association, local Cal{fornia transit operators, the American Public Transit Association, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation officials, the Association for Commuter Transportation, the National League of Cities, the National Governors' Association, America's Coalition for Transit NOW, the United States Department of Transportation, the United States Federal Transit Administration, the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations, Citizen Action, the National Minority Business Council, and the Surface Transportation Policy Project have declared May 12-16, 1997 to be Try Transit Week and have called upon all citizens to join in a nationwide effort to promote transit's benefits, honor transit employees, and encourage new riders. 1¥0W, Ti~R.R~ORE, I, Sheridan Malone, Mayor of the City of Ukiah, on beha{f of my fellow City Councilmembers, Jim Mastin, Kristy Kelly, Phillip Ashiku, and Guadalupe Chavez, do hereby proclaim that the week of May 12-16, 1997 be declared TRY TRANSIT WEEK in the City of Ukiah, and call upon all citizens to examine their personal travel choices, to commute via transit or share the ride during Try Transit Week, and to become more active in education and advocacy efforts to promote the vital role of public transit in the City of Ukiah and all across the United States. Sheridan Malone, Mayor SERVING MENDOCINO COUNTY SLUICE 1976 Mendocino Transit Authority March 3, 1997 Ms Candace Horsley, City Manager City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 RE: Try Transit Week Dear Candace, Try Transit Week has been scheduled for May 12 - 16, 1997. Many agencies and organizations throughout the State and the Nation are planning specific activities to encourage drivers to Try Transit. Most will also adopt a Resolution or Declaration recognizing the importance of public transit in their communities. The California Legislature is circulating a proposed Concurrent Resolution, similar to the one attached, in order to gain a long list of cosponsors. The MTA is scheduled to adopt a similar Resolution at their meeting on March 27. Our activities for Try Transit Week are being planned, and we will keep you advised. In the meantime, I am requesting that you agendize a Resolution or Declaration for adoption by your Council in March or April. The attached proposal would be terrific. Call me if you have questions. Sincerely, Bruce Richard General Manager c: MTA Board of Directors 241 Plant Road · Ukiah, California 95482 · (707) 462-5765 Fax (707) 462-1760 Proposed Resolution WHEREAS, public transportation is vital to the quality of life and economic well-being of the citizens of the City of Ukiah; and, WHEREAS, increased public investment in transit services provides the potential to create jobs and enhance business prosperity; and, WHEREAS, workers, school children, senior citizens, people with disabilities, and those unable to afford an automobile use public transportation to gain access to jobs, schools, medical facilities and other fundamental services; and, WHEREAS, the nation, the people of California and our communities face the risks to health and the environment that are brought on by automobile exhaust emissions; and, WHEREAS, traffic congestion which wastes productive time can be alleviated through the increased availability and use of public transportation and other forms of high-occupancy, shared-ride services; and, WHEREAS, the California Transit Association, local California transit operators, the American Public Transit Association, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the Association for Commuter Transportation, the National League of Cities, the National Governors' Association, America's Coalition for Transit NOW, the United States Department of Transportation, the United States Federal Transit Administration, the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations, Citizen Action, the National Minority Business Council, and the Surface Transportation Policy Project have declared May 12-16, 1997 to be Try Transit Week and have called upon all citizens to join in a nationwide effort to promote transit's benefits, honor transit employees, and encourage new riders; now, therefore, be it Resolved by the City Council of the City of Ukimh That the week of May 12- 16, 1997 be declared Try Transit Week in the County of Mendocino; and be it further Resolved That the City Council calls upon all citizens to examine their personal travel choices, to commute via transit or share the ride during Try Transit Week, and to become more active in education and advocacy efforts to promote the vital role of public transit in the City of Ukiah, ~endocino County, in California and across the United States; and be it further Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the City Council prepare and transmit a copy of this resolution to the Mendocino Transit Authority. ITEM NO. 6 a DATE: Mav 7, 1997 -- AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: AWARD OF BID FOR THE PURCHASE OF TRANSFORMERS TO WESCO IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $47,117.48. Quotations (RFQ) were requested for the purchase of the following transformers: 1 - 500 KVA, 208 volt pad mount transformer. 1 - 500 KVA, 480 volt pad mount transformer. 2 - 1000 KVA, 480 volt pad mount transformer. A request for bids was sent to fourteen (14) suppliers· A list of suppliers is attached along with the bid tabulation. No response was received from seven (7). Three (3) others were returned without quotes. Formal quotes were received from the following four (4) suppliers: I · 2. 3. 4. WESCO WESTERN STATES ELECTRIC (Bidding on both Cooper & Pauwels) G.E. SUPPLY CO. PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY Bids were evaluated based on price, delivery time, load losses and physical size. We requested that delivery be ten (10) weeks or less. Based on staff's evalution, WESCO was selected as the best bidder for all units requested. The cost of all units will be $47,117.48 and these units will be placed in warehouse stock for planned future projects. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Award bid to Wesco for 2-500kv and 2-1000kv transformers for an amount not to exceed $47,117.48. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Reject all bids and direct Staff to re-advertise and re-solicit bids. Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Acct. No.:696-131-002-000 Appropriation Requested: N/A Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Stan Bartolomei, Electric Supervisor Prepared by: Jill Scott, Energy Specialist Coordinated with: Darryl Barnes, Director of Public Utilities Attachments:Bidders List and Bid Tabulation Candace y Manager BID TABULATION I - 500 KVA, 12,000, 208Y/120, 3 Phase, Pad mount. ~ NO LOAD LOSS WESCO 757 W WESTERN STATES (COOPER) 820 W WESTERN STATES (PAUWELS) 634 W G.E. SUPPLY CO. 254 W PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY 750 W LOAD LOSS 3501W 3226 W 2804 W 3420 W 3200 W i -500 KVA, 12,000, 480/277, 3 Phase, Pad mount. WESCO 707 W WESTERN STATES (COOPER) 815 W WESTERN STATES (PAUWELS) 633 W G.E. SUPPLY CO. 260 W PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY 750 W 2395 W 2651 W 2478 W 2843 W 3200 W 2 -1000 KVA, 12,000, 480Y/277, 3 Phase, Pad mount. WESCO 1043 W WESTERN STATES (COOPER) 1273 W WESTERN STATES (PAUWELS) 912 W G.E. SUPPLY CO. 423 W PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY 1360 W 5690 W 5956 W 5167 W 5678 W 5900 W BID $ 8,451.77 $ 8,973.82 $ 9,642.85 $10,605.95 $13,808.44 $10,899.86 $ 8,936.07 $ 9,318.95 $10,274.55 $13,808.44 $27,765.85 $26,936.90 $29,637.46 $32,507.48 $41,349.16 9 wks 19 wks 14 wks 10 wks 9 wks 9 wks 19wks 14 wks 10 wks 9wks 9 wks 19wks 14 wks 10 wks 9 wks BIDDERS LIST TRANSFORMER SUPPLIERS CONSOLIDATED ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTORS SOUTHWEST POWER INC. INDEPENDENT ELECTRIC SUPPLY, INC. G.E. SUPPLY CO. GRAYBAR ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC SERVICE KORTICK MFG. COMPANY KUHLMAN CORPORATION MAYDWELL $ HARTZELL INC. PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY SIERRA SALES ENGINEERING INC. WESCO WESTERN STATES ELECTRIC CENTRAL MALONEY ITEM NO. 6b DATE: May 7, 1997 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: APPLICATION TO DEMOLISH TWO RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES OVER 50 YEARS OLD AT 586 NORTH STATE STREET SUMMARY: Pursuant to Ukiah Municipal Code [}3016, the City Council must review Demolition Permit applications for structures 50 years old or more to determine if the structure has historical, architectural, or cultural significance. If an affirmative determination of significance is made, the Demolition Permit shall not be issued. If, on the other hand, the Council determines that the structure is not historically, architecturally, or culturally (Continued on Page 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Find the structures located at 586 N. State Street not to be historically, architecturally, or culturally significant, thereby implicitly authorizing issuance of the subject Demolition Permit. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Find the subject structures historically, architecturally, or culturally significant, thereby disallowing the ministerial issuance of the Demolition Permit. 2. Remand the matter back to staff for further investigation, as may be directed by Council. Citizen Advised: Permit Applicant Requested by: Robert Sawyer, Planning Director Prepared by: Robert Sawyer, Planning Director Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager, and Mike Harris, Assistant City Manager Attachments: Historical Profile of Property (Pruden) Demolition Permit Review Committee Minutes AP P ROVE D.~~__---~D/~~~'~. ~_. Candace Horsley, City anager Page 2 significant, the Demolition Permit shall be issued by the Building Division in a manner consistent with the provisions contained in the California Building Regulations. As a matter of procedural protocol, Demolition Permit applications are placed on the Council's "Consent Calendar" if the Demolition Permit Review Committee determines beforehand by a unanimous vote that the permit should be issued. Accordingly, the Demolition Permit Review Committee met on April 22, 1997, and voted unanimously (3-0) to find the subject structures not historically, architecturally, or culturally significant. The Committee's decision was based, in part, on the attached historical profile provided by Ms. Judy Pruden, which concludes that the two small structures located at 586 N. State Street are not significant, and that neither contains features which should prohibit them from being demolished. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Bob Sawyer, Planning Director Judy Pruden, Chairman - Demolition Review Committee DATE: April 21, 1997 SUBJECT: 586 N. State - Application for Demolition Permit 586 N. State Street is a small, interior subdivided lot with two rental units, which are occupied. This site was originally the backyard of the Barlett property. The Barlett house, 1898, (Henne's Candy) is still in its original location. This back area was the site of a two story barn and garden. At the time of construction, 1936 - 37, these two structures were built as rental units and addressed as 582-A & B. The property was probably subdivided from the front half in 1952. Although the rental units were owned by two different prominent families, Massavelli and Daubeneck, neither family lived in the houses, and their sole purpose was rental income. There is no apparent significant historical association for the City of Ukiah. The architectural style is so nondescript that the western unit is almost impossible to date without tax records. The eastern unit is sided in bevel-cut or channel rustic drop-siding which is characteristic of 1880-1910 local construction period. My inspection of this unit leads me to believe that the original structure was moved from State Street. It is very close in footprint to a house on the 1898 Sanborn Fire Map which was located where O'Haru Restaurant now sits. However, the subsequential remodelings have destroyed most of the original architectural features of the western unit. Neither unit has any significant architectural style nor features which would prohibit them from demolition. The applicants have indicated they are willing to allow salvage of siding and bricks. The channel-rustic siding is full dimension (7/8") and first growth redwood, and is considered prized archaic material. JP/mh Enc. MEMBERS PRESENT MINUTES DEMOLITION PERMIT REVIEW COMMITTEE April 22, 1997 STAFF PRESENT Dave Lohse, Representing Bob Sawyer Clif Shepard, Building Inspector Judy Pruden, Chairman Marge Giuntoli, Recording Secretary MEMBERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Rick Kennedy, Public Works Director Thom Parducci Bob Sawyer, Planning Director Ken McBurney Mickey Pope The meeting of the Demolition Permit Review Committee was called to order by Chairman Judy Pruden at 1:32 p.m. in Conference Room 3, Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. Roll was taken with the results listed above. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - February 25, 1997 ON A MOTION by Member Shepard, seconded by Chairman Pruden, it was carried by an all AYE voice vote of the members present, to approve the minutes of February 25, 1997 as submitted. 4. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS No comments were made. 5. APPEAL PROCESS Chairman Pruden read and explained the appeal process. . DEMOLITION PERMIT REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS 586 North State Street, Assessor's Parcel No. 002-146-36, Micke¥ and Barbara Pope Chairman Pruden asked Mr. Pope if he had an opportunity to read the evaluation she had prepared on his property. Mickey Pope, applicant, 789 Live Oak Avenue, replied he had not. After being granted a few moments to read the information, he stated that the two dwellings on the property are small, old houses that have little value, and he wishes to replace them with a new apartment building. He will allow salvage of the siding and bricks if he can find anyone who wants them. Demolition Permit Review Committee Page I April 22, 1997 Chairman Pruden advised that the type of channel-rustic siding that is on the eastern unit is in great demand, and there generally is not a problem in finding someone to salvage it. Acting Member Lohse commented that there was a new business on Cunningham Street that will take the salvaged wood, mill it, and use it for furniture. Mr. Pope replied that the Cunningham Street business was contacted and asked to look at the houses slated for demolition. The Ukiah Fire Department is willing to use the western structure for a practice burn; however, burning the eastern structure would endanger the nearby cinder block building. ON A MOTION by Member Shepard, seconded by Acting Member Lohse, it was carried by the following roll call vote, to recommend to the City Council approval of the Demolition Permit for 586 North State Street, Assessor's Parcel No. 002-146-36, based upon the evaluation presented by Chairman Pruden, site observation, and the lack of significant historical or architectural value. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Acting Member Lohse, Member Shepard, and Chairman Pruden. None. None. Members Kennedy, Parducci, and Sawyer. Chairman Pruden advised Mr. Pope that this item will come before the City Council as part of the Consent Calendar at their regular meeting of May 7, 1997. 6B. 623 South State Street, Assessor's Parcel No. 002-302-08, Safeway, Inc. Ken McBurney, Safeway Store Manager, 653 South State Street, was given time to read Chairman Pruden's evaluation of the property. Chairman Pruden advised that the building's interior is a mixture of styles, indicating previous rehabilitation. The construction is inexpensive and the architectural integrity fair. Therefore, she determined in her evaluation that the building lacked any significant historical or architectural value. She expressed her concern relative to the trees on the property, and that if their existence was going to be factored into the site development plan, there should be some sensitivity toward the trees during the demolition process. Acting Member Lohse replied that based on the preliminary landscaping plan staff received from the Safeway offices, it appears that the trees are not going to be factored in, and that the majority of the trees are located in such a way that they will not be preserved once construction is under way. Chairman Pruden asked Mr. McBurney if Safeway had considered salvaging any of the building materials located on the site, and noted that generally the commercial buildings built at that time contained asbestos, although she had not observed any during her site visit. Demolition Permit Review Committee Page 2 April 22, 1997 Mr. McBurney replied current plans call for the salvaging of the heavy pane glass in the front offices and the railing that surrounds the auto repair, as well some of the other materials. He further replied that asbestos inspectors have already begun testing in the existing Safeway store, but that he was unaware of whether they had expanded their efforts into the motel. Acting Member Lohse commented that staff would be concerned if the materials to be salvaged remained on the site for any extended period of time. They prefer the materials be removed as soon as the demolition begins, but in any event no later than 60 days after it is completed. Mr. McBurney replied he was positive the salvaqe materials would be removed immediately; however, in the event salvage does not occur locally, the materials would be shipped offsite to Safeway's salvage warehouse. Discussion followed regarding the homeless individuals currently living on the site, and that care should be exercised that they are informed demolition will be occurring so they may find other living arrangements. ON A MOTION by Member Shepard, seconded by Acting Member Lohse, it was carried by the following roll call vote, to recommend to the City Council approval of the Demolition Permit for 623 South State Street, Assessor's Parcel No. 002-302-08, based upon the evaluation presented by Chairman Pruden, site observation and the lack of significant historical or architectural value. ' AYES: Acting Member Lohse, Member Shepard, and Chairman Pruden. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Members Kennedy, Parducci, and Sawyer. Chairman Pruden advised Mr. McBurney that this item will come before the City Council as part of the Consent Calendar at their regular meeting of May 7, 1997. Member Shepard advised there are two permits required for the demolition process, one from the City Council which will be effective immediately with whatever conditions the Council wishes to impose, and a building permit to demolish, which is obtained from the Planning Department. For that permit to be issued, the Department requires a completed application from the contractor. Chairman Pruden advised the three cinder block units on the site do not fall into the 50 year range; therefore, demolition could begin on those buildings as soon as the contractor completes the application. 7. NEW BUSINESS -- Chairman Pruden reported the structure at 577 Clara Avenue was demolished during the first weeks of April, 1997 and that the Ukiah Fire Department demolished the structure at 510 South Dora Avenue during a practice burn on March 27, 1997. Both sites have been cleared. Demolition Permit Review Committee Page 3 April 22, 1997 She further reported on Section 3300 of the Ukiah City Code relative to unsafe and dilapidated buildings, and stated that Member Parducci had asked her if the Demolition Review Committee could condition or set time frames for abatement of these buildings. Member Shepard noted that in Ukiah City Code Section 301 6, 2C, (2), it is stipulated that the Building Official (Planning Director) may determine that an immediate demolition of a building and subsequent clean-up is necessary to protect the public health and safety. Chairman Pruden commented that in response to numerous public complaints relative to the length of some demolitions, it would appear the code offers a mechanism by which the Planning Department can expedite the process and have the sites cleared in a timely manner. She expressed concern that in other cities similar codes are occasionally used by groups or individuals as an excuse to demolish historical buildings by first declaring them unsafe, and then subsequently tearing them down. Member Shepard clarified that he felt the intent of the specified code section was to bypass the demolition review process if, in the Planning Director's opinion, there was a danger to the public. Acting Member Lohse stated he felt it would be important to look at other sections of the code relative to requiring removal of debris from a demolition. Once the material is on the ground, it becomes more of a "public nuisance" issue, requiring City Council action. The code section should include a time line for debris removal. He stated he would bring the issue to Planning Director Sawyer's attention. Discussion followed relative to the past demolition of local buildings, and the length of salvage time. 8. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 2:07 p.m. Judy Pruden, Chairman Marge Giuntoli, Recording Secretary b:meg\dm42297.min Demolition Permit Review Committee Page 4 April 22, 1997 ITEM NO. 6c DATE: May 7, 1997 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: APPLICATION TO DEMOLISH A VACANT MOTEL COMPLEX OVER 50 YEARS OLD LOCATED AT 623 SOUTH STATE STREET SUMMARY: Pursuant to Ukiah Municipal Code [}3016, the City Council must review Demolition Permit applications for structures 50 years old or more to determine if the structure has historical, architectural, or cultural significance. If an affirmative determination of significance is made, the Demolition Permit shall not be issued. If, on the other hand, the Council determines that the structure is not historically, architecturally, or culturally significant, the Demolition Permit shall be issued by the Building Division in a manner (Continued on page 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Find the motel complex located at 623 South State Street not to be historically, architecturally, or culturally significant, thereby implicitly authorizing issuance of the subject Demolition Permit. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Find the subject motel complex to be historically, architecturally, or culturally significant, thereby disallowing ministerial issuance of the Demolition Permit. 2. Remand the matter back to staff for further investigation, as may be directed by Council. Citizen Advised: Permit Applicant Requested by: Robert Sawyer, Planning Director Prepared by: Robert Sawyer, Planning Director Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager, and Mike Harris, Assistant City Attachments: Historical Profile of Property Demolition Permit Review Committee Minutes APPROVED:(,_~ Candace Horsley, City ~anager Page 2 consistent with the provision contained in the California Building Regulations. Also, as a matter of procedural protocol, Demolition Permit applications are placed on the Council's "Consent Calendar" if the Demolition Permit Review Committee determines beforehand by a unanimous vote that the permit can be issued from an historical review perspective. Accordingly, the Demolition Permit Review Committee met on April 22, 1997, and voted unanimously (3-0) to find the subject motel complex, consisting of 17 rooms, not historically, architecturally, or culturally significant. The Committee's decision was based, in part, on the attached historical profile provided by Ms. Judy Pruden, which concludes that the subject structures have no apparent historical or architectural significance to the City of Ukiah. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM' Bob Sawyer, Planning Director Judy Pruden, Chairman - Demolition Review Committee DATE: April 21, 1997 SUBJECT: 623 S. State, Application for Demolition 623 So. State is a vacant motel with approximately 17 rooms and a reception area. The cinder block units (approximately six), reception area, and portico are less than 50 years of age and are not subject to review. The original motel, properly called State Auto Court, consisted of eleven units and an office. The construction date is somewhat confusing. The 1944 newspaper announced that a new auto court was going to be built on the site and would replace the existing eight unit Isbell Auto Court. However, it appears that the building material shortages of World War II hampered this plan. The 1950 Sanborn Fire Map shows a paste-over on the Isbell footprint but the "new units" are identical in size to the old units, though located further south on the lot. The 1946 newspaper announced a change of ownership but made no mention of new construction. Upon inspection of the property, including looking at numerous rooms, I am of the opinion that 623 So. State is a composite of two building periods; that the original Isbell Auto Court was moved to its current footprint and three additional units were added including the two story office and owner/manager apartment. The facade, auto bays, woodwork, 5-paneled closet doors and sash windows are typical styles and materials from the 1920's. Incorporated into this older material is 1940's electrical heating, ceiling fixtures, different style sash windows, closet doors and woodwork. 623 So. State has a pleasant Spanish/Mission stucco style, but it is not an outstanding example architecturally. There are still numerous auto courts on State Street, reminders of when the road was Redwood Highway 101. At some point in time the City should recognize the need to identify one of the remaining auto courts as historical. However, I do not think that it should be this property. There are few historical photos, building plans, or recorded business history. It appears to have been a second-rate motel, constructed cheaply and with expediency. This structure has no apparent historical or architectural significance to the City of Ukiah. The lot does have several large mature trees, including a magnolia. Serious consideration should be given to protecting this vegetation during the demolition process. The current owners should consider salvage for sale. The large amount of doors, trim, windows, and roof tiling are of value. JP/mh Enc. MEMBERS PRESENT MINUTES DEMOLITION PERMIT REVIEW COMMITTEE April 22, 1997 STAFF PRESENT Dave Lohse, Representing Bob Sawyer Clif Shepard, Building Inspector Judy Pruden, Chairman Marge Giuntoli, Recording Secretary MEMBERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Rick Kennedy, Public Works Director Thom Parducci Bob Sawyer, Planning Director Ken McBurney Mickey Pope The meeting of the Demolition Permit Review Committee was called to order by Chairman Judy Pruden at 1:32 p.m. in Conference Room 3, Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. Roll was taken with the results listed above. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - February 25, 1997 ON A MOTION by Member Shepard, seconded by Chairman Pruden, it was carried by an all AYE voice vote of the members present, to approve the minutes of February 25, 1997 as submitted. 4. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS No comments were made. 5. APPEAL PROCESS Chairman Pruden read and explained the appeal process. 6, DEMOLITION PERMIT REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS 586 North State Street, Assessor's Parcel No. 002-146-36, Mickey and Barbara Pope Chairman Pruden asked Mr. Pope if he had an opportunity to read the evaluation she had prepared on his property. Mickey Pope, applicant, 789 Live Oak Avenue, replied he had not. After being granted a few moments to read the information, he stated that the two dwellings on the property are small, old houses that have little value, and he wishes to replace them with a new apartment building. He will allow salvage of the siding and bricks if he can find anyone who wants them. Demolition Permit Review Committee Page I April 22, 1997 Chairman Pruden advised that the type of channel-rustic siding that is on the eastern unit is in great demand, and there generally is not a problem in finding someone to salvage it. Acting Member Lohse commented that there was a new business on Cunningham Street that will take the salvaged wood, mill it, and use it for furniture. Mr. Pope replied that the Cunningham Street business was contacted and asked to look at the houses slated for demolition. The Ukiah Fire Department is willing to use the western structure for a practice burn; however, burning the eastern structure would endanger the nearby cinder block building. ON A MOTION by Member Shepard, seconded by Acting Member Lohse, it was carried by the following roll call vote, to recommend to the City Council approval of the Demolition Permit for 586 North State Street, Assessor's Parcel No. 002-146-36, based upon the evaluation presented by Chairman Pruden, site observation, and the lack of significant historical or architectural value. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Acting Member Lohse, Member Shepard, and Chairman Pruden. None. None. Members Kennedy, Parducci, and Sawyer. Chairman Pruden advised Mr. Pope that this item will come before the City Council as part of the Consent Calendar at their regular meeting of May 7, 1997. 6B. 623 South State Street, Assessor's Parcel No. 002-302-08, Safeway, Inc. Ken McBurney, Safeway Store Manager, 653 South State Street, was given time to read Chairman Pruden's evaluation of the property. Chairman Pruden advised that the building's interior is a mixture of styles, indicating previous rehabilitation. The construction is inexpensive and the architectural integrity fair. Therefore, she determined in her evaluation that the building lacked any significant historical or architectural value. She expressed her concern relative to the trees on the property, and that if their existence was going to be factored into the site development plan, there should be some sensitivity toward the trees during the demolition process. Acting Member Lohse replied that based on the preliminary landscaping plan staff received from the Safeway offices, it appears that the trees are not going to be factored in, and that the majority of the trees are located in such a way that they will not be preserved once construction is under way. Chairman Pruden asked Mr. McBurney if Safeway had considered salvaging any of the building materials located on the site, and noted that generally the commercial buildings built at that time contained asbestos, although she had not observed any during her site visit. Demolition Permit Review Committee Page 2 April 22, 1997 Mr. McBurne¥ replied current plans call for the salvaging of the heavy pane glass in the front offices and the railing that surrounds the auto repair, as well some of the other materials. He further replied that asbestos inspectors have already begun testing in the existing Safeway store, but that he was unaware of whether they had expanded their efforts into the motel. Acting Member Lohse commented that staff would be concerned if the materials to be salvaged remained on the site for any extended period of time. They prefer the materials be removed as soon as the demolition begins, but in any event no later than 60 days after it is completed. Mr. McBurney replied he was positive the salvage materials would be removed immediately; however, in the event salvage does not occur locally, the materials would be shipped offsite to Safeway's salvage warehouse. Discussion followed regarding the homeless individuals currently living on the site, and that care should be exercised that they are informed demolition will be occurring so they may find other living arrangements. ON A MOTION by Member Shepard, seconded by Acting Member Lohse, it was carried by the following roll call vote, to recommend to the City Council approval of the Demolition Permit for 623 South State Street, Assessor's Parcel No. 002-302-08, based upon the evaluation presented by Chairman Pruden, site observation, and the lack of significant historical or architectural value. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Acting Member Lohse, Member Shepard, and Chairman Pruden. None. None. Members Kennedy, Parducci, and Sawyer. Chairman Pruden advised Mr. McBurney that this item will come before the City Council as part of the Consent Calendar at their regular meeting of May 7, 1997. Member Shepard advised there are two permits required for the demolition process, one from the City Council which will be effective immediately with whatever conditions the Council wishes to impose, and a building permit to demolish, which is obtained from the Planning Department. For that permit to be issued, the Department requires a completed application from the contractor. Chairman Pruden advised the three cinder block units on the site do not fall into the 50 year range; therefore, demolition could begin on those buildings as soon as the contractor completes the application. 7. NEW BUSINESS Chairman Pruden reported the structure at 577 Clara Avenue was demolished during the first weeks of April, 1997 and that the Ukiah Fire Department demolished the structure at 510 South Dora Avenue during a practice burn on March 27, 1997. Both sites have been cleared. Demolition Permit Review Committee Page 3 April 22, 1997 She further reported on Section 3300 of the Ukiah City Code relative to unsafe and dilapidated buildings, and stated that Member Parducci had asked her if the Demolition Review Committee could condition or set time frames for abatement of these buildings. Member Shepard noted that in Ukiah City Code Section 3016, 2C, (2), it is stipulated that the Building Official (Planning Director) may determine that an immediate demolition of a building and subsequent clean-up is necessary to protect the public health and safety. Chairman Pruden commented that in response to numerous public complaints relative to the length of some demolitions, it would appear the code offers a mechanism by which the Planning Department can expedite the process and have the sites cleared in a timely manner. She expressed concern that in other cities similar codes are occasionally used by groups or individuals as an excuse to demolish historical buildings by first declaring them unsafe, and then subsequently tearing them down. Member Shepard clarified that he felt the intent of the specified code section was to bypass the demolition review process if, in the Planning Director's opinion, there was a danger to the public. Acting Member Lohse stated he felt it would be important to look at other sections of the code relative to requiring removal of debris from a demolition. Once the material is on the ground, it becomes more of a "public nuisance" issue, requiring City Council action. The code section should include a time line for debris removal. He stated he would bring the issue to Planning Director Sawyer's attention. Discussion followed relative to the past demolition of local buildings, and the length of salvage time. 8. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 2:07 p.m. Judy Pruden, Chairman Marge Giuntoli, Recording Secretary b:meg\dm42297.min Demolition Permit Review Committee Page 4 April 22, 1997 AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. 6d DATE' MAY 7, 1997 REPORT SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE BOOSTER STATION PROJECT AT THE UKIAH SPECIFICATION NO. 96-17 LEACHATE LANDFILL, Submitted for the City Council's approval is the Notice of Completion for the Leachate Booster Station Project at the Ukiah Landfill, Specification No. 96-17. The Project was awarded on November 6, 1996 to Stiles Construction at the contract price of $136,960 based on estimated quantities and was completed in substantial compliance with the approved plans and specifications on April 17, 1997 at a final construction cost of $138,514. The difference of $1,554 between the award amount and the final construction amount is the result of one Change Order in the amount of $1,610, less $56 resulting from the difference between the estimated bid quantities and the actual quantities installed in place. The Leachate Booster Station Project was the second phase of the Alternative Leachate Containment System required to be installed at the Landfill by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The System Plan was approved by the City Council on July 17, 1996. Funds for the complete system were budgeted under the Landfill Account No. 660-7301-250-011, "Reconstruct Leachate Pond" in the amount of $329,000. An additional $16,235 was transferred into this account from Account No. 66-7301-250-017, for a total revised budget amount of $345,235 in order to fund a shortage of $11,235 and to set aside an allowance of $5,000 for potential change order work for the Phase II work. Costs have been incurred or encumbered for the following Project work items: CONTINUED ON PAGE 2 RECOMMENDED ACTION: City Council accept the work as complete and direct the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder for the Construction of Leachate Booster Station Improvements at the Ukiah Landfill, Specification No. 96-17. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: None. The filing of a Notice of Completion after the project has been deemed complete is required by law and it starts a 30 day time frame wherein providers of labor and materials to the project may file stop notices because of non-payment by the contractor. Appropriation Requested:N/A Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Rick H. Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Rick H. Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Notice of Completion candace Horsley, . Approval of Notice of Completion for the Leachate Booster Station Project at the Ukiah Landfill, Specification No. 96-17 Page 2 WORK DESCRIPTION CONTRACTOR/VENDOR Project Design Contract Design Survey and Mapping Geotechnical Services Power Line Extension Extension Rule Liability Preliminary Design for Power Reproduction of Phase I Plans Construction Survey and Boyle Engineering Corp. Rau and Associates Kleinfelder PG&E PG&E (estimated) PG&E Blueprint Plus Rau and Associates Compaction Testing for Earthwork Service Pole Installation Leachate Piping Improvements (Phase I construction including Change Orders) Encroachment Permit Construction Review Services Reproduction of Phase II Plans Leachate Booster Station (Phase II construction) Wipf Construction Ferranti Construction County of Mendocino Boyle Engineering Blueprint Plus Stiles Construction AMOUNT EXPENDED/ENCUMBERED FOR COMPLETE PROJECT AMOUNT 36,000.00 7,200.00 6,000. O0 ,812.71 1,900.00 2,000. O0 280.00 7,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $107,548.00 125.00 7,000.00 350.00 38,514.00 9339,729.71 The Public Works Director wishes to publicly commend the Designer, Contractors, and our Inspector for a job well done. This Project has been successful because of the efforts of and timely performance by the following firms and individuals. DESIGNER: Boyle Engineering Corporation Carl Jacobson, Project Manager David Peters, Design Leader CONTRACTORS: Ferranti Construction (Phase I) Don Ferranti and Construction Crew Stiles Construction (Phase II) Bob Stiles INSPECTION: Rick Sands, Engineering Associate City of Ukiah GRADING WORK: Public Works Department Jim Looney and Street Crew members R: 1 \LANDFILL ABOOSTER.STN Please return to: CITY OF UKIAH 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, California 95482 (707) 463-6200 NOTICE OF COMPLETION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN: o That the real property described is owned by the following whose address or addresses are: City of Ukiah, a Municipal Corporation 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California 95482 . That the nature of the title to the LEACHATE BOOSTER STATION, SPECIFICATION NO. 96-17, of all said owners is that of fee simple. 3. That on the day of April 17,1997, the Contractor was actually completed. , That the name and address of the Contractor is STILES CONSTRUTION CO.. 6209 Lockwood Drive, Windsor, CA 95492 , That the real property herein referred to is situated in the County of Mendocino, State of California, and is described as City-owned property located at 3100 Vichy Springs Road, Ukiah, CA 95482, CITY OF UKIAH, a Municipal Corporation BY: CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF MENDOCINO) COLLEEN B. HENDERSON, being duly sworn says: That she is the Clerk of the City of Ukiah City Council, that she has read the foregoing Notice of Completion and knows that content thereof and the same is true of her own knowledge. COLLEEN B. HENDERSON, City Clerk Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of , 1997. Notary Public in and for the County of Mendocino, State of California c:\projects\landfill\leachate.bst\noti-com, wpd Approval of Notice of Completion for the Leachate Booster Station Project at the Ukiah Landfill, Specification No. 96-17 Page 2 WORK DESCRIPTION CONTRACTOR/VENDOR Project Design Contract Design Survey and Mapping Geotechnical Services Power Line Extension Extension Rule Liability Preliminary Design for Power Reproduction of Phase I Plans Construction Survey and Boyle Engineering Corp Rau and Associates Kleinfelder PG&E PG&E (estimated) PG&E Blueprint Plus Rau and Associates Compaction Testing for Earthwork Service Pole Installation Leachate Piping Improvements (Phase I construction including Change Orders) Encroachment Permit Construction Review Services Reproduction of Phase II Plans Leachate Booster Station (Phase II construction) Wipf Construction Ferranti Construction County of Mendo¢ino Boyle Engineering Blueprint Plus Stiles Construction AMOUNT EXPENDED/ENCUMBERED FOR COMPLETE PROJECT AMOUNT 36,000.00 7,200.00 6,000.00 21,81 2.71 1,900.00 2,000.00 280.00 7,000.00 4,000.00 $107,548.00 125.00 7,000.00 350.00 38,514.00 $339,729.71 The Public Works Director wishes to publicly commend the Designer, Contractors, and our Inspector for a job well done. This Project has been successful because of the efforts of and timely performance by the following firms and individuals. DESIGNER: Boyle Engineering Corporation Carl Jacobson, Project Manager David Peters, Design Leader CONTRACTORS: Ferranti Construction (Phase I) Don Ferranti and Construction Crew Stiles Construction (Phase II) Bob Stiles INSPECTION: Rick Sands, Engineering Associate City of Ukiah GRADING WORK: Public Works Department Jim Looney and Street Crew members R:I\LANDFILL ABOOSTER.STN ITEM NO.: 8a DATE: May 7, 1997 AGENDA SUMARY REPORT SUBJECT: CONTINUATION OF APPEAL OF USE PERMIT NO. 97-06 (TORI BROWN/LITTLE FRIENDS PRESCHOOL AND DAYCARE) SUMMARY: On April 2, 1997, the City Council heard an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny, without prejudice, a Use Permit application submitted by Ms. Tori Brown on behalf of the Little Friends Preschool and Daycare Center. This application consisted of amending an approved Use Permit to increase the maximum number of children using outdoor play areas at any one time from 14 to 24 children, and to allow all of the 48 children enrolled at the daycare facility to use the play areas during lunch and an afternoon break. Approval of the application would also permit the use of a play structure that was installed in the area west of the playground area, which was approved for use as a lawn area during the approval process for the original Use Permit (#94-28). (continued on Page 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve Use Permit #97-06, as modified by the applicant, subject to the Conditions of Approval recommended by the Planning Department. (A Negative Declaration was adopted for the previously approved Use Permit, and has been adopted by reference since it has been determined that the operational changes proposed by this project are considered to be minor expansions of the original project and would not alter the conclusions reached in the Negative Declaration.) ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY ACTION: Deny the appeal. Citizen Advised: Publicly noticed pursuant to provisions of Ukiah Municipal Code Requested by: Ms. Tori Brown, for Little Friends Preschool and Day Care Center Prepared by: Dave Lohse, Associate Planner Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager and Bob Sawyer, Planning Director Attachments: 1. Letter of opposition from Marlene Werra (dated 4/24/97) Cand~ce Horsley, City; M~,nager SUMMARY (continued from Page Council will also recall that several adjacent and nearby neighbors expressed concern with the nuisance level noise impacts associated with the expanded daycare operation, and comments that indicated that the operators of the daycare center and some of the neighbors most affected by its operation had discussed viable compromise measures. The Council then approved a motion to continue the project to the next available hearing, and directed Planning staff to coordinate a meeting between the daycare operators and affected persons for the purpose of recommending specific measures to mitigate nuisance level noise impacts anticipated from existing or proposed daycare operations. On April 8, 1997, Planning staff did meet with daycare operators and persons from the surrounding neighborhood, and the majority of persons present agreed that certain modifications of the prior Use Permit conditions would be reviewed during a trial period to determine if the modified operation of the daycare would result in nuisance impacts to neighboring properties. Specifically, the agreement would permit a larger number of children to use existing and proposed outdoor play areas during recess and meal periods, but for fewer hours per day. The agreement also stipulates that the play structure located on the southwest portion of the playground area would be relocated to an area that would be at least thirty feet from adjacent property lines prior to its use. It was also decided at this meeting that the trial period would extend from April 9th, the day after the meeting, to the City Council hearing on May 7th to allow an adequate period to review changes. Planning Department staff reported on the results of this meeting during the Council's hearing on April 19th, and was directed to allow the trial period to continue until the May 7th meeting. The Council also advised the applicant that the play structure on the western play area should be moved if it was to be considered as part of the modifications being reviewed during the trial period. This structure was moved to the northwest corner of the play area on Sunday, April 27th. Planning Department staff and the Code Enforcement Officer monitored compliance with the measures agreed to for the trial period, and have noted no operating activities that do not comply with these measures. Staff's observations were made during unannounced visits, and occurred both on the site and from an abutting vacant parcel located at 470 Observatory Avenue. During these visits, staff observed that the changes in the operation of the daycare during the trial period had altered the impacts caused by the children eating and/or playing outside. These changes include the following: The increased number of children in the designated play areas does cause an increase in the overall level of noise on the site during outside play periods. However, staff did not note a significant noise increase at any of the boundary lines for abutting properties. It is staff's opinion that the lack of discernible noise increases at property lines is probably due to the buffering effects of the daycare building, which separates the "bike" play area from the other play area. The relocation of the play structure does not lessen the noise levels caused by children playing on it. It does, however, move the structure to an area that is approximately 75 feet from the abutting properties located along the south side of the daycare site, which does provide some attenuation of the nuisance level noise impacts that the residents of these properties have noted. In addition, the applicant has indicated that the play area located directly south of the daycare center would not be used for outdoor activities if the play structure was in use, and that a maximum of 12 children would be permitted on this structure if the proposed increase in the number of children allowed to use the play areas is allowed. Therefore, there could actually be a slight overall decrease in the levels of noise experienced by these neighbors. The relocation of the play structure also reduces the majority of visual impact and privacy issues that were caused by its previous location. Noise levels caused by 24 children eating lunch in the approved play area on the south side of the preschool/daycare building were actually consistent with the noise caused by 12 children playing in this same area. It is the opinion of staff that this relatively Iow level of noise is attributable to the more regimented meal- time activities and extra supervision provided by center staff. The periods of time that children are permitted outside for meals or play have been reduced from a maximum of 8.5 hours to a maximum of 7 hours; the proposed outdoor play hours now begin later in the morning and end earlier in the afternoon. Based on its previous analyses and its observations conducted during the trial period, it is the opinion of Planning staff that the levels of noise on the site are anticipated to increase if the proposed use modifications are approved. However, it is the further opinion of staff that this increase in noise would not cause harmful levels of noise or cause a substantial increase in the nuisance level noise impacts experienced by persons on abutting residential properties. This opinion is based on the fact that the primary noise sources would be located in two separate play areas separated by a 14-foot high building that serves as an effective noise buffer. Staff also notes that the nuisance level noise impacts are highly subjective in nature, and may bother some persons more than others. Therefore, it is the opinion of staff that the compromise measures that resulted from the community outreach meeting would provide adequate mitigation for anticipated noise impacts associated with the daycare operation. Based on the conclusions described above, the Planning Department does recommend that Use Permit No. 97-06, as modified by the applicant, be approved. Staff's recommendation is based, in part, on the following findings: , The project, as modified by the applicant and conditioned by the terms of the approval, is consistent with the goals and policies of the Ukiah Valley General Plan, and with the applicable use and development standards for the R-1 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District; , It has been determined that the operational changes proposed by this project are minor expansions that would not alter the conclusions of the Negative Declaration prepared and adopted for the original Use Permit (#94-28), pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, which determined that no significant adverse environmental impacts would be caused by the development or operation of the daycare center; and . The maintenance and operation of the daycare center will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, or general welfare of persons working or residing in the neighborhood since the proposed operational modifications do not increase the number of children using the site or the noise levels experienced by individual neighbors of the daycare center. The approval of the modified operational measures would effectively supersede Condition No. 4 of the original Use Permit (No. 94-28), and should be included as Conditions of Approval Nos. 1-4 for Use Permit No. 97-06. These conditions shall be made a permanent part of the Use Permits that govern the operation of the daycare, shall remain in force regardless of property ownership, and shall be implemented in order for this entitlement to remain valid: o Outdoor activities shall be limited to the hours between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., on Mondays through Fridays. , The playground/biking area located north of the daycare structure shall be limited to a maximum of 12 children during the permitted outdoor activity hours. , The fenced playground area located to the south and west of the daycare structure shall be limited to a maximum of 12 children during the permitted outdoor activity hours, except during a lunch period (11:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m) and a snack period (2:15 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.), when the total number of children permitted in this area shall be limited to 24 children. Outdoor activities in all playground areas shall be limited to the serving and consumption of meals during the permitted lunch and snack periods. , No additional climbing structures, slides or other structures that allow children to climb above a height of six feet shall be constructed within 75 feet of the property lines for abutting properties. APR 2 5 1997 CITY CLFliK iJF_,H/..NN'I-IviEINi"i 721 S. Dora Ukiah, Ca 95482 April 24, 1997 To City Council of Ukiah Re: permit for expansion of Little Frien~Day Care Center #97-06 In doing a spot check of day care centers located in residential areas, the following statistics are available. CENTER 1) NEW LIFE at Presbyterian Church, 300 W. Smith Enrollment Max in play area at one time .Lunch Snacks in PM 70 20 No rare: 17 max Playgound site: faces street and buffered by 2 story buildiJg from residences. 2) CDC at Methodist church 270 N. Pine 47 35 No Playground faces street & 2 story building buffers residences. 3) Co-op Nursery School 444 Park Blvd 30 15..lhr AM 15..1 hr Pm No no Playground site surrounded on three sides by residences immediately adjacent to play area. rare 30 at one time Please compare this with the number of children asked for by Little Friends Day Care center.Quite a difference]:f I really feel there should be no compromise on this application to double the number of children in the play areas. It was a mistake to grant the original permit for 14 children. Doubling the number of children is only going to compound the mistake Their expansion should be m~ved to a com- mercial zoned area where the natural exhuberance of children playing would be acceptable. These houses were built long bmfore the arrival of the day care center. The owners are entitled to enjoy the peace and quiet of their ba~yards throughout the day. Presently there is no barrier between the play- ground and the residential area except for a 6 foot board fence .... hardly adequate to handle the noise facCor. Please look at the other day care centers that are in residential neighborhoods in Ukiah. Ail have adequate noise barriers to insulate the neighbors from the play areas. The Co-op which does not, limits their usage to two hours a day with a limit of 15 per period. I would urge you to consider the rights of the adjacent neighbors in this case and deny the application. Sincerely, Marlene Werra AGENDA SUMARY ITEM NO. 8b DATE: May 7, 1997 REPORT SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP TO REDESIGNATE 715 PARCELS OF LAND SUMMARY: As a result of decisions made by the City Council during the General Plan City- wide Rezoning Program, the new General Plan Land Use Designations on 715 parcels within the City Limits are being changed back to the designations that were in place prior to the adoption of the General Plan. The City Council determined that the existing zoning on these parcels is reasonable and appropriate, and as a result, the old Land Use Designations must be restored to provide consistency between the General Plan and the assigned zoning classifications on the parcels. This is not a rezoning project, and will not change the allowed or permitted uses on the subject parcels. Staff conducted a detailed General Plan consistency analysis as a part of the Planning Commission staff report (attachment #2). Based upon this analysis, Staff and the Planning Commission were able to determine that the reestablishment of the previous Land Use Designations would not invalidate or cause inconsistencies in the goals and policies of the General Plan. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend City Council approval of this General Plan Land Use Map Amendment project. It has been determined that this General Plan Amendment project is not subject to the requirements of CEQA, pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines (no possible impact rule) because it merely confirms the existing zoning classifications on the subject parcels, the parcels are developed with conforming land uses, and no change would occur to the potential type, intensity, or density of possible development on the parcels from what currently exists. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt the Resolution amending the General Plan Land Use Map to redesignate 715 parcels of land. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: 1. Do not adopt the proposed Resolution, and provide direction to staff. Citizen Advised: Publicly noticed according to the provisions of State law Requested by: Planning Department Prepared by: Charley Stump, Senior Planner Coordinated with: Attachments: 1. , Candace Horsley, City Manager and Bob Sawyer, Planning Director Resolution assigning new General Plan Land Use Designations to 715 parcels of land. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated April 9, 1997 Planning Commission Minutes, dated April 9, 1997 APPROVED: Candace Horsley, City Mart~ager 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 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH AMENDING THE CITY GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP WHEREAS, in 1995, the City Council unanimously adopted the revised Ukiah General Plan, which assigned new Land Use Designations to a number of parcels located in the City; and WHEREAS, during the General Plan Rezoning Program in 1996, the City Council took a closer look at the land patterning established in the revised General Plan, and determined that a number of the new Land Use Designations were inappropriate because of the existing development on the parcels, a lack of conformance with the siting criteria contained in the plan, or the presence of conflicts with surrounding land uses; and WHEREAS, as a result of their conclusion that a number of the new Land Use Designations contained in the Plan were inappropriate, the City Council directed staff to initiate a General Plan amendment project to reestablish the previous Land use designations on the subject parcels; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the reestablishment of the previous Land Use Designations for the subject parcels is consistent with the goals and policies of the plan, because 1) the parcels qualify for the Land Use Designations according to the siting criteria contained in the Land Use Element of the Plan; 2) the vacant land survey, housing production goals, and over housing mix envisioned for the City are not significantly altered or invalidated; and 3) the reestablished Land Use Designations are consistent with the roadway capacity standards and street classifications articulated in the Circulation & Transportation Element. WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this General Plan Amendment project is not subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, because 1) there is no possibility that it will have a significant effect on the environment because 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 it merely confirms the existing zoning classifications on the subject parcels, and no change would occur to the potential type, intensity, or density of possible development on the parcels from what currently exists; and 2) the subject parcels are developed with land uses which conform to the allowed and permitted uses of the proposed General Plan Land Use Designation. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Ukiah hereby amends the General Plan Land Use Map by redesignating the 715 parcels listed on the attached Exhibit "A." PASSED AND ADOPTED on AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: , by the following roll call vote: Sheridan Malone, Mayor ATTEST: Colleen B. Henderson, City Clerk EXHIBIT "A" General Plan Amendment #1 (97-15) Assessor's Location Current Use General Plan Proposed new Parcel Number Designation Designation and existing Zoning 002-121-12 Ford & State Streets Ukiah Fitness Center HDR C/C-2 002-151-09 Mason & Norton Auto Body & Repair HDR C/C-2 Streets Facility 002-200-40 State Street & Empire McDonalds MDR C/C-2 Drive (NW) Restaurant 001-370-24 State Street & Empire Tack Shop MDR C/C-1 Drive (SW) 2-071-8,9,10,11 Low Gap Road & Single Family C LDP,/R-1 Bush Street Residential 2-072-1,2,9 Low Gap Road & Single Family C LDPJR-1 Bush Street Residential 2-080-39 Low Gap Road & Church (Jehov Wit) C LDPJR-1 Oak Street 2-080-13,14,15,16, Gibson Street & Single Family MDR LDR/R-1 18,19,42,43 Oak Street Residential 1-266-21 Holden & Dora Multiple Family LDR HDR/R-3 Streets Residential 3-520-15,16,17 Dora Street & Single Family C MDR/R-2 Washington Avenue Residential 3-471-11,12 South Dora Street & Multiple Family C HDPJR-3 Beacon Lane Residential 1-302-3,4,5,8,9,11,12 West side of Carolyn Single Family MDR LDPJR-1 Street Residential 3-031-14, 26, 29, 32, Court Street Single Family MDR LDPJR-1 35, 47, 50, 53, 60, Residential 62, 63, 64, 65, 76 3-540-33, 44, 45, 46, Washington Court Multiple Family C HDR/R-3 47, 48, 49, 50, 51 Residential 3-472-15 through 25, Beacon Way & Single Family MDR LDP,/R-1 27, 28, 29, 34 Berkeley Way Residential 2-251-1 through 5 Blocks 211, 212, 213 Single Family 2-211-1 through 4 and 251, Dora Street Residential MDR LDP,/R-1 2-212-3 between Smith and 2-213-4,7,8 Srephenson Streets Assessor's Location Current Use General Plan Proposed new Parcel Number Designation Designation and existing Zoning 2-182-1 through 6 2-182-10 through 13 2-182-15 2-182-22 West of Oak Street Single Family 2-182-23 and School Street, residential MDR LDR/R-1 2-182-25 south of Scott Street 2-182-26 2-184-1 through 3 2-184-5 2-184-6 2-184-8 2-184-21 2-211-1 through 4 2-212-3 Fronting the east side Single Family 2-213-4 of Dora Street, south Residential & 2 MDR LDR/R-1 2-213-7 of Smith Street churches 2-213-8 2-114-27 2-114-41 2-114-49 2-114-58 East of Oak Street, Primarily single family MDR LDR/R-1 2-114-59 and south of Gibson residential 2-114-60 through 62 Street 2-114-64 through 66 2-114-71 through 85 2-145-2 2-145-4 2-145-5 2-145-7 through 12 2-145-14 through 18 2-145-21 through 25 2-146-1 2-146-8 East of Oak Street, Primarily single family MDR LDR/R-1 2-146-10 south of Ruddock residential 2-146-13 Street, and north of 2-146-17 Scott Street 2-146-27 2-146-28 2-146-32 2-146-36 2-146-37 2-302-25 Southeast corner of 2-302-32 the intersection of Commercial offices MDR C/C-1 2-302-37 Marshall Street and and commercial retail 2-302-52 South Main Street 3-050-11 through 13 3-050-52 West side of Apple Single family 3-050-66 Avenue residential & MDR C/C-2 3-050-81 contractor's shop (66) 3-050-82 Assessor's Location Current Use General Plan Proposed new Parcel Number Designation Designation and existing Zoning 002-301-11, 14, 22, East side of Oak Multiple family 45 Street, south of Mill residential and MDR HDR/R-3 Street commercial 2-241-4, 5, 6 East side of Leslie Single Family Street, north of Peach Residential C MDR/R-2 Street 2-245-11, 12, 13, 14, East side of Leslie Single Family 15, 16, 17 Street, north of Peach Residential C MDP,/R-2 Street 2-290-52 497 Leslie Street Senior Center HDR C/C-1 2-290-40 555 Leslie Street Real Goods Trading HDR C/C-1 Company Offices 179-050-5 700 Gobbi Street Mobile Home Park MDR HDR/R-3 179-070-1 through Oak Manor Court Duplexes LDR MDR/R-2 14 1-293-11, 12 516, 526 Oak Street Single Family C LDR/R-1 Residences 1-294-11, 26, 27 610, 618, 620 Oak Single Family C LDPJR-1 Street Residences 1-430-2, 4, 7, 15, 16, NW corner of Low single family 17, 19 Gap Road and Bush residences, a duplex Street intersection structure, the Even Start Family Literacy MDR HDR/R-3 program building (School District), and a portion of the Cemetery. 180-040-6, 7, 8 Caldwell Frontage Bob's Trading Post, Road single family dwelling, AG C/C-1 and a vacant parcel 179-061-40 through 49; 179-062-1 through El Rio Street and Duplex residential 12; Yosemite Drive units LDR MDR/R-2 179-062-19 through 30 Assessor's Location Current Use General Plan Proposed new Parcel Number Designation Designation and existing Zoning 001-351-1 through 20; 001-352-2 through 20; 001-352-22 001-352-23 001-352-26 001-352-27 001-352-32 001-352-34 001-352-35 001-353-2 through 28;001-354-1 through 9; 001-355-1 through 4; 001-370-02 through 08 001-370-10 through 20; 001-370-26 through 35 001-381-01 through 15; 001-382-01 through 24 001-383-01 through 22; 001-384-01 through 23 001-385-01 through 05; 001-386-01 through 09 001-391-1 through Empire Gardens Sub Single family MDR LDPJR-1 10; 001-391-13 and North Oak Street/ residential 001-391-14 Elm Street Sub 001-391-15 001-392-1 through 25; 001-393-1 through 27 001-394-1 through 28; 001-395-1 through 17 001-396-01 through 17; 001-430-11 through 13 001-430-22 through 25; 001-450-3 through 6 001-450-8 001-450-9 002-071-8 through 11; 002-072-1 002-072-2 002-072-9 002-080-4 002-080-10 002-080-13 through 16; 002-080-18 002-080-19 002-080-32 002-080-35 002-080-39 Assessor's Location Current Use General Plan Proposed new Parcel Number Designation Designation and existing Zoning 3-073-5 through 9, South side of Luce Single Family 12, 13, 14 Avenue between Residential Dora Street and HDR LDR/R-1 South Street 3-074-1,2,8,9,10 East side of South Single Family HDR LDR/R-1 Street between Luce Residential Avenue and Observatory Avenue 3-530-4 202 Washington Single family Avenue residence and rental C HDPJR-3 cottage 3-072-4 through 8 North side of Luce Avenue between Single family HDR LDR/R-1 South Street and residential State Street 3-090-15 through 21; 3-O90-23 3-090-25 through 29; 3-090-31, 32; 3-100-7, 8, 11 through 14, 19, 22; Single family MDR LDR/R-1 3-150-10 through 22; Marlene, Lorraine, residences 3-150-33; and Betty Streets 3-161-1, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 51, 58, 59, 60, 61; 3-571-1 through 15; 3-572-1 through 15; 3-572-1 through 25; 3-071-1 through 7 North side of Luce Street between Dora Single Family HDR LDPJR-1 Street and South Residential Avenue CITY OF UKIAH PLANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: DATE: 7B. 04-09-97 DATE: April 9, 1997 TO: City of Ukiah Planning Commission FROM: City of Ukiah Planning Department SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment (97-15) APPLICANT: City of Ukiah PROJECT SUMMARY: As a result of decisions made by the Ukiah City Council during the General Plan City-wide Rezoning Program, the new General Plan Land Use Designations on 715 parcels within the City Limits are being changed back to their previous designations. The City Council has determined that the existing zoning on these parcels is reasonable and appropriate, and as a result, the Land Use Designations must be changed to provide consistency between the General Plan and the assigned zoning classifications on the parcels. This is not a rezoning project, and will not change the allowed or permitted uses on the subject parcels. This project is quasi-legislative in nature and does not require City Planning Commissioners to visit the site prior to formulating a recommendation to the City Council. PROJECT LOCATION: Generally Citywide DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department recommends that the Planning Commission recommend City Council APPROVAL of the General Plan Amendment. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: The City of Ukiah has determined that this General Plan Amendment project is not subject to the requirements of CEQA, pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines (no possible impact rule) because it merely confirms the existing zoning classifications on the subject parcels, and no change would occur to the potential type, intensity, or density of possible development on the parcels from what currently exists. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: Various ZONING DISTRICTS: Vadous PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project involves amending the General Plan Land Use Map by changing the Land Use designation on 715 parcels. Specifically, changing 4 parcels from HDR (High Density Residential) to C (Commercial); 7 parcels from HDR to LDR (Low Density Residential); 31 parcels from MDR (Medium Density Residential) to C; 13 parcels from C to LDR; 572 parcels from MDR to LDR; 1 parcel from LDR to HDR; 13 parcels from C to MDR; 12 parcels from C to HDR; 12 parcels from MDR to HDR; 48 parcels from LDR to MDR; and 3 parcels from AG (Agriculture) to C. STAFF ANALYSIS: The following table lists the subject parcels, their locations, current land uses, existing General Plan Land Use Designations, and the proposed new designation and existing zoning. Assessor's Location Current Use General Plan Proposed new Parcel Number Designation Designation and existing Zoning 002-121-12 Ford & State Streets Ukiah Fitness Center HDR C/C-2 002-151-09 Mason & Norton Auto Body & Repair HDR C/C-2 Streets Facility 002-200-40 State Street & Empire McDonalds MDR C/C-2 Drive (NW) Restaurant 001-370-24 State Street & Empire Tack Shop MDR C/C-1 Drive (SW) 2-071-8,9,10,11 Low Gap Road & Single Family C LDFUR-1 Bush Street Residential 2-072-1,2,9 Low Gap Road & Single Family C LDP-JR-1 Bush Street Residential 2-080-39 Low Gap Road & Church (Jehov W~) C LDR/R-1 Oak Street 2-080-13,14,15,16, Gibson Street & Single Family MDR LDPJR-1 18,19,42,43 Oak Street Residential 1-266-21 Holden & Dora Multiple Family LDR HDR/R-3 Streets Residential 3-520-15,16,17 Dora Street & Single Family C MDPJR-2 Washington Avenue Residential 3-471-11,12 South Dora Street & Multiple Family C HDPJR-3 Beacon Lane Residential 1-302-3,4,5,8,9,11,12 West side of Carolyn Single Family MDR LDPJR-1 Street Residential 3-031-14, 26, 29, 32, Court Street Single Family MDR LDR/R-1 35, 47, 50, 53, 60, Residential 62, 63, 64, 65, 76 3-540-33, 44, 45, 46, Washington Court Multiple Family C HDPJR-3 47, 48, 49, 50, 51 Residential 3-472-15 through 25, Beacon Way & Single Family MDR LDR/P,-1 27, 28, 29, 34 Berkeley Way Residential 2-251-1 through 5 Blocks 211, 212, 213 Single Family 2-211-1 through 4 and 251, Dora Street Residential MDR LDPJR-1 2-212-3 between Smith and 2-213-4,7,8 Srephenson Streets 2-182-1 through 6 2-182-10 through 13 2-182-15 2-182-22 West of Oak Street Single Family 2-182-23 and School Street, residential MDR LDPJR-1 2-182-25 south of Scott Street 2-182-26 2-184-1 through 3 2-184-5 2-184-6 2-184-8 2-184-21 2-211-1 through 4 2-212-3 Fronting the east side Single Family 2-213-4 of Dora Street, south Residential & 2 MDR LDPJR-1 2-213-7 of Smith Street churches 2-213-8 2-114-27 2-114-41 2-114-49 2-114-58 East of Oak Street, Primarily single family MDR LDPJR-1 2-114-59 and south of Gibson residential 2-114-60 through 62 Street 2-114-64 through 66 2-114-71 through 85 2-145-2 2-145-4 2-145-5 2-145-7 through 12 2-145-14 through 18 2-145-21 through 25 2-146-1 2-146-8 East of Oak Street, Primarily single family MDR LDPJR-1 2-146-10 south of Ruddock residential 2-146-13 Street, and north of 2-146-17 Scott Street 2-146-27 2-146-28 2-146-32 2-146-36 2-146-37 2-302-25 Southeast corner of 2-302-32 the intersection of Commercial offices MDR C/C-1 2-302-37 Marshall Street and and commercial retail 2-302-52 South Main Street 3-050-11 through 13 3-050-52 West side of Apple Single family 3-050-66 Avenue residential & MDR C/C-2 3-050-81 contractor's shop (66) 3-050-82 002-301-11, 14, 22, East side of Oak Multiple family 45 Street, south of Mill residential and MDR HDPJR-3 Street commercial 2-241-4, 5, 6 East side of Leslie Single Family Street, north of Peach Residential C MDPJR-2 Street 2-245-11, 12, 13, 14, East side of Leslie Single Family 15, 16, 17 Street, north of Peach Residential C MDR/R-2 Street 2-290-52 497 Leslie Street Senior Center HDR C/C-1 2-290-40 555 Leslie Street Real Goods Trading HDR C/C-1 Company Offices 179-050-5 700 Gobbi Street Mobile Home Park MDR HDR/R-3 179-070-1 through Oak Manor Court Duplexes LDR MDR/R-2 14 1-293-11, 12 516, 526 Oak Street Single Family C LDPJR-1 Residences 1-294-11, 26, 27 610, 618, 620 Oak Single Family C LDR/R-1 Street Residences 1-430-2, 4, 7, 15, 16, NW corner of Low single family 17, 19 Gap Road and Bush residences, a duplex Street intersection structure, the Even Start Family Literacy MDR HDR/R-3 program building (School District), and a portion of the Cemetery. 180-040-6, 7, 8 Caldwell Frontage Bob's Trading Post, Road single family dwelling, AG C/C-1 and a vacant parcel 179-061-40 through 49; 179-062-1 through El Rio Street and Duplex residential 12; Yosemite Drive units LDR MDR/R-2 179-062-19 through 30 3-090-15 through 21; 3-090-23 3-090-25 through 29; 3-090-31, 32; 3-100-7, 8, 11 through 14, 19, 22; Single family MDR LDPJR-1 3-150-10 through 22; Marlene, Lorraine, residences 3-150-33; and Betty Streets 3-161-1, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 51, 58, 59, 60, 61; 3-571-1 through 15; 3-572-1 through 15; 3-572-1 through 25; 3-071-1 through 7 North side of Luce Street between Dora Single Family HDR LDPJR-1 Street and South Residential Avenue 4 001-351-1 through 20; 001-352-2 through 20; 001-352-22 001-352-23 001-352-26 001-352-27 001-352-32 001-352-34 001-352-35 001-353-2 through 28;001-354-1 through 9; 001-355-1 through 4; 001-370-02 through 08 001-370-10 through 20; 001-370-26 through 35 001-381-01 through 15; 001-382-01 through 24 001-383-01 through 22; 001-384-01 through 23 001-385-01 through 05; 001-386-01 through 09 001-391-1 through 10; 001-391-13 001-391-14 001-391-15 001-392-1 through 25; 001-393-1 through 27 001-394-1 through 28; 001-395-1 through 17 001-396-01 through 17; 001-430-11 through 13 001-430-22 through 25; 001-450-3 through 6 001-450-8 001-450-9 002-071-8 through 11; 002-072-1 002-072-2 002-072-9 002-080-4 002-080-10 002-080-13 through 16; 002-080-18 002-080-19 002-080-32 002-080-35 002-080-39 Empire Gardens Sub and North Oak Street/ Elm Street Sub Single family residential MDR LDR/R-1 3-073-5 through 9, South side of Luce Single Family 12, 13, 14 Avenue between Residential Dora Street and HDR LDR/R-1 South Street 3-074-1,2,8,9,10 East side of South Single Family HDR LDR/R-1 Street between Luce Residential Avenue and Observatory Avenue 3-530-4 202 Washington Single family Avenue residence and rental C HDR/R-3 cottage 3-072-4 through 8 North side of Luce Avenue between Single family HDR LDPJR-1 South Street and residential State Street VVhile staff regards this General Plan Amendment project as "house-keeping" in nature, we did conduct a General Plan consistency analysis to determine if the Land Use Designation changes would invalidate other aspects of the General Plan, or would be inconsistent with the goals and policies of the plan. Based upon the nature of the proposed General Plan Amendment project, we focused our analysis on the Housing, Traffic/Circulation, and Land Use Elements. Housing Element In terms of the Housing Element, the proposed General Plan Amendment project would result in an increase in HDR designated parcels; a decrease in MDR designated parcels; and an increase in LDR designated parcels. The following table contrasts the three residential designations: LAND USE PARCELS LOST PARCELS GAINED NET DESIGNATION DIFFERENCE LDR 49 596 +544 MDR 606 61 -545 HDR 19 25 +6 The Introduction section of the Housing Element states that a pdmary goal is to conserve existing stable neighborhoods. The decrease in MDR designated land, and the increase in LDR designated parcels, is a result of the City Council's decision to conserve existing stable single family residential neighborhoods in the Empire Gardens and Lorraine Street/Betty Street area. Vacant Land Survey: The main focus of the Housing Element is on vacant land. Changing the designations from MDR or HDR to LDR on vacant land could jeopardize the important goals for providing opportunities for medium and higher density housing in the City. However, none of the subject parcels are vacant, and the vast majodty are developed with stable well maintained single family residences. Accordingly, the proposed General Plan amendment project does not adversely affect the vacant land survey contained in the Housing Element. Housing Production Goals: The proposed General Plan Amendment project would not adversely affect the housing production goals of the Housing Element, because once again, the focus is on vacant land. In addition, even though a considerable number of developed parcels are being changed from MDR to LDR, there is still opportunity for potential second residential units. Overall Housing Mix: The proposed General Plan Amendment does not jeopardize the City's ability to provide opportunity for a mix of housing types, because the important vacant land acreages for MDR and HDR land would not be changed. Additionally, the P-D (Planned Development) provisions contained in the zoning ordinance, which potentially allow a mix of housing types and densities are intact. Conclusions: For the reasons listed above, it is staffs conclusion that this General Plan Amendment project, as directed by the City Council does not invalidate or jeopardize the integrity of the Housing Element. Circulation & Transportation Element One of the primary policies of the Circulation/Transportation Element is to ensure that dense, high intensity development occur along High Intensity Development Corridors and streets capable of handling the associated traffic loads. Accordingly, staff evaluated the proposed Land Use Designation changes to determine if existing high intensity development that would retain its corresponding zoning was located appropriately in terms of the City street system. The majority of parcels with Land Use Designation changes involving the assignment of a higher intensity designation are located on major streets, such as State Street, Dora Street, Gobbi Street, and Bush Street. Others involve parcels situated on smaller streets in very close proximity to major roadways, such as Washington Court and Washington Street. In all cases, the parcels are currently developed with commercial or multiple family residential land uses. Staff is able to conclude that the proposed Land Use Designation changes are consistent with the goals and policies of the Circulation/Transportation Element. Land Use Element The Land Use Element requires that Land Use Designations be assigned according to the goals and policies of the entire plan. Generally, the guiding factors used to assign designations, along with the various goals and policies of the plan include 1) development constraints, such as slopes, noise contours, and floodplains; 2) resources, such as dparian corridors and agricultural lands; and 3) infrastructure, such as sewer and water service, fire protection, and roadway capacity. These factors create siting criteria and characteristics that are used to fine tune the allocation of land uses in the plan. Staff reviewed the existing land uses on the subject parcels in terms of the siting criteria and characteristics, and has determined that the proposed land use designations are in conformance, and therefore the proposal is consistent with the land patterning policies of the Land Use Element. We also found no inconsistencies between the proposed Land Use Designations and the Non- Conforming Land Use section of the Land Use Element. The majority of changes are the result of "mistakes" in the land patterning, rather than concerted efforts to phase-out specific land uses. One possible exception is the grouping of three parcels on Caldwell Frontage Road which the General Plan had changed the designation from "C" (Commercial) to "AG" (Agriculture). However, the City Council discussed the matter in detail, and decided that the "AG" designation was inappropriate and that the existing commercial land use should not be phased out. Accordingly, they directed that the "C" designation be retained. Staff is able to conclude that the proposed Land Use Designation changes are consistent with the purpose, goals, and policies of the Land Use Element. CONCLUSIONS: The newly adopted City General Plan provides new Land Use Designations for a number of properties in the community. However, during the Citywide rezoning program, the City Council determined that a number of the new designations were inappropriate, and directed this General Plan amendment project to reestablish the previous Land Use Designations on the parcels. Based on a detailed analysis, staff has determined that the reestablishment of the previous Land Use Designations would not invalidate or cause inconsistencies in the goals and policies of the General Plan. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution amending the General Plan Land Use Map ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: The following personnel prepared and reviewed this Planning Report, respectively: ~ ~~b~~~nning Director way on the east side of Orchard Avenue from Ford Street to the proposed Orr Creek bridge. The revision would clarify that 40 feet, not 66 feet, of right-of-way is needed to extend Orchard Avenue to Brush Street in order to be consistent with the Kmart Mitigated Negative Declaration, and that 33 feet of right-of-way on the east side of Orchard Avenue from Ford Street to the Orr Creek bridge is not needed since a previously approved subdivision map already dedicates the required additional right-of-way to the City. Senior Planner, Charley Stump briefly introduced the proposed amendment to Kmart Use Permit, #93-32, Condition of Approval #19, and described it as primarily a "housekeeping" item. He noted Condition of Approval #19 originally required 66 feet of right-of-way from the proposed Orr Creek bridge to Brush Street, and an additional 33 feet of right-of-way on the east side of Orchard Avenue from Ford Street to the bridge. The amendment would clarify that 33 feet, not 66 feet, of right-of-way is actually needed to extend Orchard to Brush in order to accomplish the two lane road envisioned by the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and that the 33 feet of right-of-way on the east side of Orchard from Ford to the Orr Creek bridge is not needed since a previously approved subdivision map already dedicates the required additional right-of-way to the City. Mr. Stump concluded that Planning Staff and the City Engineer have reviewed and are in agreement on recommending an amendment to this Condition. He introduced Attorney Richard Henderson, who was in attendance on behalf of the applicant, Pear Orchard Associates, to answer questions or provide clarification. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 7:06 P.M. Richard Henderson, 327 N. State Street, #206, Ukiah, introduced himself as representative of the Pear Orchard Associates and invited questions from the Commission. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:07 P.M. ON A MOTION by Commissioner Chiles, Seconded by Commissioner Correll, it was carried by the following roll call vote to approve the proposed amendment of Kmart Use Permit #93-32, Condition of Approval #19, to read as follows, with the Conclusions and Findings #1-4 as stated in the Planning Staff Report:: 19. "Property owner shall provide 40 feet of right-of-way on Orchard Avenue from the proposed Orr Creek bridge north to Brush Street in order to accommodate a basic two lane roadway consisting of 24 feet of paved road, 6 feet of unimproved shoulders, and drainage ditches on each side of the road. The right-of-way required on Orchard Avenue between Ford Street and the proposed Orr Creek bridge is 60 feet, and this full width road right-of-way has already been dedicated to the City via the Grant Deed recorded in Book 1228, Page 566, records of the Mendocino County Recorder. The ultimate road width right-of-way of Orchard Avenue north of the Orr Creek bridge is 60 feet; however, the balance of the 60-foot right-of-way will have to be dedicated upon the development of the fronting properties." AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Chiles, Puser, Correll, and Chairman Pruden None None Commissioner Larson Mr. Henderson commended the City Planning Department for their work. 7B. General Plan Amendment No. 1, as filed by the City Planning Department, to change the General Plan Land Use Designation on 707 parcels of land. As a result of decisions made by the Ukiah City Council during the General Plan City-wide Rezoning Program, the new General Plan Land Use MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 2 April 09, 1997 Designations on 707 parcels within the City Limits are being changed back to their previous designations. The City Council has determined that the existing zoning on these parcels is reasonable and appropriate, and as a result, the Land Use Designations must be changed to provide consistency between the General Plan and the assigned zoning classifications on the parcels. The is not a rezoning project, and will not change the allowed or permitted uses on the subject parcels. Senior Planner, Charley Stump, gave a brief overview of the General Plan Amendment, as outlined in the written Planning Staff report. He indicated that while this project is basically "housekeeping" in nature, Staff did conduct a General Plan consistency analysis to ensure that the amendments would not invalidate or compromise the integrity of the General Plan, which they determined it would not. This analysis focused on the Housing, Traffic/Circulation, and Land Use Elements. Mr. Stump urged the Commission to recommend the proposed amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map to Council. Commissioner Chiles referred to Page 7, "Housing Production Goals" in the Staff Report and asked for clarification of the statement regarding the potential for second residential units in Low Density Residential land use areas. He stated the issue of second units has come up in his neighborhood and tends to be a controversial topic. Mr. Stump stated that statement is meant to address a number of single family residentially zoned parcels with the Low Density Residential land use designation that could potentially support a second residential unit. He noted such an action would require a Use Permit and that there is a series of criteria that have to be established related to lot size, development standards, and owner occupancy, which provide a cross-check to the process. Mr. Stump agreed that second units are a difficult issue due to the dilemma that can be created between providing adequate, affordable housing to the community and opposition from the community on second units in a single family residential neighborhood. Commissioner Puser requested clarification that this General Plan amendment is not affecting the previous rezoning actions approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Stump explained the zoning on these parcels has already been decided. This amendment is to change the General Plan Land Use Map back to the way it was to be consistent with the existing zoning. Chairman Pruden added, for further clarification, when the Growth Management Steering Committee wrote the General Plan they dealt with the land use element, which identifies properties in different terminology from zoning, ie. "medium density residential" refers to commercial zoning. The Committee, at that time, had intended to write new definitions for the zoning designations but, to date, Neighborhood-Commercial is the only text that has been revised. The Land Use document, therefore, didn't conform to the zoning which necessitated the recent rezoning applications. Now that the rezoning has been completed, the General Plan document must be amended to bring the zoning text and Land Use document into consistency with each other. Mr. Stump informed the Commission they would be reviewing a second General Plan amendment at their first meeting in May, with an attached rezoning wherein the Commission and the City Council decided that both the General Plan Land Use designation and the existing zoning was inappropriate. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: No one came forward. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:15 P.M. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 3 April 09, 1997 Commissioner Puser stated for the record that she is in agreement with all the proposed amendments with the exception of the Caldwell Frontage Road parcels. She expressed her disagreement with zoning these three parcels "Commercial" instead of "Agricultural". Chairman Pruden concurred with Commissioner Puser regarding the Caldwell Frontage Road zoning but stated it was not enough to vote against the recommended approval of the General Plan amendments. ON A MOTION by Commissioner Correll, Seconded by Commissioner Chiles, it was carried by the following roll call vote to recommend adoption by the City Council of the Resolution for General Plan Amendment No. 1 (97-15), including Exhibit "A": AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Chiles, Puser, Correll, and Chairman Pruden None None Commissioner Larson DISCUSSION ITEM 8A. Proposed Revisions to the Local California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The Planning Commission of the City of Ukiah, will be discussing proposed revisions to the local CEQA Guidelines, as prepared by the City Planning Department. The Commission will be formulating a recommendation to the City Council concerning the adoption of a Resolution pertaining to the proposed new guidelines. The proposed revisions are intended to bring the local guidelines, originally prepared and adopted in 1974, into compliance with the current State of California Guidelines adopted by the State Secretary of Resources in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21083. Senior Planner, Charley Stump provided a brief introduction and overview of the proposed local California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines revision. He noted the original establishment of State Guidelines was adopted by the City in 1973, and a subsequent revision of the Guidelines in 1974. The City has not adopted any further changes in CEQA since that time, though the State Guidelines have been amended numerous times. Staff updated the local CEQA Guidelines comprehensively and requested the Planning Commission's approval and recommendation to City Council for adoption of the resolution that would formally amend the local Guidelines. The amended Guidelines contain provisions mandated by State law that can not be altered in any way, as well as supplemental guidelines tailored to the Ukiah community. These sections were discussed in detail in the Planning Report and consist of Compliance Responsibilities, Detailed Project Description Requirements, Communication with Project Applicants, Funding the Preparation of EIR's, the RFP and Consultant Selection Process, Administrative Draft EIR Provisions, and Delineation of Certifying Body for EIR's. These sections are primarily administrative in nature and will substantiate the procedures Staff currently follows. Commissioner Puser inquired if the Planning Commission would receive copies of the CEQA Guidelines. Mr. Stump stated the Guidelines are primarily for Staff's use in how to implement the CEQA Act. Once the revised Guidelines are adopted copies could be provided for the Planning Commission's reference. Chairman Pruden referred to Page 3 of the proposed Guidelines, noting that the Planning Department is the lead department for administering and implementing the CEQA Guidelines. She inquired if there is an appeal process beyond the Staff level. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 4 April 09, 1997 May 6, 1997 Mr. Rick Kennedy City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis - Response to Comments Dear Rick, As requested, we have reviewed comments made on our report, Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis, dated April 17, 1997. The comments were made in a memorandum dated May 1, 1997 to Mr. Gary L. Akerstrom, from Gary K. Black of Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Following are our responses to the results and reco~'_,'nendations of that memorandum. , . The Barton-Aschman analysis used a different intersection level of service soRware, 7RAFF/X 6.8 by Dowling Associates. Our analysis used the software, LOS by TJKM. Both software programs have been developed by private Bay Area firms and both are used by other traffic engineering firms and public agencies in California. In fact, we also own and use TRAF~ 6.8 for specific analysis purposes. Our experience is that the softwares can result in similar, but not exactly the same results, if the same input factors are used. . The Barton-Aschman analysis used some different input factors in their intersection level of service analysis than what was used in our calculations. Their assumptions seem to be mostly default values that are provided by the software. Our assumptions were based on field measurements of the actual average stopped delay by approach at the four study intersections during the weekday p.m. peak hour. The method used in obtaining the delay was based on guktelines presented in the Highway Capacity Manual, Special P. ep¢.'-t No. 209, Transportation Research Board, 1994. Using the computer software and the existing lanes and volumes counted during the field measurements, the average delays for the intersection and its approaches were calculated. A calibration process was then employed to match the field measured delay with the calculated delay. This process included the adjustment of default values such as lane capacities and critical gaps. Specific differences in input factors included: The Barton-Aschman analysis used a saturation flow per lane of 1,800 vehicles per hour for all lanes at the study intersections. Our analysis used a saturation flow per lane of 1,700 vehicles per hour for most lane approaches and 800 vehicles per hour for the Hastings Avenue approach at South State Street. This reduced flow was based on the results of our field measurements. The Barton-Aschman analysis used a "right mm overlap" (free right mm arrow during opposing left turn movement) and an incorrect lane assignment for the northbound approach on Airport ?ark Boulevard at Talmage Road. There is currently no right mm overlap at the intersection. However, our mitigated calculations do include the addition of a fight turn overlap. At the intersection of U.S. 101 SB Offramp/Talmage Road, the Barton-Aschman analysis assumed a default critical gap (time gap accepted by a vehicle to turn into the traffic stream from a side street). Our assumptions included a longer critical gap which was based on the results of our field measurements. WHI'TLOCK ~ WEINBERGER TRANSPORTATION I N C 2200 Range Avenue, Suite 102, Santa Rosa, California, 95403, (707) 542-9500, FAX (707) 542-9590 Mr. Rick Kennedy Page 2 May 6, 1997 , The signal timing assumptions used by the Barton-Aschman analysis were determined by the software while the signal timing assumptions used in our analysis were input based on actual signal timing in the field. While it is true that the signal timing and the amount of green time will need to be reallocated as traffic volumes change, the TRAFFIX software methodology assumes optimum theoretical conditions while our methodology for retiming the signals is based on changes that can realistically be implemented considering other traffic flow restrictions. For example, it may be theoretically possible to increase green time for a side street approach which is operating unacceptably. However, this approach may not be feasible due to timing constraints associated with coordinated operation on the main street. . The analysis recommends that no lane improvements and only signal timing optimization would be necessary at the study intersections since LOS D or better would be achieved with the addition of the project traffic. This may be theoretically possible based on the methodology of using default values instead of observed field conditions, optimum saturation flow values, signal timing optimization, and average delay for the intersections as a whole. However, further examination of the Barton-Aschman level of service calculations for the existing plus project conditions reveals that: At the intersection of Talmage Road/Airport Park Boulevard, some queues would extend to 16 vehicles. In fact, the average queue of 11 vehicles or 275 feet for the westbound lef~ turn lane would exceed the storage capacity of the lane. bo Also at the Talmage Road/Airport Park Boulevard intersection, the southbound lei~ turn lane was shown to have a delay of 750 seconds per vehicle. Although the traffic volume is very minor for this movement, this delay would be unacceptable and shows that there are some issues which would still need to be resolved for this intersection. c. At the Talmage Road/South State Street intersection, queues of 29 to 30 vehicles would exist in the northbound and southbound lanes. do At the Hastings Avenue/South State Street intersection, there would be queues of approximately 18 vehicles on the westbound approach, which consists of one narrow lane with no shoulder. The delay on this approach would be near LOS E conditions under the optimum assumptions. . The Barton-Aschman analysis recommends that no lane improvements would be required at the U.S. 101 SB Offramp/Talmage Road intersection due to level of service conditions. However, as described in our report,, the improvements are recommended due to restricted sight distance and safety issues at the ramp. . Our analysis did include updated traffic signal timing to accommodate the change in traffic volumes. These changes were included in the mitigation of the intersection. It should be noted that with the update of the signal timing some of the intersections would be expected to operate under acceptable conditions based on the average delay for the entire intersection. However, further analysis showed that individual movements and approaches were operating unacceptably which could not be addressed through timing changes only. Based on our review of the analysis submitted by Barton-Aschman Associates, we do not recommend any changes to our previous report. In our professional opinion, the resulting level of service conditions determined by Barton-Aschman Associates are based on default values which may be slightly more optimum than those which we surveyed in the field and optimized signal timing which may be theoretically possible but not practical or realistic. Also, the resulting calculations result in queue lengths and delay for some approaches which may not be desirable or could not be accommodated by the existing storage capacity. Our recommendations Mr. Rick Kennedy Page 3 May 6, 1997 Considered unacceptable operating conditions on an approach by approach basis rather than the average conditions of the intersection as a whole. The Barton-Aschman analysis recommendation that no lane improvements and only signal timing optimization would be necessary at the study intersections to maintain LOS D or better does not seem reasonable considering the conditions we have continually observed in the field and. the fact that traffic into and out of the project area could increase by a factor of 4.5 with buildout of the project. Please call me ifyou'have any questions regarding these issues. Sincerely, $.lW/UKI005.L4 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Ukiah City Council will continue a Public Hearing to consider establishing capital improvement fees at the Airport Industrial Park. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the public hearing will be continued on Wednesday, May 7, 1997, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as may be heard, and continued from time to time as the same may require, in the City of Ukiah Council Chambers, 300 Seminary Ave., Ukiah, CA. This public hearing was originally opened on April 2, 1997 and continued to May 7, 1997 to allow the Revised Engineering Report to be updated to reflect revised land use designations at the Airport Industrial Park. This notice is given to provide the necessary 10 days public review period of the Revised Engineering Report. The Ukiah Municipal Code authorizes the City Council by resolution to establish capital improvement fees. An urgency measure as an interim authorization for the fee will be considered pursuant to provisions of Section 66017 of the California Government Code. The fees will fund construction of capital improvements at three locations and will be applied to development of parcels within the Airport Industrial Park. The fees per acre of developable land based on proposed land use are as follows: Fast Food Restaurant $34,864.79; Gas Station/Mini Mart $54,728.91; Office/Retail $7,346.49; Retail $10,702.92; Industrial $3,564.97; Auto Dealership $7,554.63; and Auto Parts/Auto Care $11,510.69. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the Revised Engineering Report for the Establishment of Airport Industrial Park Capital Improvement Fees may be reviewed at the City Public Works Dept., Civic Center, 300 Seminary Ave., Ukiah, during regular office hours. Please pass this notice on to your neighbors, friends, or other interested parties. You are encouraged to discuss the proposed fees, express any views you may have, or request additional information from City Staff at the City of Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482, (707) 463-6200. /s/Colleen B. Henderson, City Clerk PUBLISH: April 27 & May 4, 1997 ITEM NO. 8c DATE: May 7, 1997 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FEES TO BE IMPOSED ON DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK SUMMARY: Submitted for the City Council's consideration is a Revised Engineering Report (Attachment 3) for the establishment of Capital Improvement Fees to be imposed on development within the Airport Industrial Park (ALP). The report identifies off-site improvements which are needed to mitigate impacts created by project traffic generated by development within the AlP. Continued on Page 2 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt the resolution establishing capital improvement fees to be imposed on development within the Airport Industrial Park and approve the Revised Engineering Report and adopt an urgency resolution making the fees effective immediately. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Not adopt the resolution establishing capital improvement fees and return report to staff for development of alternative measures. Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Acct. No.: Appropriation Requested: N/A (if budgeted) Citizen Advised: All AlP property owners notified. Requested by: Rick Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Prepared by: Rick Seanor, Deputy Director of Public Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager~"'~ /.) ~,,,'_ Rick Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Attachments: 1. Resolution for adoption 2. Urgency Resolution for Adoption 3. Revised Engineering Report 4. Excerpt from Municipal Code 5. W-Trans Airport/Redwood Business Park - Traffic Analysis, April 17, 1997 6. W-Trans letter dated March 25, 1997 7. W-Trans Table 5 (modified) RJS:AGCFEE8.SUM Ca'ce Horsley, Cit~M-a~ager Page 2 Adoption of Resolution Establishing Capital Development Within the Airport Industrial Park May 7, 1997 Improvement Fees to Be Imposed on Staff has submitted two resolutions for adoption: the resolution establishing capital improvement fees and the urgency resolution which would make the fees effective immediately. Staff believes the urgency resolution is necessary to protect the public health, welfare, and safety. Two developments, Lazy-Boy Furniture and Staples Office Supply, are currently under construction in the AlP. The urgency resolution will authorize the City to collect capital improvement fees from these businesses prior to occupancy. Without the urgency resolution, the City will be unable to collect the needed fees and therefore will be unable to construct all of the needed improvements at the three intersections. The Capital Improvement Fee (CIF) report was prepared in accordance with the City of Ukiah Municipal Code, Division 9, Chapter 5, Article 2, Sections 9542 through 9544, included as Attachment 4. Several environmental documents and traffic reports have been prepared to identify mitigations that will result from the proposed build-out of the AlP. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Redwood Business Park, dated February 1995, prepared by Leonard Charles & Associates, was the first report to address traffic issues related to the development within the major portion of the AlP excluding the Walmart project. The Draft Subsequent EIR, Airport Business Park, dated March 1995, prepared by Leonard Charles & Associates addressed traffic issues related to the Airport Business Park which includes lot numbers 29, 30, 31, and 32 at the south end of the AlP as shown on Attachment A of Attachment 3. The Final Subsequent EIR (SEIR), Airport Business Park and Redwood Business Park, dated July 1995, prepared by Leonard Charles & Associates is a summary of the two aforementioned EIR's. This SEIR contains the Revised Traffic Study which was the basis of the CIF report presented at the September 18, 1996 City Council meeting. Because of issues raised during meetings on the mitigation report with Mr. Gary Akerstrom, developer of the Redwood Business Park, an outside review of the SEIR Revised Traffic Study was performed. The City selected Whitlock and Weinberger, Inc. (W-Trans) for an independent review of the EIR Revised Traffic Study. W-Trans prepared the Airport/Redwood Business Park EIR Independent Traffic Analysis dated March 6, 1996. In summary, this report confirmed the conclusions of the SEIR Revised Traffic Study. The W-Trans Independent Traffic Analysis used the level of service (LOS) methodologies identified in the updated 1994 Highway Capacity Manual. This methodology is essentially based on traffic delay. The SEIR Revised Traffic Study was based on the Intersection Capacity Utilization methodology. Prior to the City Council meeting of September 18, 1996, City staff met with Mr. Gary Akerstrom, Redwood Business Park, and Mr. Kenneth Finney, Attorney for Redwood Business Park, to discuss the traffic volumes used in the CIF report. Mr. Akerstrom disagreed with the traffic volumes and stated that he believed the volume of vehicles using Airport Park Page 3 Adoption of Resolution Establishing Capital Development Within the Airport Industrial Park May 7, 1997 Improvement Fees to Be Imposed on Boulevard and Commerce Drive as a "short cut" to the usual routes accounted for a significant portion of the total traffic volume. This type of movement is known as pass-through traffic. Staff obtained professional traffic engineering services from W-Trans to verify the amount of pass-through traffic. In addition, staff requested W-Trans to calculate new traffic volumes based on the rezoning from industrial to auto parts/auto care/auto dealership/industrial of the 16.36 acres shown as lot number 28 on Attachment A of the Revised Engineering Report. This lot was rezoned by City Council action on October 30, 1996. The W-Trans analysis also recalculated the Levels of Service for the respective intersections based on the existing traffic plus project traffic volumes. Please refer to the W-Trans report dated April 17, 1997 (Attachment 5) which addresses these issues. In the analysis of the improvement fees staff utilized the most current data for the assignment of fees to respective land uses. These data are shown in Tables 4 and 6, pages 11 and 17, respectively, of Attachment 5. On February 12, 1997, City staff met with Redwood Business Park developers Gary Akerstrom and Don Wegner; Redwood Business Park attorney, Ken Finney; and W-Trans engineer Steve Weinberger to discuss issues regarding the W-Trans traffic study used to prepare the Revised Engineering Report. Several items were discussed at the meeting. W- Trans responded to the concerns in its Airport/Redwood Business Park - Traffic Analysis dated April 17, 1997 (Attachment 5). Also, in its letter dated March 25, 1997 (Attachment 6), W-Trans responded directly to specific questions raised at the meeting. As identified in the W-Trans Traffic Analysis dated April 17, 1997 (Attachment 5), off-site intersection improvements will be needed at the South State Street and Washington Avenue/Hastings Avenue and the Talmage Road and Airport Park Boulevard intersections by reason of the projected AlP project traffic. In addition, widening of the north side of Talmage Road immediately west of the southbound US 101 exit ramp is needed to provide a protected right turn which will address a safety concern for traffic turning west onto Talmage Road. The SEIR recommends improving the US 101 Northbound and Southbound exit ramps. These improvements have not been included in the construction cost estimates presented in the Revised Engineering Report. Staff does not believe the improvement of these ramps will be warranted within the projected 5-year build out of the AlP. Staff is of the opinion that construction of the US Highway 101 ramp improvements would be at a high cost that would unduly impact the AlP with little benefit to the overall improvement of traffic flow in the area. The estimated cost of improvements to the US 101 Northbound and US 101 Southbound exit ramps, including signalization, is $458,420.00 (in 1997 dollars). The Revised Engineering Report identifies improvement fees per acre based on the land use Page 4 Adoption of Resolution Establishing Capital Development Within the Airport Industrial Park May 7, 1997 Improvement Fees to Be Imposed on and corresponding traffic generation indicated in the W-Trans, Airport/Redwood Business Park - Traffic Analysis dated April 17, 1997. The fees per acre of developable land based on proposed land use are as follows: Fast Food Restaurant $34,864.79; Gas Station/Mini-Mart $54,728.91; Office/Retail $7,346.49; Retail $10,702.92; Industrial $3,564.97; Auto Dealership $7,554.63; and Auto Parts/Auto Care $11,510.69. The fees identified in this Revised Engineering Report will be charged upon and paid prior to the issuance of any building permit or prior to the occupancy of any new development within the AlP. The Friedman Brothers Store entered into a prior agreement with the City and therefore is the only existing development currently occupied which will be assessed the fees indicated in this Revised Engineering Report. Attachment "L" of the Revised Engineering Report indicates that Talmage Professional Center, Talmage Office Park, North Cai Wood Products, Redwood Coast Regional Center, Walmart store (existing), and US Geological Survey will not be assessed capital improvement fees because the traffic volumes generated by these developments are components of the existing traffic volumes. In preparing the Revised Engineering Report, staff utilized the Fee Apportionment Summary found in Table 6, page 7 of the W-Trans, Airport/Redwood Business Park - Traffic Analysis dated April 17, 1997. Traffic volumes for the PM Peak Hour for each of the seven land uses were divided by the total PM Peak Hour traffic volume to obtain a percentage of the total traffic volume per land use. These percentages were then multiplied by the total improvement cost to obtain the required improvement cost per land use. Please refer to Attachment "1" of the Revised Engineering Report for a comparison of the required capital improvement fees per land use. Please refer to Attachment "L" of the Revised Engineering Report for a listing of the capital improvement fees to be assessed to each parcel within the AlP. The capital improvements recommended for construction will mitigate the traffic impacts created by the addition of project traffic to the three study intersections. The proposed improvements do not enhance the levels of service at these study intersections to levels beyond pre-project conditions and in some cases the improvements do not cause a return to the levels of service enjoyed under pre-project conditions for certain traffic movements within the study intersections. There is one exception in which the levels of service for northbound turning movements from Airport Park Boulevard will be improved to levels better than the existing levels of service, however this benefits AlP traffic only. It is therefore appropriate that post Wal-Mart development within the AlP be imposed the entire cost for the proposed capital improvements. Remaining traffic movements at the intersections will be mitigated to the same or slightly less levels of service when compared to existing levels of service. Please note Attachment 7 Page 5 Adoption of Resolution Establishing Capital Development Within the Airport Industrial Park May 7, 1997 Improvement Fees to Be Imposed on (W-Trans Table 5) which has been modified to show the mitigated levels of service. Public notice for the Revised Engineering Report and resolution was printed in the Ukiah Daily Journal on April 27 and May 4, 1997. In addition, staff mailed copies of the public notice and the Report to all AlP property owners on April 21, 1997. SUMMARY With the adoption of the attached resolutions, the City will financially be able to construct public works improvements required as a result of the build-out of the AlP. The improvement projects as identified will enable the orderly movement of traffic into and out of the AlP, when fully developed, and will mitigate the impacts to the existing infrastructure. Without some means to set aside funds for these improvements, it is unlikely that the City will ever afford the traffic system mitigations necessary because of the development of the AlP. If this were the case, the unfortunate losers would be the public, the AlP employees, the AlP developments, and the City. 1 5 6 ? 9 10 11 1:2 13 14 15 16 17 1/t 19 20 21 :22 25 2? RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ESTABLISHING THE AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FEES WITHIN THE CITY OF UKIAH WHEREAS, the Ukiah City Council has adopted Ordinance No. 882 creating and establishing the authority for imposing and charging off-site capital improvement fees within the City of Ukiah; and WHEREAS, a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) entitled "Redwood Business Park and Airport Business Park Final Subsequent EIR" was prepared by Leonard Charles and Associates which identified and assessed the impacts that would result from the buildout of the Airport Industrial Park (AIP); and WHEREAS, the revised Engineering Report for the Establishment of Airport Industrial Park Capital Improvement Fees (hereinafter "Report") has examined the impact of contemplated future development on existing public facilities identified in the Report along with an analysis of the need for new public facilities and improvements required by this new development. The Report sets forth the relationship between new development in this study area, the needed facilities, and the estimated costs of those improvements. The Report was prepared by the Public Works Department of the City of Ukiah, is dated April 17, 1997, and is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit "A" WHEREAS, the Report was available for public inspection and review ten (10) days prior to the public hearing on this resolution; and WHEREAS, Notice of the hearing on the imposition of the fee was provided to those requesting advance notice pursuant to 66017, not less than 14 days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows: a. The purpose of these fees is to finance off-site capital improvements as ¢,q6E .j 5 ? 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 19 21 26 1 be C. d. e. described in the Report in order to reduce the impacts of increased vehicle and pedestrian traffic caused by new development within the Airport Industrial Park which is identified and described in the map of the study area, attached hereto as Attachment "A" of Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference. The capital improvement fees collected pursuant to this resolution shall be used to finance only the public facilities described or identified in Exhibit "A", attached hereto. After considering the Report, the testimony and other evidence received at the public heating, the Council approves the Report, and incorporates such herein, and further finds that the new development in the area identified in Attachment "A" will generate additional vehicle and pedestrian traffic and require the identified off-site capital improvements. New development in the Airport Industrial Park has or will create the need for off-site capital improvements to service project traffic generated by the development with the Airport Industrial Park. The facts and evidence presented establish that there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the described public facilities and the impacts of the types of land use for which fees are established in Paragraph 2 below, for which the corresponding fee is charged. There is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of land use for which the fee is charged. The fee charged to each development bears a reasonable relationship to the need for the public improvement contributed by the development. All of these relationships are in more detail described in the Report. The cost estimates set forth in Exhibit "A" are reasonable cost estimates for constructing these facilities, and the fees expected to be generated by new 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 development will not exceed the total of these costs. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Uldah that: 1. Airport Industrial Park Capital Improvement Fees shall be charged upon and paid prior to the issuance of any permit for all new development in the Airport Industrial Park depicted and described on the map attached hereto as Attachment "A" of Exhibit "A" except as otherwise specifically provided in Ukiah City Code Section 9543. For new development under construction, Capital Improvement Fees shall be charged upon and paid prior to the occupancy of said new development in the Airport Industrial Park. No certificate of occupancy or permit, as appropriate, shall be issued until the required fees are paid. "Permit", "Inspections", and "Certificate of Occupancy", as used in this Section, have the same meaning and application as described in Sections 106, 108, and 109, respectively, of the currently adopted edition of the Uniform Building Code, International Conference of Building Officials. 2. Fee. The fees for constructing the off-site capital improvements are identified on Attachment "I" of Exhibit "A". The fees per acre of developable land based on proposed land use are as follows: Fast Food Restaurant $34,864.79; Gas Station/Mini-Mart $54,728.91; Office/Retail $7,346.49; Retail $10,702.92; Industrial $3,564.97; Auto Dealership $7,554.63; and Auto Parts/Auto Care $11,510.69. 3. Use of Fee. The fee shall be used solely to pay (1) for the described public facilities to be constructed by the City; (2) for reimbursing the City for the development's fair share of those capital improvements already constructed by the City; or (3) to reimburse other developers who have constructed public 5 6 ? 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 0.2 23 25 27 III III III III III III III III III . . . facilities described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, where those facilities were beyond that needed to mitigate the impacts of the other developer's project or projects. Fee Review. If any fees collected pursuant to this resolution remain unexpended five (5) years after collecting any such fees, the City shall review the fees if and as required by Government Code Section 66001 (d) or any amendments thereto. If some, but not all, fees collected pursuant to this resolution are expended as authorized herein, it shall be conclusively presumed that the fees first received are the fees first expended. Filing a Protest. The 90 day period for filing a protest pursuant to Government Code Section 660020(a) begins on the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council. Judicial action to Challenge this Resolution. The time limits provided in Government Code Section 660020 for filing an action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void or annul the fees imposed by this resolution apply. The fees shall become effective on and after July 7, 1997. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED AND ADOPTED this following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: Colleen B. Henderson City Clerk B:I~R --E~I :KK IMPFEES.AIP day of , 1997, by the Sheridan Malone Mayor 1 5 6 ? 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 0.3 2~ 25 27 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF TIIE CITY OF UKIAII PROVIDING INTERIM AUTIIORIZATION FOR AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FEES WITHIN THE CITY OF UKIAIt WHEREAS, 1. The City Council has adopted its resolution imposing Airport Industrial Park capital improvement fees to mitigate the off-site pedestrian and traffic impacts from the further development of the Airport Industrial Park (Resolution No. ~); and 2. The contents of the resolution imposing those fees is incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full; and 3. The fees imposed by said resolution will fund the estimated cost of constructing improvements to three intersections: 1) Talmage Road and U.S. Highway 101 southbound exit ramp, 2) Talmage Road and Airport Park Boulevard, and 3) South State Street/Washington Avenue/Hastings Avenue; and 4. The required improvements will prevent levels of service ("LOS") frmn deteriorating to an unacceptable level at these intersections, but will not improve the LOS for any intersection above or better than pre-project levels; and 5. The parcels of real property within the Airport Industrial Park that have produced the need for these intersection improvements must all contribute to the cost of constructing those improvements in order to produce sufficient funding to make the needed improvements; and 6. Construction is currently underway on some of those parcels, including Assessor Parcel Nos. 180-080-52 and 180-080-54, and the City anticipates an application for a building permit on Assessor Parcel No. 180-070-36 in less than 60 days. 1 5 6 ? 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 2~ 25 27 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED as follows: 1. The City Council finds that the following conditions constitute the current and immediate threat to the public health, welfare and safety warranting interim authorization of the fees established by Resolution No. ~: a. Fees imposed by Resolution No. will not become effective pursuant to Government Code Section 660017(a) until July 7, 1997. b. Between now and July 7, 1997, the City of Ukiah anticipates that no fewer than four projects contributing total fees of approximately $100,200 will apply for building or occupancy permits; c. If those permits are issued before the fees imposed by Resolution No. become effective, the City of Ukiah will not have sufficient funding to make the needed improvements; d. As a consequence, there is a substantial likelihood that some or all of the required intersection improvements could not be built, creating congested intersections as the LOS for the affected intersections degrades to D or worse; e, To avoid these congested conditions from arising, it is necessary to make the fees effective immediately. 2. Based on the findings stated herein, the City Council hereby authorizes the immediate imposition of the fees established by Resolution No. ~, effective immediately. 3. This interim authorization shall remain in effect for 30 days, to and including June 6, 1997, unless extended for an additional 30 days by a 4/5 vote of the City Council in accordance with Government Code Section 660017(b). PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1997, by the P. 2 1 5 6 ? 9 10 11 12 13 1,1 15 16 17 19 21 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATFEST: Colleen B. Henderson City Clerk B:I~RE$1 :KK IMPFEE$.2 Sheridan Malone Mayor REVISED ENGINEERING REPORT FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FEES April 17, 1997 Executive Summary It is proposed that Capital Improvement Fees be imposed on development within the Airport Industrial Park (ALP) for the purpose of financing the construction of improvements which are needed to mitigate traffic impacts at three off-site intersections resulting from the AlP development. The AlP development as used and referenced herein is post Wal-Mart development which includes development within the AlP occurring after the Wal-Mart project was completed and opened for occupancy. The AlP is as depicted on Attachment "A" of this report. The proposed Capital Improvement Fees will be established in accordance with the City of Ukiah, Municipal Code Division 9, Chapter 5, Article 2, Section 9543 and will be imposed on AlP parcels as development occurs. Due to the increased traffic volumes resulting from development of the AlP, off-site improvements will be needed at three intersections: Talmage Road and US 101 southbound exit ramp, Talmage Road and Airport Park Boulevard, and South State Street/Washington Avenue/Hastings Avenue herein referred to as the study intersections. As each parcel within the AlP is developed, fees will be imposed and collected at the time the building permits are applied for. Each parcel developed within the AlP will generate additional traffic trips which will impact existing levels of service at the study intersections. At this time, City staff does not propose that fees be collected for the construction of off-site improvements to two other study intersections which were identified in the SEIR for the Redwood Business Park and the Airport Business Park developments. These two locations are the US 101 Northbound exit ramp to Talmage Road and the US 101 Southbound exit ramp to Talmage Road. City staff does not believe that the SEIR recommended improvements to these ramps will be warranted by reason of the build out of the AlP. If warranted City staff recommends that an assessment district be formed to obtain funds required to construct the recommended improvements to the ramps. Staff is also of the opinion that construction of the US Highway 101 ramp improvements would be at a high cost that would unduly impact the ^IP with little benefit to the overall improvement to traffic flow in the area. The estimated cost of improvements to the US 101 Northbound and US 101 Southbound exit ramps, including signalization, is $458,420.00 (in 1997 dollars). Staff has, however, included improvements to Talmage Road in the vicinity of the southbound US 101 exit ramp for the purpose of mitigating a safety concern. In addition, correspondence from Ms. Linda Goff Evans, Caltrans, dated November 2, 1995 states that Caltrans does not recommend installing a second right-turn lane on the Page 3 Revised Engineering Report for the Establishment of Airport Industrial Park Capital Improvement Fees April 17, 1997 mitigate a safety concern as noted in the SEIR for the various development parks within the AlP. Although the SEIR considered a southern access to the AlP by extending a road south to Norgard Lane, staff does not envision this access being needed. Staff has therefore assumed that projected, project Norgard Lane traffic will utilize the Hastings Avenue to access the AlP. This report recommends that all funds needed to implement the recommended improvements at the study intersections which are necessary for the mitigation of impacts caused by the AlP project traffic be extracted from development within the AlP only. Under pre-project conditions (post Wal-Mart, pre-Friedman Bros.), the study intersections operate at acceptable levels of service. With the addition of project traffic, the levels of service drop below acceptable levels. The recommended improvements will return the various traffic movements at the study intersections to pre-project levels or to minimum acceptable levels but not to levels above pre-project conditions. Therefore, non project traffic do not derive benefit from the improvements. It is not recommended that development within the AlP be required to fund improvements that would be required by reason of future traffic from projects outside the AlP. These projects and the additional mitigations are described in the AlP SEIR under the cumulative conditions. Amount of Fee The fee is established based on the total estimated capital costs needed to construct the identified improvements. As shown on Attachment "1" the total fee is distributed to each land use as a percentage of the respective land use's boundary PM peak hour traffic volume corr pared to total boundary traffic. The total fee needed to construct the following capital improvements in the year 2002 with full build out of the AlP is projected to be $731,036. This amount is based on cost estimates prepared by Boyle Engineering Corporation, April 12, 1996, and updated by staff in January 1997. Please refer to Attachments "C, D, E, F, G, and H." The cost estimate for South State Street and Washington Avenue/Hastings Avenue (Attachment "H") has been modified to include structure demolition and land acquisition. Capital Improvements to be Constructed with these Fees The W-Trans Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis dated April 17, 1997 identifies mitigations beginning on page 16 for the impacted intersections. Staff has BP, S Page 5 Revised Engineering Report for the Establishment of Airport Industrial Park Capital Improvement Fees April 17, 1997 Estimated Cost of Capital Improvements Costs were taken from estimates prepared by Boyle Engineering Corporation, Attachments "D," "F," and "H." Talmage Road/US 101 Southbound Exit Ramp Talmage Road/Airport Park Boulevard South State Street/Washington Avenue/Hastings Avenue SUBTOTAL Engineering, Administration, & Project Inspection at 32% Contingencies at 20% TOTAL in 1997 dollars $ 39,410 $ 19,600 $323,125 $382,135 $122,283 $ 76,427 $580,845 Calculate amount needed for construction in the year 2002 An average annual inflation rate of 4% instead of 5% over 5 years will be utilized to account for the unknown time of receipt of capital improvement fees from development projects. Any accrued interest (and principal) not utilized will be redistributed to developers upon completion of construction of all identified improvements in this report. per formula, Future Value = Present Value (1 + i)n Present Value = $580,845; i = 4% = 0.04; n = 5 years Therefore, future value = $ 706,686 Future Value = $ 706,686 Add $ 10,600 Add $ 10,000 Add $ 3,75O Total Fee $ 731,036 (Traffic Studies, Oct. 1996 to April 1997) ($2,000 per year traffic volume counts intersection LOS analysis) (annual administration fee, 5 years @ $30/hour x 25 hours) Application of Fee These capital improvement fees shall be applied to all development within the AlP Page 7 Revised Engineering Report for the Establishment of Airport Industrial Park Capital Improvement Fees April 17, 1997 meadow/riparian area, 1.05 acres of pond, and 1.38 acres of Airport Park Boulevard from the total of 35.62 acres. Building coverage of this area is assumed to be 30 percent. Therefore, 30 percent of 21.19 acres equals 6.36 acres. This area, 6.36 acres, converted to square feet equals 276,911 square feet; adding the Brewery footage of 68,269 square feet to the calculated footage of 276,911 produces a total of 345,180 square feet or 345.18 ksf. For purposes of traffic generation for this industrial property, 345.2 ksf was used. Summary As discussed in this report, the capital improvements recommended for construction will mitigate the traffic impacts created by the addition of project traffic to the three study intersections. The proposed improvements do not enhance the levels of service at these study intersections to levels beyond pre-project conditions and in some cases the improvements do not cause a return to the levels of service enjoyed under pre-project conditions for certain traffic movements within the study intersections. It is therefore appropriate that post Wal-Mart development within the AlP be imposed the entire cost for the proposed capital improvements. ATTACHMENT "B" Table 5 Summary of Intersection Operations (Weekday P.M. Peak Hour) Intersection 1. South State Strccffralmagc Road Northbound Through/Right Southbound Left/Through Westbound Left Westbound Right 2. South State Street/Hastings Avenue Northbound LcR Northbound Through/Right Southbound LeA Southbound Throu~ght Eastbound Approach Westbound Approach 3. Airport Park Boulevard/Talmage Road Northbound Left Northbound Through/Right Southbound Left Southbound Through/Right Eastbound Left Eastbound ThrouglVRight Westbound Left Westbound Through/Right 4. U.S. 101 SB-Rampsfralmagc Road Southbound Right Existing Delay LOS 17.7 C 25.5 D 26.7 D 16.3 C 8.9 13 18.0 C 7.9 B 17.9 C 6.6 B 15.0 B 15.4 C 12.5 21.8 C 15.4 C 24.3 C 18.0 C 23:7 C 10.9 B 24.8 C 7.2 B 3.t A 9.5 B Notes: Delay = average delay per vehicle in seconds LOS = level of service xxx = overall intersection level of service *** = delay exceeds reasonable parameters for methodology Airport/Redwood Business park Traffic Analysis Existing plus Pro ect Delay LOS 26.6 D 18.9 C 37.1 D 26.7 D 20.3 C *** E 18.0 C 9.4 B 20.4 C 6.4 B *** F *** F !41,7 E 152.7 F 39.2 D 24.3 C 18.3 C 23.7 C 11.5 B *** F 7.0 B 8.9 13 29.8 D City of Ukiah Wlfitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. Page 15 April 17, 1997 · .., ' ATTACHMENT "C" ~ .. ,///,, ,..,o. /,,//,/ TALMAGE ROAD , DESCRIPTION SHE~ NO. c~ or u~ZH INTERSECTION ,P-4 IMPROVEMENTS DATE ~ 4/12/96 ~~ R~SIONS ATTACHMENT "D" CITY OF UKIAH Cost Estimate for Talmage Road and Southbound US 101 Based on Cost Estimates Prepared by Boyle Engineering on April 12, 1996 Reference Boyle Engineering Drawing No. P-4 Prepared By: Rick Seanor 'Date & Time Printed' Item Item Clearing & Grubbing Sawcut AC 3 Roadway Excavation Remove Concrete Sidewalk, C&G No. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Construct Wheelchair Ramp Construct Curb & Gutter Construct Sidewalk Aggregate Base Asphalt Concrete Place Traffic Stripe Place Pavement Marking Right of Way and Permits 4/17/97 14:4 Estimated Quantity 1 4OO 150 2,000 1 32O 3OO 2OO 7O 4O0 130 1 Unit of Measure LS LF CY SF EA LF LF TON TON LF SF LS Unit Price Total Price 95,000.00 95,000.00 ..-...~-.________~ 9800.00 $2.00 925.00 92.00 92,400.00 $20.00 925.00 $20.00 93,750.00 94,000.00 92,400.00 96, 97,500.00 $4,000.00 952.00 93,640.00 91.00 9400.00 94.00 91,000.00 Subtotal $520.00 91,000.00 939,410.00 ATTACHMENT "E" · · RELOCATE TRAFFIC SIGNAL WB APPROACH ~'~ TALM~OAD. STANDARD RELOCATE SIGNAL POLE SIGNAL RELOCATE TRAFFIC SI~;NAL. LOOPS NB APPROACtl / APPROX. SCALE: 1'-40' CITY OF' UKIAH DE$CRiPnONI ' ' SHEET NO. INTERSEOT~O~ P-3 iMPROVEMENTS ' , DATE 14/12/96 REVISIONS ATTACHMENT "F" CITY OF UKIAH 1 I Cost Estimate for Talmage Road and Airport Park Boulevard Based on Cost Estimates Prepared by Boyle Engineering on April 12, 1996 Reference Boyle Engineering Drawing No. P-3 Prepared By: Rick Seanor Date & Time Printed: 4/17/97 14:49 Item Estimated Unit of No. Item Quantity Measure Unit Price Total Price 1 Place Traffic Stripe 3,000 LF $1.00 $3,000.00 2 Place Pavement Marking 400 SF $4.00 $1,600.00 3 Modify Traffic Signal & Detector Loops 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000.00 Subtotal $19,600.00 ATTACHMENT "G" RELOCATE TRAJrF1C SIGNAL LOOPS SB APP[ RELOCAIE TRAFFIC SIGUAL LOOPS EB APPROACI! WASHINGTON EXIST FIRE HYDRANT CITY OF' UKIAH INS SlG RESE'I' I DESCRIPTION INTERSECTION IUPROVEMENTS APPROX. SCALE: 1'-40' RELOCAIE SIGNAL STANDARD RELOCATE TELE POLE NEW PAVEMENT, TYP RELOCATE TRAFFIC INSTALL NEW SIGNAL LOOPS SIGHAL WB APPROACH .OCAIE 1ELE Idl '~-RESET VALVE BOX NEW SIGHAL POLE RELOCATE TRAFFIC SlGHAL LOOPS NB APPROACH REVISIONS SHEET NO. P-1 DATE ATTACHMENT "H" CITY OF UKIAH I Cost Estimate for South State Street and Washington Ave./Hastings Ave. Based on Cost Estimates Prepared by Boyle Engineering on April 12, 1996 Reference Boyle Engineering Drawing No. P-1 Prepared By: Rick Seanor Date & Time Printed: 4/17/97 14:49 Item Estimated Unit of No. Item Quantity Measure Unit Price Total Price 1 Clearing & Grubbing 1 LS $2,500.00 $2,500.00 2 Sawcut AC 300 LF $2.00 $600.00 3 Relocate Utilities 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00 4 Reset Water Valve to Grade 3 EA $400.00 $1,200.00 5 Roadway Excavation 200 CY $25.00 $5,000.00 6 Construct Wheelchair Ramp 2 EA $2,400.00 $4,800.00 7 Construct Curb & Gutter 500 LF $20.00 $10,000.00 8 Construct Sidewalk 500 LF $25.00 $12,500.00 9 Aggregate Base 200 TON $20.00 $4,000.00 10 Asphalt Concrete 150 TON $52.00 $7,800.00 11 Place Traffic Stripe 1,625 LF $1.00 $1,625.00 12 Place Pavement Marking 100 SF $4.00 $400.00 13 Modify Traffic Signal & Detector Loops I LS $60,000.00 $60,000.00 14 Structure Acquisition 1 LS $70,000.00 $70,000.00 15 Land Acquisition 1 LS $127,700.00 $127,700.00 16 Demolition of Structure 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 Subtotal $323,125.00 Z ATTACHMENT "J" Table 4 Pro Generation Summ~ ~l..----...... ....... ----..n.a ea..avia k. tUalalJl~ll . Line Note Land Use Number Weekday, P.M. Peak Hour No. of Units Trip Rate In Out Total Per Unit I Office/Retail 67.0 ksf 2.06 23 115 138 2 Industrial Park (RBP) 373.5 ksf 0.91 74 266 .340 3 Industrial Park (ABP + Norgard) 345.2 ksf 0.91 66 248 314 4 A Total Non. Commercial Trips 163 629 792 5 Auto Dealership (12.27 Acres) 101.5 ksf 2.62 109 157 266 6 B Auto Parts/Auto Care (4.09 Acres) 33.8 ksf 4.00 59 76 1,35 7 C Retail 198.1 ksf 4.28 424 424 848 8 C Wal-Mart Expansion 18.0 ksf 4.28 ,38 .39 77 9 C Lot #12 Retail 8.3 ksf 4.28 18 18 36 I0 D Commercial Trips (Total) 648 714 1362 11 Commercial Trips (Pass-by: 30 %) 194 214 408 12 E Commercial Trips (Internal Capture) 119 119 238 13 F Commercial Trips (new primary) 335 381 716 14 G Fast Food Restaurant 2.376 36.56 45 42 87 15 H Gas Station/Mini-Mart 2.452 62.57 77 77 154 16 I Highway Corn Trips (Total) 122 119 241 17 Highway Corn Trips (Pass-by 50 %) 61 60 121 18 J Highway Com Trips (Internal Capture) 30 30 60 19 K Hi[~hway Corn Trips (new primary) 31 29 60 20 L Total New Trips to the Area 529 1,0.39 1,568 21 ~ Total Pass-by Trips · 255 274 .$29 ~: ~ ,5th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1991/1995 k.s.f. = 1000 square feet, RBP -- Redwood Business Park, ABP = Airport Business Park A. This total represents the non-commercial (office and industrial) related trips. B. Rate is based on the average of ITE Land Use #840, Automobile Care Center and ITE Land Use #848, Tire Store. C. Rate is based on ITE Land Use #820 and is calculated based on a 324 ksfshopping center (the 324 ksfconsists of the 198 ksfretail, 18 ksfWaLMart expansion, 8 ksfLot # 12 retail and existing I00 ksf WalMart). D. This total represents the commercial/retail related trips. E. The internal capture is 15 % of the total non-commercial trips (15% of792= 119), in and out of commercial uses for a total of 238~ F. Represents Line # 10 minus Line # 11 minus Line # 12. · G. Rate is based on ITE Land Use #834, Fast Food Restaurant. H. Rate is based on ITE Land Use #853, Convenience Market with Ga.~oline Pumps I. This total represent the highway commercial related trips. J. The internal capture trips were assumed to be 25 percent of the highway commercial trips. K. Represents Line # 16 minus Line # 17 minus Line # 18. L. Represents line #4 plus line # 13 plus line # 19. M Represents line # 11 plus line # 17. Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis City of Ukiah Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. Page 11 April 17, 1997 ATTACHMENT "K" to address safety issues related to thc sight distance at thc ramp, it is recommended that a second westbound through lane on Talmage Road be extended back to thc southbound offramp to allow the offramp traffic turning right to turn into its own lane without conflict. In order to fund the required improvements, it may be necessary to levy a fee on the various components of the project commensurate with their level of traffic impact. A schedule indicating the responsibility for each land use is shown in Table 6. It should be noted that the discount for internal capture trips are shared between the commercial and non-commercial uses. Table 6 Fee Apportionment Summary l. amd Use Number Weekday P.M. Peak Hour of Units Trip Rate In Out Total Fair Share Per Unit Office/Retail 67.0 ksf 2.06 23 115 138 Discount for Internal Capture Trips 2 8 I O Land Use Total 21 107 ,128 6.10% Industrial Park 718.7 ksf 0.91 140 514 654 Discount for Internal Capture Trips 10 39 49 Land Use Total 130 475 605 28.85% Auto Dealership 101.5 ksf 2.62 109 157 266 12.68% Auto Parts/Auto Care 33.8 ksf 4.00 59 76 135 6.44% Retail 224.4 kal 4.28 480 481 961 Discount for Internal Capture Trips 107 72 179 Land Use Total 373 409 782 37.29% _ Fast Food Restaurant 2.376 36.56 45 42 87 Discount for Internal Capture Trips 11 11 22 Land Use Total 34 31 65 3.10% Gas Station/Mini-Mart 2.452 62.57 77 77 154 Discount for Internal Capture Trips 19 19 38 Land Use Total 58 58 116 5.54% Site Total 2097 100.00% Notes: No discount for internal capture trips was taken for auto related uses due to the fact that these uses are not conducive to peak hour linked trips. Discount for internal capture trips ofthe office and industrial park uses is based on one-half of the 15 percent intemal capture assumption. The balance of the internal capture trips were assigned to the retail uses. Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. Page 17 Ci.ty of Ukiah April 17, 1997 ~ ~,[~ ATTACHMENT "L" CITY OF UKIAH t I SUMMARY OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FEES BY PARCEL NUMBER-AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK Prepared By: Rick Seanor Date & Time Printed: 4/17/97 14:50 Lot Assessor's ID Parcel No. Land Use Acreage Fee No, 1 180-070-36 Fast Food Restaurant 0.65 922,662.12 SUBTOTAL (FAST FOOD RESTAURANT) 0,65 $22,662.12 I 180-070-36 I Gas Station/Mini-Mart 0.74 940,499.39 SUBTOTAL (GAS STATION/MINI-MART) 0.74 $40,499.39 2 180-070-01 Talmage Prof. Ctr. 0.00 90.00 3 180-070-02 Talmage Office Pk 0.00 90.00 4 180-070-03 North Cai Wood 0.00 90.00 6 180-070-29 Office/Retail 1.22 98,962.72 7 180-070-28 Office/Retail 1.53 911,240.13 8 180-070-27 R.C. Regional Ctr. 0.00 90.00 9 180-070-26 Office/Retail 1.21 98,889.25 10 180-070-25 Office/Retail 1.09 98,007.67 11 180-070-24 Office/Retail 1.02 97,493.42 SUBTOTAL (OFFICE/RETAIL) 6.07 $44,593.20 5 180-070-38 Walmart (Existing) 0.00 90.00 12 180-080-41 Retail 1.00 910,702.92 13 180-080-53 Retail 1.88 920,121.49 14 180-080-54 Retail 1.28 913,699.74 15 180-080-55 Retail 1.06 911,345.09 16 180-080-52 Retail 2.18 923,332.36 26 180-080-51 Retail 5.04 953,942.71 27 180-080-44,45 Retail 10.51 9112,487.67 5 180-070-38 Walmart (Expansion) 2.52 926,971.35 SUBTOTAL (RETAIL) 25.47 $272,603.32 17 180-080-16 Industrial 2.96 910,552.32 18 180-080-25 Industrial 3.54 912,620.01 19 180-080-26 U.S. Geol. Survey 0.00 90.00 20 180-080-19 Industrial 1.00 93,564.97 21 180-080-22 Industrial 2.23 97,949.89 22 180-080-27 Industrial 4.49 916,006.74 23 180-080-28 Industrial 4.59 916,363.23 24 180-080-29 Industrial 4.60 916,398.88 25 180-080-30 Industrial 5.56 919,821.26 29 180-110-07 Industrial 9.00 932,084.77 30 180-110-02,06 Industrial 14.19 950,586.99 31 180-120-04 Industrial 5.80 920,676.85 32 184-080-01 Industrial 1.20 94,277.97 SUBTOTAL (INDUSTRIAL) 59.16 $210,903.89 28 Portion of 180-080-46,47 Auto Dealership 12.27 992,695.36 28 Portion of 180-080-47,46 Auto Parts/Auto Care 4.09 947,078.72 SUBTOTAL (AUTO DEALERSHIP/AUTO PARTS/AUTO CARE) 16.36 $139,774.08 §9542 §9543 CHAPTER 5 DEDICATIONS AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ARTICLE 2. OFF-SITE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FEES SECTION: §9542: §9543: §9544: Purpose Establishment of Capital Improvement Fees Limited Use Of Fees §9542: PURPOSE: In various locations throughout the City public facilities such as streets, bridges, traffic signals, storm drains and sewer lines must be constructed or improved in order to accommodate the impacts from or provide access to new development in those areas. The City Council has determined that capital improvement fees must be established in order for that new development to contribute its fair share toward financing the construction of these improvements. (Ord. 882, §2, adopted 1988) §9543: ESTABLISHMENT OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FEES: A. Creation by Resolution' By resolution the City Council shall establish such capital improvement fees as it determines are necessary to contribute toward the financing of public facilities. Each such resolution shall' ,.1. Establish and describe the benefit and impact area within which the fee shall apply; 2. Set forth the specific amount of the fee; 3. List the specific public improvement or improvements to be financed; 9183 §9543 §9543 A) Be 4. Describe the estimated cost of these facilities, and associated costs such as necessary engineering services and administrative costs; 5. Describe the reasonable relationship between the fee and the types of new development to which it will apply; 6. Set forth the time when the fee must be paid as follows: a. As to residential development that time shall not be sooner than the date of final inspection or the date the certificate of occupancy is issued, whichever occurs first. The City shall not furnish utilities to occupants of any such residential development prior to final inspection and the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The City shall disconnect utilities furnished to a residential development if that development is occupied prior to final inspection and the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. In accordance with the §§2136 to 2137, the City shall revoke the business license issued pursuant to Division 2 of this Code to any person (as defined in §2100) engaged in a business (as defined in §2101), if such person participates as seller, broker or otherwise in the sale of a residential development to an occupant of that development before final inspection and issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The City shall not issue a new business license to a person whose license is revoked as provided herein for a period of two (2) years. b. As to ali other development that time shall be at the time a building permit is issued. c. No certificate of occupancy or building permit, as appropriate, shall issue until the required fees are paid. "Building permit," "final inspections," and "certificate of occupancy," as used in this Section, have the same meaning as described in Sections 301, 305, and 307 of the Uniform Building Code, International Conference of Building Officials, 1985 Edition; 7. Set forth the method for reviewing or modifying the fee or its use. · Procedure: The City Council shall adopt each resolution according to the following procedure: 1. The resolution shall be adopted at a public hearing at which any person may appear in person or in writing. 2. A fee study establishing the reasonable relationship between the fee and each parcel of property to which it will apply shall be available for public inspection for at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing. §9543 §9544 B) 3. Notice of the hearing shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City ten (10) days prior to the hearing. The notice shall describe the public facilities to be financed with the fee, the area within which the fee will apply, the amount of the fee, and the times and location where the fee study is available for public inspection. (Ord. 882, §2, adopted 1988) §9544: LIMITED USE OF FEES: The revenues raised by payment of this fee shall be placed in a separate and special account and such revenues, along with any interest earnings on that account, shall be used solely to: A. Pay for the City's future construction of facilities described in the resolution enacted pursuant to §9543, and all associated costs, such as engineering and administrative costs attributable to such facilities or to reimburse the City for those described or listed facilities constructed by the City with funds advanced by the City from other sources, or S. Reimburse developers who have been required or permitted to install such listed facilities which are oversized for their development for such supplemental size, length or capar, ity. (Ord. 882, §2, adopted 1988) Wo TRA NS Report Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis for the City of Ukiah April 17, 1997 SIW~qCI005.R4 WHITLOCK ~L WEINBERGER TRANSPORTATION INC_ /~/"~'7"~/'~~c.. ['l~:.:-l,J"J''~''''' -~' 2200 Range Avenue, Suite 102, Santa Rosa, California, 95403, (707) 542-9500, FAX (707) 542-9590 ~J,/_..,~,.~ ,4, Table of Contents Introduction and Summary ................................................... 1 Study Parameters ................... · ........................................ 3 Pass-Through Traffic .................. ' ............................. . ......... 7 Project Generated Traffic Volumes ....................... . ....................... 9 Evaluation of Intersection Operations ........................................... 13 Mitigation Recommendations ................................................ 16 Study Participants And References ............................................ 18 Figures Study Area ............................................................... 4 Existing Pass-Through Traffic Volumes ........................................ 8 Project Traffic Volumes ............ .. ...................... , ................ 12 Tables Intersection Level of Service Criteria ........................................... 5 Intersection Level of Service Thresholds .............. . .......................... 6 Level of Service Standard Alternatives ......................................... 6 Project Trip Generation Summary ............................................ 11 Summary of Intersection Operations .......................................... 15 Fee Apportionment Summary ............................................... 17 Appendices A B C D Description of Intersection Capacity Analysis Methodologies Intersection Level of Service Calculations - Existing Conditions Intersection Level of Service Calculations - Existing Plus Project Conditions Intersection Level of Service Calculations - Mitigated Conditions Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. Page i City of Ukiah April 17, 1997 Introduction and Summary Introduction This report presents an analysis of the potential traffic impacts for the AirporffRedwood Business Park in the City of Ukiah. The study area is located west of U.S. 101 along South State Street and Talmage Road. The analysis focused on four study intersections, South State Street/Talmage Road, South State Street/Hastings Avenue, Talmage Road/Airport Park Boulevard, and Talmage Road/U.S. 101 SB Ramps. Summary In total, the proposed mixed use development is anticipated to generate an average of 2,395 p.m. peak hour vehicle trips which includes 1,568 new/diverted trips external to the project area, 298 new trips internal to the project area, and 529 pass-by trips which currently exist on South State Street and Talmage Road. Under Existing Conditions without the Friedman Brothers store, all of the study intersections are operating acceptably. South State Street/Talmage Road is operating with an average delay of 21.6 seconds per vehicle and a LOS C. The intersection of South State Street/Hastings Avenue is currently operating with an average delay of 8.9 seconds per vehicle and a LOS B. The intersection of Talmage Road/Airport Park Boulevard is currently operating with an average delay of 12.5 seconds per vehicle and a LOS B. The southbound off-ramp movement at the intersection of Talmage Road/U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp is currently operating with an average delay of 9.5 seconds per vehicle and a LOS B. With the addition of the project traffic volumes, the South State Street/Talmage Road intersection would be expected to operate with an average delay of 26.6 seconds per vehicle and a LOS D. The intersection of South State Street/Hastings Avenue would be expected to operate with very high delays and a LOS F. The intersection of Talmage Road/Airport Park Boulevard would be expected to operate with an average delay of 142 seconds per vehicle and a LOS F. The southbound off-ramp movement at the intersection of Talmage Road/U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp would be expected to operate with an average delay of 29.8 seconds per vehicle and a LOS D. The following mitigations are recommended for the study intersections with the addition of the project traffic volumes in order to operate at LOS C or better. The level of improvement needed would be slightly less if an operational standard of LOS D were considered acceptable. .Intersechon #1 - South State Street/Talmage Road - It is recommended that the two southbound lanes be striped as one through lane and one left-mm lane. The signal could then operate without the split phasing on South State Street. It should be noted that this restriping would create a "trap" lane from the southbound left-mm lane. An alternative would be to eliminate parking in order to striPe a southbound left-mm lane in addition t° the two through lanes. Intersection//2 - South State Street/Hastings Avenue - Provide separate left-mm, through and fight-mm lanes on the westbound approach, extend the two northbound through lanes to Talmage Road, and stripe a separate eastbound left-mm lane. ..Intersection #3 - Airport Park Boulevard/Talmage Road - Provide a second westbound left-turn lane and modify the northbound approach to include one left-turn lane, one combined left-mm/through lane, and one exclusive fight-mm lane. It would also be necessary to implement split-phasing north-south in order to maintain protected left-tums from both approaches. Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis City of Ukiah Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. Page 1 April 17, 1997 ~---~. 5 ~n~rsection #4 - U.S. 101 SB Offramp/Talmage Road City staffhas previously determined that the ramp design/location and/or concrete barrier cannot be modified in order to increase the sight distance. Therefore, in order to decrease delay to the southbound off ramp traffic and to address safety issues related to the sight distance at the ramp, it is recommended that a second westbound through lane on Talmage Road be extended back to the southbound offi'amp and allow the offramp traffic turning fight to mm into its own lane without conflict. Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. Page 2 City of Ukiah April 17, 1997~. ~, ~ Study Parameters Study Area The study area includes the following intersections. . 2. 3. 4. South State Street/Talmage Road South State Street/Hastings Avenue Talmage Road/Airport Park Blvd. Talmage Road/U.S. 101 SB Ramps All of the study intersections are controlled by traffic signals except for Talmage Road/U.S. 101 SB Ramps which is controlled by a stop sign on the southbound off-ramp approach to Talmage Road. The locations of the study intersections are shown in Figure 1. Study Period Weekday p.m. peak hour conditions were analyzed. Evaluation Criteria The traffic analysis was completed based on methodologies and criteria contained in the following references. Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report No. 209, Transportation Research Board, 1994 Traffic Manual, California Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual, California Department of Transportation Left-Turn Channelization Design Guide, Transportation Research Board Intersection Level of Service Methodologies "Level of Service" (LOS) is used to rank traffic operation on various types of facihties based on traffic volumes and roadway capacity using a series of letter designations ranging from A to F. Generally, Level of Service A represents free flow conditions and Level of Service F represents forced flow or breakdown conditions. The methodology used for the intersection analysis in the Airport/Redwood Business Park E1R was the Intersection Capacity Utilization method. This method is described in Circular 212, "Interim Materials on Highway Capacity," Transportation Research Board, 1980. The Circular 212 methodology determines the movement which is critical, or controls the amount of green time necessary, on each approach. The critical movements for each approach are divided by their respective theoretical capacities and these volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratios are added together to obtain an intersection v/c ratio. The v/c ratio for the entire intersection is then related to a level of service, with a v/c of 1.0 considered to be at capacity and the upper limit of LOS E. This v/c approach is a theoretical ranking difficult for people to understand and relate to. By contrast, the intersection analysis in this evaluation utilizes methodologies from the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual. There are different methodologies for signalized intersections, two-way stop controlled intersections, and all-way stop controlled intersections. These methodologies are more data intensive, but also provide more understandable results. The signalized intersection methodology is based on average vehicular delay experienced at the intersection and takes into account factors such as pedestrian activity, flow characteristics, and actual signal timing. The new unsignalized methodology measures delay for each intersection approach or movement, as well Airport/Redwood Business Park Traff~c Analysis Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. Page 3 City of Uldah April 17, 1997 1 Tatmage Washington Avenue s Av LEGEND I Study ~ersec*iorm ' North .... Future Roadways ~ 1 Figure ~ Study^rea A~rport/Ro~wood Bus[nos$ Pork Troffic Anoly$~s ,.,,,,, Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation Inc. City of Ukiah ... UI[IOO$.DEW 12/~' as providing a weighted average of vehicular delay for the entire intersection. Following are summaries of the Level of Service methodologies. The intersection Level of Service criteria are shown in Table 1. The intersection Level of Service thresholds for both signalized and unsignalized intersections are shown in Table 2. More complete descriptions of the methodologies and the Level of Service criteria are provided in Appendix A. Signalized Intersection Level of ServiCe Anoly~is Methodolo~ The study intersections which are currently signalized were analyzed using the Operations Method contained in the Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, Special Report No. 209, 1994. This methodology is based on factors including traffic volumes, green time for each movement, phasing, whether or not the signals are coordinated, track traffic, and pedestrian activity. Average stopped delay per vehicle in seconds is used as the basis for evaluation in this LOS methodology. l, ln~ignalized Inter~ection I.~vel of Service Analysis Methodology The level of service for the tmsignali2ed study intersection, or one which is controlled by a stop sign on the minor street approaches, was mml)7.ed using the unsignaliTed intersection capacity method from the Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, Special Report No. 209, 1994. This method determines a level of service for each minor turning movement by estimating the level of average delay in seconds per vehicle. The through movements on the main street are assumed to operate essentially without delay. The methodology also determines an average delay and level of service for the intersection as a whole. Table 1 Intersection Level of Service Criteria Level of Type of Delay Maneuverability Service Flow A Stable Very slight or no delay. If signalized, no Turning movements are easily made, and Flow approach phase is fully utilized and no driver nearly all drivers find freedom of operation. waits through two red signals. B Stable Slight delay. If signalized, an rnmasional Vehicle platoons are formed. Many drivers Flow approach phase is fully utilized, begin to feel somewhat restricted within groups of vehicles. C Stable Acceptable delay. If signalized, a few drivers Back-uPs may develop behind turning Flow arriving at the end of a queue may vehicles. Most drivers feel somewhat occasionallY wait through one cycle, restricted. D Approaching Tolerable delay. Delays may be substantial Maneuverability is severely limited during Unstable during short periods, but excessive back ups short periods due to temporary back ups. Flow do not occur. E Unstable Flow Intolerable delay. Delay may be great--up to There are typically long queues of vehicles several signal cycles, waiting upstream of the intersection. F Forced Flow Excessive delay Jammed conditions. Back ups from one movement may restrict or prevent other movements. Reference: Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report No. 209, Transportation Research Board, 1994. Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. Page 5 City of Ukiah April 17,1997~ Table 2 Intersection Level of Service Thresholds Level of Service A B C D E F Level of Service Standards Signalized Intersection Delay (seconds per vehicle, average) < 5.0 5.1 to 15.0 15.1 to 25.0 25.1 to 40.0 40.1 to 60.0 > 60.0 Unsignalized Intersection Delay (seconds per vehicle, average) < 5.0 5.1 to 10.0 10.1 to 20.0 20.1 to 30.0 30.1 to 45.0 > 45.0 The level of service standard used in the Airport/Redwood Business Park E/R traffic analysis was a minimum 'of Level of Service C. This analysis considers three alternative standards, Level of Service C, a mid Level of Service D, and a Level of Service D. These standards were applied to the intersection as a whole as well as individual critical movements. The maximum allowable delay for these alternatives are shown in Table 3. Table 3 Level of Service Standard Alternatives Level of Service C midD D Signalized Intersections Maximum Delay (seconds per vehicle, average) 25.0 32.5 40.0 Un. signalized Intersections Maximum Delay (seconds per vehicle, average) 20.0 25.0 30.0 Using a standard of a Level of Service D threshold is very common in most urbanized areas of California. There are some commumties who use the slightly more maneuverable standard of mid LOS D. It is not unusual for smaller communities in California, especially in more rural areas, to utilize a LOS C standard. However, this level of operation becomes harder to achieve as more urbanized development occurs. In developing mitigation measures to achieve these level of service standards, two types of intersection modifications were evaluated. These included additional lanes and traffic signal timing changes. Because signal timing changes may not be possible due to factors such as increased pedestrian use or coordination with other traffic signals, the use of signal timing changes to improve level of service was done on a limited basis. Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis City of Ukiah Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. Page 6 April 17, 1997 Pass-Through Traffic Pass-through traffic in the Airport/Redwood Business Park was field surveyed and estimated based on those surveys. Pass-through traffic is defined as traffic which does not have an origin or destination in the business park such as at Wal-Mart and Friedman's Brothers but travels on Airport Park Boulevard. In order to quantify the actual volume of pass-through traffic, the following field methodology for an origin and destination (O&D) study was used. 1. Field crews recorded vehicle license plates in both directions at the following locations. . . · Airport Park Boulevard immediately south of Talmage Road · Commerce Drive immediately east of the entrance to the lumberyard at the northeast comer of Airport Road/Commerce Drive ' The O&D study was performed for one two-hour period between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, November 6, 1996. There did not appear to be any special events or nearby construction which might have affected the data collection. The resulting database included license plate data for every vehicle which passed each of four checkpoints during a five minute period. The four checkpoints were Airport Park Boulevard arrival (southbound), Airport Park Boulevard departure (northbound), Commerce Drive arrival (eastbound) and Commerce Drive departure (westbound). . The database was evaluated to determine matches between: · Airport Park Boulevard arrival (southbound) and Commerce Drive departure (westbound) · Commerce Drive arrival (eastbound) and Airport Park Boulevard departure (northbound) License plate matches were done for 15 minute increments. For example, if a license plate was recorded at Airport Park Boulevard Southbound between 4:00 - 4:05 p.m. and was matched at Commerce Drive Westbound between 4:00 - 4:20 p.m., the vehicle was considered as pass-through traffic. However, if a license was recorded at Airport Park Boulevard Southbound between 4:00 - 4:05 p.m. and was matched at Commerce Drive Westbound later than 4:20 p.m., the vehicle was not considered as pass- through traffic. The data revealed that during the p.m. peak hour there are approximately 9. vehicles traveling in the northbound direction on Airport Park Boulevard approaching Talmage Road and'24 vehicles traveling in the southbound direction on Airport Park Boulevard leaving Talmage Road which are traveling through and not related to land uses within the new commercial area. These volumes are shown in Figure 2. This pass-through traffic volume represents approximately 3 to 4 percent of the total traffic on Airport Park Boulevard south of Talmage Road. This volume of traffic is considered insignificant, therefore, the intersection level of service calculations do not reflect a reduction due to these pass-through trips. It should be noted that this pass-through traffic data collection effort took place after the opening of the Friedman Brothers store. Based on the observed traffic conditions on Airport Park Boulevard, potential delay at other intersections, and available routes to uses off of Hastings Avenue and Airport Park Boulevard, the amount of pass-through traffic should not have changed since the time existing traffic counts were taken for the WalMart EIK Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis City of Ukiah Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. Page 7 April 17, 1997 Was~inaton Avenue LEGEND .... Future Roadways i No~h xx ~- P.M. peak hour through volume !1 Figure 2 Existing Pass-Through Traffic Volumes A[rport/Rodwoo~ Bu$~no$$ Pork Troff~c ,~.~ ·. ~: Whitlook & W~inb~r~r ?ran~portafi.n Ino. City of ~kiah UI(IOO~.DRW 12/96 Project Generated Traffic Volumes The City of Ukiah has indicated that several developments have either been constructed or approved for construction. Projects which have been constructed include Friedman Brothers and WalMart. Planned projects include Lazy Boy Furniture and Staples office supply. The floor area for these uses total 198,100 square feet. It should be noted that this total floor area includes Friedman Brothers but does not include WalMart. All of these uses are within the retail category originally designated. The City of Ukiah has also indicated that 16.36 acres of industrial zoned land has been rezoned to automotive commercial uses. The automotive commercial uses were assumed to consist of 12 acres of an auto dealership and four acres of automotive parts/auto care uses. Based on information provided by the City of Ukiah, the project was assumed to consist of the following uses. 67,000 square feet of office/retail 373,500 square feet of industrial park for Redwood Business Park 345,200 square feet of industrial park for Airport Business Park plus Norgard 101,500 square feet of auto dealership 33,800 square feet of auto parts/auto care 198,100 square feet of retail 18,000 square feet of WalMart expansion 8,300 square feet for Lot//12 retail 2,376 square foot fast food restaurant 2,452 square foot gas station/mini mm with car wash ' In estimating the external vehicle trip generation of most large development projects, traffic engineers can obtain a variety of results based on varying assumptions, techniques and interpretations of data. Following are the assumptions used in this analysis. All trip generation rates have been obtained from Trip Generation, 5th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1991, and the February 1995 Update. For commercial and retail uses, the total trips which are generated consist of primary trips, diverted trips, pass-by trips, and internal capture trips. Primary'trips are those trips which are new to the study area as a direct result of the development. Diverted trips are those trips that may be occurring near the study area, but will divert to the new use rather than an existing use. Pass-by trips are trips made as intermediate stops on the way from an origin to a primary trip destination~ Pass-by trips are attracted from existing traffic which now passes the project site on an adjacent street or streets. Internal capture trips represent a portion of the primary and diverted trips which stay within the Airport/Redwood Business Park area and do not impact the merial street system. For this project, diverted trps are those trps occurring on U.S. 101 or in other areas of Ukiah which are diverted to the study area~ Pass-by trps are those trps on South State Street or Talmage Road which enter the site on the way between their origin and another primary destination. Internal capture trips are those which are made between the existing and new uses at the Airport/Redwood Business Park without impacting South State Street or Talmage RoM Internal capture trips can also consist of a linked trip where an employee at the business park leaves work and stops at a commercial use before proceeding home. Approximately 30 percent of all the commercial trips are assumed to consist of traffic that has been attracted from the existing traffic on Talmage Road and South State Street. The percentage for pass-by traffic was obtained from Trip Generation, and is based on the ultimate size of the commercial center. Approximately 50 percent of all the highway commercial trips are assumed to consist of traffic that has been attracted from the Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. Page 9 City of Ukiah April 17, 1997 existing traffic on Talmage Road and South State Street. The percentage for pass-by traffic was based on information fi.om Trip Generation for gas station and fast food restaurant uses. The internal capture represents the commercial trips that are linked to one end of a trip to/from the office/industrial uses. It was assumed that 15 percent of the peak hour non-commercial trips would stop and patronize the commercial uses when going to or leaving work, The 15 percent assumption is based on the current and potential mix of commercial use types in the project. WalMart and similar stores are more likely to be patronized by nearby workers once per month (1 of 22 work days or 5 percent) or once every two weeks (1 of 10 work days or 10 percent) as opposed to a grocery store which is typically patronized once per week (1 of 5 work days or 20 percent). Therefore, allowing for an increased potential for linked trips in the future, an average of 15 percent was used. Also, it was assumed that 25 percent of the highway commercial trips would consist of internal capture trips where workers or shoppers would stop and patronize the gas station or fast food going to or fi.om the non-commercial and other commercial uses in the project. There would also be some internal capture between the various commercial uses, however, these are accounted for in the shopping center trip generation rate use& No additional deductions for internal capture trips were taken for the commercial land uses. The resulting trip generation estimates with these assumptions for the project are shown in Table 4. Note that the internal capture trips shown are subtracted from the primary/diverted trips. In total, the proposed mixed use development is anticipated to generate an average of 2,395 p.m. peak hour vehicle trips which includes 1,568 new/diverted trips external to the project area, 298 new trips intemal to the project area, and 529 pass-by trips which currently exist on South State Street and Talmage Road. These trip generation projections were asSigned to the study area based on the distribution assumptions contained in the Airport/Redwood Business Park EIR with modifications based on existing traffic circulation patterns. It was additionally assumed that the majority of the traffic destined for the highway commercial uses would take access from the Talmage Road/Airport Park Boulevard intersection since this portion of the project would be located directly adjacent to that intersection. The resulting project traffic volumes are shown in Figure 3. It should be noted that these project traffic volumes shown in Figure 3 consist of the new/diverted trips external to the project area and the pass-by trips which currently exist on either South State Street and Talmage Road. The internal project trips were not assumed to impact any of the study intersections. Also, the assigned project traffic volumes assumed that there would be no extension of Norgard Lane into the project from the south. Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis City of Ukiah Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. Page 10 April 17, 1997 Table 4 Pro Generation Line Note Land Use Number Weekday P.M. Peak Hour No. of Units Trip Rate In Out Total Per Unit 1 Office/Retail 6'/.0 ksf 2.06 23 115 138 2 Industrial Park (RBP) 373.5 ksf 0.91 74 266 340 3 Industrial Park (ABP + Norgard) 345.2 ksf 0.91 66 248 314 4 A Total Non - Corntnercial Trips 163 629 792 5 Auto Dealership (12.27 Acres) 101.5 ksf 2.62 109 157 266 6 B Auto Parts/Auto Care (4.09 Acres) 33.8 ksf 4.00 59 76 135 7 C Retail 198.1 ksf 4.28 424 424 848 8 C Wal-Mart Expansion 18.0 ksf 4~.8 38 39 77 9 C Lot #12 Retail 8.3 ksf 4.28 18 18 36 10 D Commercial Trips (TotttO 648 714 13 62 11 Commercial Trips (Pass-by: 30 %) 194 214 408 12 E Commercial Trips (Internal Capture) 119 119 238 13 F Commercial Trips (new primary) 335 381 716 14 G Fast Food Restaurant 2.376 36.56 45 42 87 15 H Gas Station/Mini-Mart 2.452 62.57 77 77 154 16 I Highway Com Trips (Total) 122 119 241 17 Highway Corn Trips (Pass-by 50 %) 61 60 121 18 J Highway Corn Trips (Internal Capture) 30 30 60 19 K Highway, Corn Trips (new primary) 31 29 60 20 L Total New Trips to the Area 529 1,039 1,568 255 274 529 21 M Total Pass-by Trips Notes: Source of Rates: Trip Generation, 5th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1991/1995 A. D. F. H. I. J. K. L. M k.s.f. = 1000 square feet, R.BP = Redwood Business Park, ABP = Airport Business Park This total represents the non-commercial (office and industrial) related trips. Rate is based on the average of ITE Land Use #840, Automobile Care Center and ITE Land Use #848, Tire Store. Rate is based on ITE Land Use #820 and is calculated based on a 324 ksf shopping center (the 324 ksfeonsists of the 198 ksf retail, 18 ksfWalMart expansion, 8 ksfLot # 12 retail and existing 100 ksfWalMart). This total represents the commercial/retail related trips. The internal capture is 15 % of the total non-commercial trips (15% of 792= 119), in and out of commercial uses for a total of 238: Represents Line # 10 minus Line # 11 minus Line # 12. Rate is based on ITE Land Use #834, Fast Food Restaurant. Rate is based on ITE Land Use #853, Convenience Market with Cmsoline Pumps This total represent the highway commercial related trips. The internal capture trips were assumed to be 25 percent of the highway commercial trips. Represents Line #16 minus Line #17 minus Line #18. Represents line #4 plus line #13 plus line # 19. Represents line # I 1 plus line # 17. Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. Page 11 City of Ukiah :~ ~- ~. I~ April 17, 1997 Tolmag~ ~ ~ ~"~~~~3 Washington Avenue s Avenue i m ,o 160 j i ~-77 :1 ~ i ~ r", i ~ 145 I I o '9, I -- 106 I ; o 3 I ~ - ' ~ 0 j ~ ¢ ff : 332 ~ ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ 170 ~ "mo~ I ~ ~ , LEGEND No~th .... F~ure R~ ~ ~ ~ PM. ~ak ~ur throb ~lu~ ~ [ Figure 3 Project Traffic Volumes Airpo~Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis Whitlo0k & WeinberjJr Transpo~on In0, City of U kJah ~ · r ff · ~ ~ UKIOOS.DRW 4/97 Evaluation of Intersection Operations Existing Conditions The actual average stopped delay by approach at the four study intersections was measured in the field during the weekday p.m peak hour on November 15 and 16, 1995. The method used in obtaining the delay was based on guidelines presented in the Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report No. 209, Transportation Research Board, 1994. Using the computer sof~ware available for the Highway Capacity Manual methodologies and the existing lanes and volumes counted during the field measurements, the average delays for the intersection and its approaches were calculated. A calibration process was then employed to match the field measured delay with the calculated delay. This process included the adjustment of default values such as lane capacities and critical gaps. New traffic counts were obtained on February 20, 1997. These existing volumes were then hand adjusted to reflect traffic volumes prior to the opening of Friedman Brothers. Using the intersection level of service parameters which were confu'med in the field and existing traffic volumes, the existing levels of service were calculate& The resulting conditions are shown in Table 5. Based on this process, all 'of the study intersections are operating acceptably at LOS C or better without the Friedman Brothers generated traffic. The intersection of'South State Street/Talmage Road is currently operating with an average delay of 21.6 'seconds per vehicle and a LOS'D (compared with a v/c of 0.80 and a LOS C/D shown in the EIR). The intersection of South State Street/Hastings Avenue is currently operating with an average delay of 8.9 seconds per vehicle and a LOS B (compared with a v/c of 0.65 and a LOS B shown in the EIR). The intersection of Talmage Road/Airport Park Boulevard is currently operating with an average delay of 12.5 seconds per vehicle and a LOS B (compared with a v/c of 0.45 and a LOS A shown in the EIR). The southbound off-ramp movement at the intersection of Talmage Road/U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp is currently operating with an average delay of 9.5 seconds per vehicle and a LOS B (compared with a LOS A shown in the EIR). The existing level of service calculations are included in Appendix B. Existing plus Project Conditions Using the calibrated intersection level of service parameters and the project traffic volumes described in the previous section, the "Existing plus Project" levels of service were calculated. With the addition of project traffic, it is anticipated that all four of the study intersections will operate unacceptably based on the LOS C standard. If the mid D standard is applied, South State Street/Talmage Road would be expected to operate acceptably under the Existing plus Project traffic volumes. If the LOS D standard is applied, U.S. 101 SB Ramps/Talmage Road would be expected to operate acceptably. South State Street/Hastings Avenue and Airport Park Boulevard/ Talmage Road are expected to operate unacceptably regardless of the criteria applied. The resulting conditions are shown in Table 5 and are identified as "Existing plus Project". The Existing plus Project level of service calculations are included in Appendix C. It should again be noted that the Existing Plus Project traffic volumes at the study intersections do not include the projected internal capture trips. Under the Existing plus Project volumes, the intersection of South State Street/Talmage Road would be expected to operate with an average delay of 26.6 seconds per vehicle and a LOS D. The intersection of South State Street/Hastings Avenue would be expected to operate with a very high delay and a LOS F. Delay would be most prominent on the Hastings Avenue approach due to the availability of only one travel lane on the westbound approach to the intersection. The intersection of Talmage Road/Airport Park Boulevard would be expected to Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. Page 13 City of Ukiah April 17, 1997 operate with an average delay of 142 seconds per vehicle and a LOS F. The movements which would be expected to experience the greatest delay include the left-turns in to and out of the site. The southbound off-ramp movement at the intersection of Talmage Road/U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp would be expected to operate with an average delay of 29.8 seconds per vehicle and a LOS D. Although the intersection level of service indicates acceptable operation, due to unacceptable operation on the controlled approach and safety issues concerning the limited sight distance from the southbound off-ramp to the east which were identified, mitigation appears to be warranted. Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis City of Ukiah Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. Page 14 April 17, 1997 Table 5 Summary of Intersection Operations (Weekday P.M. Peak Hour) Intersection Existing Existing plus Pro iect Delay LOS Delay LOS 1. South State Street/Talmage Road ~ C 62.6~ D Northbound Through/Right 17.7 C 18.9 C Southbound Left/Through 25.5 D 37.1 D Westbound Left 26.7 D 26.7 D Westbound Right 16.3 C 20.3 C 2. South State Street/Hastings Avenue 8.9 B *** Northbound Left 18.0 C 18.0 C Northbound Through/Right 7.9 B 9.4 B Southbound Left 17.9 C 20.4 C Southbound Through/Right 6.6 B 6.4 B Eastbound Approach 15.0 B *** F Westbound Approach 15.4 C *** F 3. Airport Park Boulevard/Talmage Road ~ lB 14_5.L217 F_ Northbound Left 21.8 C 152.7 F Northbound Through/Right 15.4 C 39.2 D Southbound Left 24.3 C 24.3 C Southbound Through/Right 18.0 C 18.3 C Eastbound Left 23.7 C 23.7' C Eastbound Throu~ght 10.9 B 11.5 B Westbound Left 24.8 C *** F Westbound Through/Right 7.2 B 7.0 B 4. U.S. 101 SB-Ramps/Talmage Road 3.1 A 8.9 lB Southbound Right 9.5 B 29.8 D Notes: Delay = average delay per vehicle in seconds LOS = level of service x,,cx = overall intersection level of service *** = delay exceeds reasonable parameters for methodology Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis City of Ukiah Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. Page 15 Mitigation Recommendations Based on the alternative operational thresholds and the updated level of service conditions presented, optional mitigation measures were developed which would be required to meet the minimum thresholds. The mitigation investigation included the evaluation of additional lanes and traffic signal operations. Although revisions to signal timing were considered as a potential mitigation measure, such changes may not be possible due to factors such as increased pedestrian use or coordination with other traffic signals, so the use of signal timing changes to improve level of service was done on a limited basis. For example, it may be theoretically possible to increase green time for a side street approach which is operating unacceptably. However, this approach may not be practical due to the need to provide minimum green times for main street traffic flow. The mitigated level of service calculations are included in Appendix D. Intersection # 1 - South State Street/Talmage Road In order to achieve LOS C operation, it is recommended that the two southbound lanes be striped as one through lane and one left-mm lane. The signal could then operate without the split phasing in the north-south direction. It should be noted that this restriping would create a "trap" lane fi.om the southbound left-turn lane. An alternative would be to eliminate parking in order to stripe a southbound left-mm lane in addition to the two through lanes. Inter, ecti0n #2 - South State Street/Hastings Avenue It is recommended that separate fight-mm, through and left-mm lanes be provided on the westbound approach, that the two northbound through lanes be extended to Talmage Road, and that a separate left-turn lane be striped on the eastbound approack It should be noted that these improvements were derived through an iterative process wherein minimal measures such as timing changes were attempted first, then the number of lanes was increased incrementally, with various lane assignments tried for each increment. An intermediate calculation is included in Appendix D. As shown in these calculations, with only two approach lanes on the westbound approach and other lane improvements, an overall LOS D can be achieved for the intersection. However, the westbound approach would be operating with a LOS F. Therefore, three approach lanes would be needed on the westbound approach in order to allow a LOg D or better operation for all the approaches. Inter~?ction #3 - Airport Park Boulevard/Talmage Road It is recommended that a second westbound left-turn lane be provided and that the northbound approach include one left-turn lane, one combined left-mm/through lane, and one exclusive right-turn lane. It is also recommended that split-phasing be implemented for the north-south approaches. As noted for South State Street/Hastings Avenue, an incremental approach to developing mitigation measures was used for this intersection. An intermediate calculation is included in Appendix D. As shown in these calculations, with only one westbound left turn lane on Talmage Road and other lane improvements, an overall LOS D can be achieved for the intersection. However, the westbound left turn lane and approach would be operating with a LOS F. Therefore, a second westbound left turn lane would be needed in order to allow a LOS D or better operation for all the approaches. Intersection//4 - U.S. 101 SB Offramp/Talmage Road City staffhas previously determined that the ramp design/lOCation and/or concrete barrier cannot be modified in order to increase the sight distance. Therefore, in order to decrease delay to the southbound offramp traffic and Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis WhitlOCk & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. Page 16 City of Ukiah April 17, 1997~ ~- ¢, ~0~ to address safety issues related to the sight distance at the ramp, it is recommended that a second westbound through lane on Talmage Road be extended back to the southbound offramp to allow the offramp traffic mining right to turn into its own lane without conflict. In order to fund the required improvements, it may be necessary to levy a fee on the various components of the project commensurate with their level of traffic impact. A schedule indicating the responsibility for each land use is shown in Table 6. It should be noted that the discount for internal capture trips are shared between the commercial and non-commercial uses. Table 6 Fee Apportionment Summary Land Use Number Weekday P.M. Peak Hour of Units Trip Rate In Out Total Fair Share Per Unit Office/Retail 67.0 ksf 2.06 23 115 138 Discount for Internal Capture Trips 2 8 10 Land Use Total 21 107 128 6.10% Industrial Park 718.7 ksf 0.91 140 514 654 Discount for Internal Capture Trips 10 39 49 Land Use Total 130 475 605 28.85% Auto Dealership 101.5 ksf 2.62 109 , 157 266 12.68% Auto Parts/Auto Care 33.8 ksf 4.00 59 76 135 6.44% Retail 224.4 ksf 4.28 480 481 961 Discount for Internal Capture Trips 107 72 179 Land Use Total 373 409 782 37.29% Fast Food Restaurant 2.376 36.56 45 42 87 Discount for Internal Capture Trips 11 11 22 Land Use Total 34 31 65 3.10% Gas Station/Mini-Mart 2.452 62.57 77 77 154 Discount for Internal Capture Trips 19 19 38 Land Use Total 58 58 116 5.54% Site Total 2097 100.00% Notes: . No discount for internal capture trips was taken for auto related uses due to the fact that these uses are not conducive to peak hour linked trips. Discount for internal capture trips ofthe offic~ and industrial park uses is based on one-half of the 15 percent internal capture assumption. The balance of the internal capture trips were assigned to the retail uses. Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. Page 17 City of Ukiah April 17, 1997 Study Participants And References Study Participants Project Manager: Engineer/Data Collection: Graphics: Report Review: Field Technician: Steve Weinberger, P.E. Andrew Wong Cheryl Whiflock-Gfiff'm Dalene J i Whitlock, P.E. Jerry Jaromin References Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report No. 209, Transportation Research Board, 1994 Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report No. 209, Transportation Research Board, 1985 Traffic Manual, California Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual, California Department of Transportation ' Left-Turn Channelization Design Guide, Transportation Research Board Trip Generation, 5th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1991, and February 1995 l Jpdate Airport/Redwood Business Park E/R, Leonard Charles & Associates. Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis City of Ukial', Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. Page 18 April 17, 1997 Appendix A Description of Intersection Capacity Analysis Methodologies Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. City of Ukiah April 1997 DESCRIPTION OF INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS TWO-WAY STOP-CONTROLLED METHOD Background The method of unsignalized intersection capacity analysis used for two-w~ stop-controlled intersections is from Chapter 10, "Unsignalized Intersections," Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report No. 209, Third Edition, Transportation Research Board, 1994. This method applies to two-way stop sign or yield sign controlled intersections (or one-way stop sign or yield sign controlled intersections at three-~ intersections). At such intersections, drivers on the minor, or stop-controlled, street are forced to use judgment when selecting gaps in the major flow through which to execute crossing or turning maneuvers. If there is a queue, each driver must also use some measurable amount of time to move into position at the front of the queue and get ready to evaluate gaps in traffic on the major street. Thus, the capacity of the controlled legs of an intersection is based on three factors, ns follows. o The distribution of gaps in the major street traffic stream. Driver judgment in selecting gaps through which to execute their desired maneuvers. The follow-up time required by each driver in a queue. It is assumed that gaps in the traffic stream are randomly distributed. For this reason, the methodology will be less reliable in situations in which the conflicting flows are strongly platooned, as would be the ease at many urban intersections where the major street is part of a signalized network. The impact of progression on the gap distribution in major street traffic can vary substantially, from creating large gaps and thereby increasing capacity to virtually eliminating gaps and creating considerable delays. This method assumes that major street traffic is not affected by minor street flows. This assumption is generally good for periods when the operation is smooth and uncong~ (When congestion occurs, it is likely that major street traffic will experience some impedance due to minor street traffic.) Lef[ tums from the major street are assumed to be affected by the opposing major street flow, and minor street traffic is affected by all conflicting movements. Input Data The general procedure to calculate the level of service is as follows: lo . . , Define existing geometric and volume conditions for the intersection under study. Detemfine the conflicting traffic through which each minor street movement and the major street Icl[- turn must cross. Determine the size of the gap in the conflicting traffic stream needed by vehicles in each movement crossing the conflicting traffic stream. Determine the capacity of the gaps in the major traffic stream to accommodate each of the subject movements that will utilize these gaps. Adjust the capacities found to account for impedance and the use of shared lanes. ~ the average total delay for each of the subject movements and determine the level of service for each movement and for the intersection. Gaps are utilized by vehicles in the follovdng priority order: o 2. 3. 4. Right turns from the minor street Let~ tums from the major street Through movements fi'om the minor street Lef~ turns from the minor street DESCRIPTION OF SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS 1994 HClVl OPERATIONS METHOD Background The operations method of intersection capacity analysis found in Chapter 9, "Signalized Intersections," of the Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report No. 209, Transportation Research Board, 1994, was used for this analysis. This method is used in most analyses of existing conditions or for future situations in which traffic, geometric, and control parameters are well established by projections and trial This method addresses thc capacity and level of service of intersection approaches, and the level of service of the intersection as a whole. In this method, capacity and level of service are evaluated separately, and are not related to each other in a simple one-to-one fashion. Capacity is evaluated in terms of the ratio of demand flow rate to capacity (volume-to-capacity ratio), while level of~ervice is evaluated on the basis of average stopped delay per vehicle (seconds/vehicle). The capacity of the intersection as a whole is not addressed by this method; the design and signaliTation of inttxsecfions focuses on the acco~~on of the major movements and approaches comprising the intersection. Capacity is, therefore, only meaningful as applied to these major movements and approaches. Capacity analysis results in the computation of volume-to-capacity ratios for individual movements and a composite volume-to- capacity ratio for the sum of critical movements or lane groups within the intersection. The volume-to-capacity ratio is the actual or projected rate of flow on an approach or designated group of lanes during a peak Ii-minute interval divided by the capacity of the approach or designated group of lanes. Input Data The input data necess~ to use this methodology includes lane geomctrics, traffc volumes, signal timing, vehicle type distribution, percent grade, pedestrians, peak hour factors, parking activity, and arrival type per approach. Level of Service Level of service is based on the average stopped delay per vehicle for various movements within the intersection. V~nile voltune-to-capacity affects delay, there are other parameters that more strongly affect it, such as the quality of progression, length of green phases, cycle lengths, and others. Thus for any given volume-to-capacity ratio, a range of delay values may result, and vice-versa. See the table "Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections" for the relationship between the level of service and stopped delay per vehicle. Because delay is a complex measure, its relationship to capacity is also compiex. It is possible, for example, to have delays in the range of Level of Service F while the volume-to-capacity ratio is below 1.00, perhaps as low as 0.75-0.85. Very high delays can occur at such volume-to-capacity ratios when some combination of the following conditions exists: the cycle length is long; the lane group in question has a long red time; and/or the signal progression for the subject movement is poor. The reverse is also possible. A saturated approach or lane group with a volume-to-capacity equal to 1.00 may have low delays if the cycle length is short, and/or the signal progression is favorable for the subject movement. Acceptable delay levels do not automatically ensure that capacity is sufficient. The analyst must consider the results of the capaciW analysis module and the level of service module to obtain a complete picture of existing or projected intersection operations. DESCRIPTION OF LANE CONFIGURATION FORMAT The number of lanes and the use of the lanes is denoted with a special nomenclature described below: Lane Nomenclature X.Y Where X Y When Y is... Jl J! ! ~ I.OR 1.0 T t-' - I.O L Denotes the total number of lanes available for a particular movement. Denotes how the lanes are used. · .. The foUowing applies: A lane used exclusively for a particular movement (i.e. exclusive left-turn lane J! I Jl I: 1.1 L IA R 2.1 T !.0 L ! 2.0 T 1.0 L 1.6 R 3.1 T l.O L I: 7,8,9 It :t :tL__ 1.7 R 2.1 T !.0 L 2.0 T It:tr _ ,.o,_ 2.0 T 1.0 L It:tm---- . A lane which is shared, that is, either of two different movements can be mode from a particular lane (i.e. a lane which is shared by through and fight-mm traffic). Denotes two or more through lanes in which two lanes are shared, one with left-mm traffic, the other with right-mm traffic. Denotes an expressway through movement. Denotes a right-mm movement from a wide outside lane where right-turn vehicles can bypass through traffic sharing the lane to make a right-turn on red. Denotes a right-mm movement from an exclusive right-turn lane with a right-mm arrow and prohibition on the conflicting U-turn movement. Denotes a right-mm movement from a shared lane with a fight-ama arrow and prohibition on the conflicitng U-turn movement. Denotes a turning movement which has a separate lane to turn into, as shown below: Turn lane which is shared with a through lane or left-mm lane and under signal control, and which has its own lane to mm into. There must be at least two through lanes. Exclusive turn lane which is under signal control, and which has its own lane to turn into. Exclusive turn lane not under signal control and which has an exclusive lane to turn into, often referred to as a "free" mm. Since the volumes in this lane do not conflict with other intersection movements, the V/C ratio of the free fight-turn movement is not included in the sum of critical V/C ratios. P, Appendix B Intersection Level of Service Calculations Existing Conditions Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. City of Ukiah April 1997 mm ii H -~-4 u . m ~ 0 II ii -,.i # I tJ # ii ~,, j.) II ~Q He ,4 14 ~ N 0 ,,h ,, c~ 0 . :~ n · # · ~ u " [,'4 0 0 0 ' ' ' 0 N ., ., # # # I I # # # # I # # # ~ .4.4.4.4 ," > II . oooo in' 0 f¢ 0 0 0 0 N U C:) 0 0 CD II I [Z, 0 0 0 0 Om # · II II · o~ I ~ II II .0 n~ 0 0 0 0 ii n m ~ ooo ~ · . . N ~ I II # # # # # ~ # # # # # # # # # ~ · · ·# # I # # qP fq CO ml::l +,II Appendix C Intersection Level of Service Calculations Existing plus Project Traffic Volumes Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. City of Ukiah April 199~,~ ~. ~O II ,,-, N # # # N Ii II 0 # fin II m ii.a.) Il:Z: ils II J.4 N '." U II ..t.) m n mn~ }..in.&.) u .,t.) E-,n m n~ I-,-, n 0 # · ~4 ii no i I ; ,, ., ! ,. I I I ., # # I ,. # # 0 0 0 0 I II . I oooo: . 4- ------ .-I ~p 0 0 · 0 ~ 0 0 0000 + 0000 0 I I ! V 0 0 o · ^ ! i 0 I ----0 I CD ¥ · 0 I I 0 Ii ., # # # I # : # # # I # II # # II ., II 0 0 0 M ., 0 0 0 fi4 # Appendix D Intersection Level of Service Calculations Mitigated Conditions Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. City of Ukiah April 1997 · o i i i i ¥ 1.4 ,-4 · .,', ('4 rt. i ,-4 0 · 0 ! e,,.4 ^ i i I I i n, II I mm II I I l I ;~.., II II Il n~ NOn` # ~ +~ # n o ~4 o o qP 0 0 qp C:) 0 ~ o o o 0000 I1% It ~,0 u I I-4 U # o fl ~ ii . . ."~ II # -r4 ~ II # # # II II m tl't~ 0 r,,,,) II fl (~ II ,,1~ H [-~ C ti U II ~ . O II ~ U I:: II ~ a -.-~ n .,C ~ -,,.4 N 0 ~-~ II *~ # nm ,, ,,ip i i ¥ o o · ^ 0 o---- I o ~ o 0 0 ~ i o o i i c, · ^ · i c) i ----o · i o v o · i o I I · II ; II l N # ,.~ l I II ; II : I I II Il ,~,~= ~+~ ~ .,4 · . o o Pi 0 ~ 000 0 0 ,..4 .,-, e.4 e.4 e...¢ + I I I I ooooI oooo: 0 0 0 0 oooo~ oooo mr..) c.) o o o o o oooo . a~C.) o · o o ~1 o o 0000 i i · -- I 0 · ^ · 0 I · 0 4) ' I uJ n : I II II # II I II n # ii il u I O~ # , 000o # I . . , ooooi 0000: 0000: # 0000 PQ 0000 .... om · o o o ~ o o o 0000 March 25, 1997 Wo TRA NS Mr. Rick Kennedy City Engineer City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis Dear Rick, As you kmow, an updated Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis was submitted on March 19, 1997. This updated report was submitted in response to our previous meetings and discussions. At a meeting last month with City staff and Gary Akerstrom, a number of questions were asked of us. Following are responses to these issues. Issue #1: Consideration for internal trips as part of the trip generation estimate. Response: The previous trip generation and internal trip estimates were based on assumptions from the EIR. We updated the trip generation for the project based on the current land use profile with consideration for internal trips both between commercial uses and between commercial and non- commercial uses. As stated in the report, there would be some intemal capture between the various commercial uses, however, these are accounted for by treating the commercial uses as a shopping center. The trip rate for a shopping center represent the trips attracted external to the project and assumes that the internal trips are inherent within the project. Therefore, an additional deduction for commercial to commercial internal trips was not taken. The intemal capture shown in the report represents the commercial trips that are linked to one end of a trip to/from the office/industrial uses. It was assumed that 15 percent of the peak hour non- commercial trips would be linked to the commercial uses. The 15 percent assumption is based on the current and potential mix of commercial use types in the project. Issue #2: Pass-through traffic as part of critical movements at Talmage Road/Airport Park Boulevard. Response: As shown in the report, pass-through traffic in the AirporffRedwood Business Park was field surveyed and estimated based on those surveys. The data revealed that during the p.m. peak hour there are approximately 19 vehicles making westbound left tums from Talmage Road onto Airport Pm'k Boulevard which are traveling through and not related to land uses within the new commercial area. These 19 vehicles are part of the critical movement at the Talmage Road/Airport Park Boulevard intersection which totals 117 vehicles under existing conditions and 382 vehicles under existing plus project conditions. Based on our experience, field observations and examination of available streets and adjacent land uses, it is apparent that the majority of the 19 vehicles are related to the City corporation yard, lumber yard, or other uses off of Commerce Drive/Hastings Avenue. WHITLOCK & WEINBERGER T R A N $ P O ~ TATIO N IN C 2200 Range Avenue, Suite 102, Santa Rosa, California, 95403, (707) 542-9500, FAX (707) 542-9590 Mr. Rick Kennedy Page 2 March 25, 1997 It is unlikely that these vehicles will divert to other routes. Therefore, it was our recommendation not to reduce the westbound left turn critical movement on Talmage Road at Airport Park Boulevard when assessing the project impacts. Issue #3: Response: Interpretation of traffic counts on Talmage Road/U.S. 101 southbound ramp. There was some question on the proper interpretation of the existing traffic volumes from the EIR. This is no longer an issue since we conducted new existing turning movement counts and use those counts in our report. Issue #4: Speed assumption on the Talmage Road overpass in calculating the level of service. Response: In calculating the level of service for the Talmage Road/U.S. 101 southbound ramp intersection, a calibration process was employed to match the field measured delay with the calculated delay. This process included the adjustment of the amount of time needed for a ve,hicle to enter westbound Talmage Road fi.om the southbound off-ramp (critical gap). Although the prevailing speed can be used in selecting the critical gap (in seconds) for side streets, in this case we did not need to make an assumption regarding the prevailing speed, since the critical gap was adjusted so that the resulting side street delay matched what was surveyed in the field. In essence, the critical gap was adjusted so that it reflected the interaction of the main street prevailing speed and the sight distance from the off-ramp. Issue #5: Potential for shifting lanes on the Talmage Road overpass. Response: The shifting of the Talmage Road lanes on the overpass to the south in order to increase sight distance for the southbound off-ramp would not be appropriate. The south side of the overpass serves both the merge between eastbound Talmage Road and the southbound off-loop and the diverge between eastbound Talmage Road and the northbound on-loop. The additional lane width which is currently present on the south side of the overpass is needed to serve these movements. Issue #6: Potential for signal timing optimization as part of intersection mitigation. Response: The signal timing at the study intersections was optimized in an attempt to mitigate the study intersections to an acceptable level of service. However, the use of signal optimization was done on a limited basis. Based on our experience in implementing traffic signal timing changes in the field, such changes may not be possible due to factors such as pedestrian timing or coordination with other traffic signals. Please call me if you have any questions regarding these issues. ~Steve Weinbei~r, i.E. 0 SJW/UKI005.L3 Table 5 · Summary of Intersection Operations (Weekday P.M. Peak Hour) , g6.6 D_ __ ~2-,~ 1~ I Northbound Through/Right 17.7 C 18.9 C I'~, ~ ~ Southbound Left~hrough Westbound Left Westbound Right 2. South State Street/Hastings Avenue Northbound Left Northbound Through/Right Southbound Left Southbound Through/Right Eastbound Approach 'Westbound Approach 3. Airport Park Boulevard/Talmage Road Northbound Left Northbound Through/Right Southbound Left Southbound Through/Right 25.5 D 26.7 16.3 D 18.0 C 7.9 B 17.9 6.6 15.0 C 15.4 C 21.8 15.4 C 24.3 C 18.0 C Eastbound Left 23.7 C Eastbound Through/Right Westbound Left 24.8 C Westbound Through/Right 7.2 B _ 4. U.S. 101 SB-Ramps/Talmage Road 3.1 A 20.3 C ..12. ~- ~ 9.4 B ~),~ B 20.4 C Z~ ,~ C 6.4 B *** V 141.7 F_. 152.7 F 39.2 D 24.3 C ~,~ . 23.7 C 11.5 B ~$~ F 7.0 B IO, t 8 Notes: Southbound..~at 9.5 Delay = average delay per vehicle in seconds LOS = level of service B 29.8 D xxx = overall intersection level of service *** = delay exceeds reasonable parameters for methodology Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis City of Ukiah Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. Page 15 April 17, 1997 CITY OF UKIAH MEMORANDUM DATE: May 5, 1997 TO: All Agenda Packet Holders FROM: Rick Seanor, Deputy Director of Public Works SUBJECT: May 7, 1997 City Council Meeting Agenda Item No. 8c Attached please find a revised copy of Attachment No. 2 for the above agenda item. Required revisions were made to this resolution after the agenda packets were distributed on Friday. Please remove the Attachment No. 2 from your agenda packet and replace it with the attached copy. cc: file 1 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF TIIE CITY OF UKIAII PROVIDING INTERIM AUTIIORIZATION FOR AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FEES WITHIN TIlE CITY OF UKIAIt WHEREAS, le The City Council has adopted its resolution imposing Airport Industrial Park 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 2~ ge capital improvement fees to mitigate the off-site pedestrian and traffic impacts from the further development of the Airport Industrial Park (Resolution No. ); and The contents of the resolution imposing those fees is incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full; and The fees imposed by said resolution will fund the estimated cost of constructing 14 15 16 17 18 19 . improvements to three intersections: 1) Talmage Road and U.S. Highway 101 southbound exit ramp, 2) Talmage Road and Airport Park Boulevard, and 3) South State Street/Washington Avenue/Hastings Avenue; and The required improvements will prevent levels of service ("LOS") from deteriorating to an unacceptable level at these intersections, but will not improve 20 the LOS for any intersection above or better than pre-project levels; and 21 22 23 24 25 26 e The parcels of real property within the Airport Industrial Park that have produced the need for these intersection improvements must all contribute to the cost of constructing those improvements in order to produce sufficient funding to make the needed improvements; and Construction is currently underway on so,ne of those parcels, including Assessor Parcel Nos. 180-080-52 and 180-080-54, and the City anticipates an application 28 for a building permit on Assessor Parcel No. 180-070-36 in less than 60 days. 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 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED as follows: 1. The City Council finds that the following conditions constitute the current and immediate threat to the public health, welfare and safety warranting interim authorization of the fees established by Resolution No. : a. Fees imposed by Resolution No. ... will not become effective pursuant to Government Code Section 660017(a) until July 7, 1997. b. Between now and July 7, 1997, the City of Ukiah anticipates that no fewer than four projects contributing total fees of approximately $100,200 will apply for building or occupancy permits; c. If those permits are issued before the fees imposed by Resolution No. become effective, the City of Ukiah will not have sufficient funding to make the needed improvements; d. As a consequence, there is a substantial likelihood that some or all of the required intersection improvements could not be built, creating congested intersections as the LOS for the affected intersections to degrade to an e unacceptable level; e. To avoid these congested conditions from arising, it is necessary to make the fees effective immediately. Based on the findings stated herein, the City Council hereby authorizes the immediate imposition of the fees established by Resolution No. , effective e immediately. This interim authorization shall remain in effect for 30 days, to and including June 6, 1997, unless extended for an additional 30 days by a 4/5 vote of the City Council in accordance with Government Code Section 660017(b). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 PASSED AND ADOPTED this following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: Colleen B. Henderson City Clerk B:IkRES! :KK IMPFEE$.2 day of , 1997, by the Sheridan Malone Mayor MAY 81 'g? 15:36 HEH&M BBRD FLOOR kfinney ~hewm.com · HELLER EHRMAN WHITE & McAULIFFE ATTORNEYS A PARTNERSNIP o1* PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS May 1, 1997 22814-0001 Ms. Colleen Henderson, City Clerk City of Ukiah' Civic Center 300 Seminary Avenue Uki~ CA 95482 Re: Comments on The Proposed Resolution of the City Council of the City of Ukiah Establishing the Airport Industrial Park Capital Improvement Fees within the City of Ukiah Dear Ms. Henderson: I am writing on behalf of Redwood Business Park to provide for tho Ukiah City Council's consideration comments and cvidence bearing on the proposed "Resolution of the City Council of the City of UMah Establishing the Airport Industrial Park Capital Improvement Fees within the City of Ukiah' and accompanying "Revised Engineering Report for the Establishment of Airport Industrial Park Capital Improvement Fees," dated April 17, 1991 (the "Revised Engineering Report"). The City Council fOr the City of Uki~ (the "City") has failed to meet its burden of proving that the Proposed capital improvement fees are reasonably related to {1) the need for the public facility to be financed by those fees; (2) the type of development project on which the fees will be imposed; and (3) the cost of the facilities or portions thereof attributable to parcels located within the Airport Industrial Park. Sec Cal. Oov't Code §§ 66001(a)(S).& (4); Cal. Gov't Code § 66001(b). · Furthermore, the City has failed to meet its burden of proving that the proposed capital' improvement fees do not exceed the reasonable cost of financing the identified 'lzaffic measures. See Cal. Gov't Code §§ 66005(a), 66014(a), 66024(a). The documents that were produced by the City in response to Redwood Business Park'S written request dated April '/, 1997, consist solely of the Revised Engineering Report, which fails to satisfy the City's burden for the reasons set forth below. MAY 01 'g? 15:37 HEW&M' 3.3RD FLOOR ~y 1, 19~? · Page 2 P.3 HELLER EHRMAN WHITE &/V~CAULIFFE AT T O ~,'N F, Y I Therefore, the City must (1) reduce the fees imposed upon parcels within Redwood Business Park to the amount necessary to finance the' "reasonably related" uaffic measures whose costs are attributable to the parcels within Redwood Business Park; and/or (2) submit a question regarding any excess fees to two-thirds of those electors entided to vote on the issue, see.. Cal. Oov't Code § 66014(a). The City Has Failed to Prove That There is a Reasonable Relationship Between the Proposed Capital Improvement Fees and the Need for the Traffic Measures To Be Financed By Those Fees; the Type of Development Project on Which Those Fees Will Be Imposed; and the Cost of the Traffic Measures Attributable to Parcels Within Redwood' Business Park. A. The Traffic Measures Proposed By the City Are Not Reasonably Related to the Projected Traffic Impacts, Because Intersections Operating at Level of Service D or Better Do Not. Warrant Mitigation and Because the City Overestimated Its Condemnation Needs. As derailed in the Barton. Aschrnan "Airport Industrial Park Traffic Impact · Aualysis" (the "Barton Analysis;" attached as Exhibit l), the traffic measures proposed by the City bear no reasonable relationship t~ the ~raffic impacts of the'Airport Indusuial Park. The Level of Service (hereinafter "LOS") calculations set forth, in Attac~~t B to ,.he Revised Engineering Report are er~oneo.us for the reasons.specified in the Barton Analysis. Because an LOS D is acceptable, as a matter of policy and law in the City, it is unreasonable for the City to "miti§ate" traffic impacts that do not result'in an unacceptable LOS for a specific traffic movement. Sec Revised Engineering Report at 2. Together, the City's proposed Waffic measures are proposed without any reference to the lraffic engineering standard and practice of analyzing signalization changes first, and then considering intersection restripin§ to segregate critical t~affic movements. Only after those options have been analyzed, should structural changes (e.g., widening) to an intersection be considered. The City has provided no ]ustification for its failure to · present an analysis of signalization changes or why restriping of intersections is not adequate for those intersections at which structural changes are proposed. Additionally, the proposed condemnation of the entire parcel of land at 1195 South State Street is unreasonable because all'that is required by the City's own proposal is a MAY 01 'g? 15:37 HEW&M 33RD FLOOR Ms. Colleen Henderson May 1,. 1997 Page 3 P.4 HELLER EHRMAN WHI'I'E & MCAULIFFE A, TTOR, NE¥ $ narrow Strip of land along one ed§c of thc.property. Thc City has made no documented attempt to value the property at that location; to assess the feasibility of condemning a strip of land proportional to its proposed construction needs rather than condemning thc whole parcel outright; or to consider the bearing of the parcel's A* zoningon the necessity of condemning the property in connection with the Airport Industrial Park or on the value of that parcel with a cloud over its title. See Uldah Municipal Airport Master Plan Report dated July 1996 (the "Airport Master Plan Report," attached as Exhibit 2). There is No.Reasonable Relationship Between the Ratio of Fees to Be Imposed on Parcels at Airport Industrial Park and the Ratio of.Their Respective Impacts. .' I. All Parcels within the Airport Industrial Park Must Bear Their Fair Share of 3leeded Traffic Improvements.. The City has segmented the imposition of fees on needed traffic improvements at the Airport Industrial Park sequentially such that parcels "first in time" have been forced to pay for the total cost of traffic improvements that serve the entire Airport Industrial Park. This segmentation bears no reasonable relationship to thc traffic impacts generated by each parcel because it ignores thc traffic impacts attributable to the parcels that have not contributed toward the costs of extant improvements. Unless all parcels within the Airport Industrial Park to contribute proportionally toward all needed traffic improvements serving the Airport Industrial Park, no reasonable relationship ~or the fees can be established.' · This is particularly true where, as is the case here, City .annexation, §eneral plans, and development approvals have treated the Airport Industrial Park as a sin. Fie, planned development. The City's segmentation of thc needed traffic improvements over time results in a significant windfall for parcels, such as those in which the City has an ownership interest, that did not contribute to specific traffic improvements that serve the entire Airport Industrial Park. Unless the parcels that paid for specific traffic improvements, are reimbursed for their prior contributions toward traffic improvements, their total contribution measures will be disproportionate to their U-affic impacts. The City cannot require only certain parcels to pay fees for traffic improvements that serve the entire Airport Industrial Park, and thus, must adjust its accounting methodologies .to result in each parcel paying its fair share of needed traffic improvements. MAY 01 '97 15:38 HEN&M BBRD FLOOR Ms. Colleen Henderson May 1, 199'/ Page 4 P.5 HELLER EHRMAN WHITE & McAULIFFE ATTORNEYS 2. The City Has Failed to Pay For Its General Tra~c'Impacts and Benefits Associated with the Proposed Tra. Oqc Measures. In 1988, during the first round of needed traffic improvements to develop the AL, port Industrial Park, the City shared the cost of installing signals at Talmage and Airport South. Pursuant to Resolution Ho. 85.40, the City bore 50% of the ' costs,, which served to allocate the proper share of costs and benefits of that intersection improvement to the City. The CiW similarly Contributes' to and benefits from the intersection modifications described in thc Revised Engineering Report and, therefore, must proportionately reduce the proposed fees to be imposed on parcels within the Airport Industrial Park. 3. The City Must Demonstrate that "Developable Acreage" as a Basis for Assessing Individual Parcel Fees Will Result in the Imposition of Fees That Are Reasonably Related to the Impacts of Each Parcel. Thc City bears the burden of prov/n$ that its use of"developable acreage," as a method of assessing waffic capital improvement fees will equate with the actual impacts generated by the development of each parcel, se~e Revised Engineering Repon at 5-6. Since fees will not'be assessed until a building permit is sought for a specific parcel, the fees must be based on waffle impact cstimates deriv_cd from. acm, al b.u~.' .d~,,g. foo?rin.ts~ rather than 1997 conjecture regarding the number of acres that coma ue aevetopea. By defu~tion, fees assessed on thc basis of ~.development cannot bear a reasonable relationship to the actual impacts attributable tO a particular parcel. The City. taus! provide evidence of a reasonable relationship between proposed fees to be assessed on the basis of actual impacts generated by each parcel for which.a specific fee is assessed. IL The City Has FaRed to Prove That the Proposed Capital Improvement Fees Do. Not Exceed the Estimated Reasonable Cost of the Traffic Measures Selected. C'alifomia Govenunent Code section 66024(c).mandates that all costs "be dete _rm_i,~ed in accordance with fundamental fairness and consistency of method as to the allocation of costs, expenses, revenues, and other items included in'the calculation." The i t The City chose to apply this legally and equitably mandated means of ~ssessing fees only to its own parcel in Airport Business Park, i.e., the Brewery. MAY 01 '97 15:39 HEW&M 33RD FLOOR Ms. Colleen Henderson May 1, 1997 Page $ HELLER EHRMAN WHITE & MCAULIFFE ATTORNEYS City has violated this. guiding principle both in its irregular allocation of costs (discussed above) and in its unreasonable estimation of costs, detailed below. Am The Fees Imposed by the City Should Be Discounted to 'their Present Value, Because the Proposed Traffic Measures Will Not Be Constructed Until the Year 2002. The City will not begin construction of the u'affic measures proposed in its Revised Engineering Report until the year 2002, at the earliest. See Revised Engineering Report at 3, 4.' Therefore, thc City must assess fees on a present discounted value basis. Fees imposed and paid prior to the year 2002 will earn interest during the period before construction begins, and therefore, will exceed the estimated reasonable cost of the proposed trafl'tc measures. (For fees paid in 1997, the ov .erPayment would exceed 20% of the total fee.) A reasonable present value calculation must be offset the fees imposed prior to 2002 in order to equate those fees with expected costs. B. Thirty-two Percent "Overhead" on Acquisition of the Land and Structure at '1195 South State Street Exceeds the Estimated Costs of Acquiring That Property. The City bas esthnated engineering, administration, and project inspection costs at thirty-two percent of the total costs of the proposed traffic measures. There is no justification provided for such high "overhead" costs of the City. (The Ci~. may not treat traffic improvement fees and projects as profit centers supporting unrelated costs of the City's Traffic Dcpamnent.) Moreover, the "overhead" component of the proposed capital improvement fees is not related to the cost of acquiring the land and structure at 1195 South State Street, and therefore, exceeds the estimated costs of the proposed traffic measures at the South State Street/Washington Avenue/Hastings Avenue intersection. The City must reduce the fees imposed for that intersection. C. The Fees To Be Imposed for the Acquisition of the Land and Structure at 1195 South State Street Exceed the Reasonable Costs of Acquiring Sufficient Property For Construction of a Right Hand Turn Lane. As detailed in Exhibit 3, the fees relating to acquisition of the land and structure, at 1195 South State Street significandy exceed the reasonable costs of acquiring su~cient property for construction of a right hand mm lane. Title to the property has been clouded by the City's designation of the parcel as lying within the Runway Protection Zone (hereinafter "RPZ") described in its Airport MAY 01 '97 15:Bg HEW&M BBRD FLOOR Ms. Colleen Henderson May 1, 1997 Page 6 P.7 HELLER EHRMAN WHITE & MCAULIFFE ATTOI~E¥~ Master Plan ReporL RPZ designation means that the City already has targeted the parcel as one to which it should acquire fee simple t/fie, or in ~he alternative, over which it needs an approach protection easement. At a minimmn, this cloud severely depresses fl~e property's value and has not been considered by the City in its estimation of acquisition costs. Furthermore, the City has failed to acknowledge its exisfin§ intentions with respect to 1195 South State Street, which obviate the need for acquisition of the parcel in c0nncction with the Airport Indusuial Park. Even if the parcel did not lie wig~in u% Runway Protection Zone, d~e City has not provided any evidence ~at it would not be feasible to acquire a suip of land commensurau~ with ~ dimensions of ~he fight hand mm lane. Condemning the en~c parcel ofprope .rry at an overstated value (even absent the clouded title problem) exceeds any reasonable es~,ua~e of costs at ~e South S~ate Stree~fashiug~on Avenue/Hastings Avenuc intersection. ~. For the foregoing reasons, the City must (1) reduce or eliminate the fees imposed upon parcels with~ Redwood Business Park to the amount necessary to finance ~he "reasonably related" mitigation measures whose costs are am'ibu~able to parcels wigtin Redwood Business Park; and/or (2) submit a question regarding any excess fees to two- t~irds of those electors entitled to vote on the issue, see Cal. Gov't Code § (~014(a). Enclosure CC: Sincerely yours, .. Kenneth B. Fi~e¥ Gary Akerstrom, Redwood Business Park- Caudace Horsley, Ukiah City Manager David Rapport, Esq., Ukiah Ci~ Attorney 3051 $.0:~.tlF (N~I03!.IX)C) 0~/01/~ 3:34 PM B&R'I' CIN-&SC:HMAN A PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP COMPANY Barton-Aschman Associale$, Inc, 'tO0 Park Center Plaza. Suite 450- San Jose. Cat,fornia 95113 USA. (408) 280-6600 · Fax: (~8)28~7~ C ~ ~ V [ r; MEMO~UlVI TO: DATE: 'May 1, 1~)7 SUBJECT: Airport Industrial Park Treffic Impact Analysis Airport ~ Park on the smroundin§ tramtmrtation ~. The following is a ~ of thc methcg~logy, results, and_ rc~0mn~ad~ons of Lgvgl of scrv~ ¢alculndons wcr¢ ~ on four key inan~ons t~i~g tl~ l~vd of srrv~ program TraflEx 6.8. TI~ three key signaUz~ imcrsegdom were L~,ahmter] tt~ng t]~ 1985 HCM Operati~ method. Th~ ~ are consi.nt~ with those used ia the Airport/Redwood ~i~ Park Ihzffic Analysis (April 17, 1997) prepared by W-Trans. TI~ kcy im=so~cm ar= as follows: Talma? Road and Airport Park ]~:mlcvard T,,h.~ Raad and State Street I-Ia.nt~ Avcnac ~ Stat~ S~ U.S. 101 southbound off-ram~ aM Tslm_ag¢ Road.' Scenario 1: Erisring Conth'n'ons.--Exisdag PM peak-hour volumes. Scenario 2: Existing Plus Btdldout of Redwood Busine~ Park and Agrport Burine~ Park~F. xis~g PM peak-hour volumes plus pmjact-gtmmamd ~ mtlm~t~ for both thc ~oo~ az~ ~ ~ Parks. Traff~ vohnnes fro' both ~ wm'~ obtainad fi'om tl~ April 1997 W-T~ ~ ~ ~~ v~ ~ b~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ 1996 ~-~ 1997. T~ ~i~ ~ ~ F~ B~ ~ ~ ~ ~,,a~ ~ p~ of ~e ~j~ ~ is ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~g / For thi_~ analYs~ level of'service D or ~ was assumed to b~ aa acr~rablc opera_ t;~E cond~on for ~ons. The results of the level of service ~lysis am condkio~ all four iz~,c~sccfio~ arc ot~r~_~g at LOS B or C. Wid~ th~ addifi~ of tr~m; gmexatcd by buildout ofth~ Redwood ami Airport Business Parks, aU four intersections am projeacd to maintain o~ kveh ofLOS D or bct~. L~cl of Thc W-Traas analysis was conduct~ using th~ ~m~ trai~ volumes tl~t were used h th~ analysis ,_l~_ t is pre~nt~ irt ~ c. al~onz indicat~ below LOS D w/th bu/ldout ofthe proj~t. ~ zmtlts d_iffer from tl~ m~ults of the Barton. Asc. hman ,_._~lysis, wkich proj~l that nll thz~ signal/z~ ~on~ would operat~ ~t levels of service of*l)' or b~. Th~ mmlts of th~ nnalysis of tl~ umi~ ~ U.S. 101 southbound off-ramp and It appears thai: rlxc discrepancy in thc siinaliz~ intzrsection LOS rcsults is due to thc usc ofaJff~ent si/nnl _~.~ing asstm~pt/ons. The LOS sot~r~ us~ by W-Trans required that green time be inpu~ for each ~c~ length. Tra/~ ~g~tlates the amount of ~ tizm needed for each movement basod an tl~ vohm~ in thc mov~mt. Th~dor~ as volumes change from cx/sfing to pwjcct condificas, ~ ~me is rc- ail~t_~ based on the projected volumes, as would occur in th~ field at an in~ controlled by an agtt~* ~.~d~Si~or~l Tl:m W-T~n_~ ~nlysis used th--* same gre,~ tknc for both mdsfing and proj~t conditkms. Standard practice withh~ ~c traffic engineering field w~ ~ ~~ ~v~ ~ ~ ~ of Table 1 Int*rSe tion Levels of'Serv ca--PM Peak Hour With Redwood & Airport ~ng _ Business Parks · ! Average Delay- LOS Average Delay' LOS , Talmage Road/Airport Park Boulevard · Talmage Road/State Street Has~gs Avenue/State Street U.S. 101 SB off-raml:~/Talmage Roadb 10.1 B 22.1 C 20.8 C 29.9 D 6.6 B 25.8 D 1.8 B= 2.7 · I Note: Level of service calculations performed using Traffix 6.8 1985 HCM Operations method. · Average intersection stopped delay in seconds per vehicle for signaFized intemeclions, Average t~tal delay in secends per vehicle for unsignalized inteme~ions. b Unslgnallzed ~temection. LOS calculated using 1994 HCM method for unsignalized intersections. ' Worst case level of service (LOS of soulttbound right-turn). Thc four koy ~ ar~ proj~t~l to ~ to opera~ at ~pt~le l=vcls (LOS D or bct~) with th= =xisti~ lan= c<~t;~-ations at th~ buildout ofth= Rntwood Busin=ss Park, Airport Busings Park and tl~ Norgard Property. Based on pre 'hminary dra~-~ included in thc Capital Improvement Fcc Repo~ pr~par~ for ti~ Ahp~ In~ Park (April 17, 1997), tl~ City of Ukinh has propos~motifications at th~ of the four study intersccfous: Airport Park Boulevard and Talmage ltoad--Tl~ city's propo~ work at ,h;_~ ~on incl~ striping changes to provide two left-tufa lan~s pitts on~ common throul~ri~t-turn throush/ri~ht-tum r. alculat~ LOS for thc ~on at Redwood Businias Park/Airlx~ Busin=ss Park/Nor~rd bu2dout wilt be Talrnage Road and U.S. 101 ~outhbound off-ramp--The city's ~ work at tl~ consists of wid~dng T~!-~*g* Road to provide an ~tra la~ to r~ceiv~ right-Omaing off-ramp 3 Walrw,. As shown in Table 1, the LOS f~ the ~ou at Redwood Btainms Pa~Airport ~ P~orgard buildoul would Im "B.' ~ore, based on U'~fl% capaaity ~tate Street and Talmag~ Road---Th~ Cay has no PN PF.J~ iiCLZR ~XZSTI#G CONOZTZI~I$ Level Of SerVice Ccm~utatim ~ei~rt 1985 HDI oFeratlons #e~hocI (Base VoL~ ALte~tive) · ......._ - .... - .... -. -~..~;;~~ lnte~ection#l TAtJ~A~ ItC)N)/AZIb~ORT PARICBLVI), CycLe Csec): 82 Critical VoL./~p. tX): 0.~5 L~ T{~ Cs~)= 6 Average UeL~Cs~/v~): 10.1 ~____.... .... .~.~--- ~~h: ~or~ 8~ ~h B~ E~t ~ ~st ~ ............ [ ............... I1 ti ............... II ............... I C~troL: Prot~t~ Prot~t~ Prot~t~ p Right;: ~t Z~t~ i~L~ ZmL~ K~n. Grin: 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ............ I ............... Ii ............... !i ............... ii ............... VoL~~Le: B~VoL~ 101 9 1~ 15 6 17 ~ ~ 76 117 ~ Gr~th~: 1,00 1.00 1,~ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,~ 1.~ 1.~ 1.~ 1.~ znitiat ~: 101 9 1~ 15 6 17 ~ ~ 76 117 ~ U~Adj: 1.~ 1.~ 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.~ 1.~ 1.00 q,~ 1.~ PHF Adjs 0,~0.~ 0.~ 0.~ O,~ 0.~ 0.~0,~ 0.~ 0,~ 0.~ PHF Vot~: 112 10 IG0 17 7 19 Z~ ~ ~ 130 4~ i~t VoL: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p~ &dj: 1.00 1.00 1.~ 1,~ 1.00 1,00 1.OO 1.00 1.00 1.~ 1,~ 1.00 ~F ~j= 1.~ 1.~ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.~ 1.~5 1.05 1,~ 1.05 F~L VOL.: 11~ 10 1~0 17 7 19 ~ ~97 ~ 130 520 ............ I ................ II ............... II ............... Ii ............... I $aturitl~ FL~~Le; ~]m~; 0.9~ 0.~ 0.~ 0,~ 0.~ 0,~ 0.9~ 0,96 0.~ 0.~ O,~ 0.96 Lin: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 O,Z7 0.~ 1,~ 1.~ 0.30 lo00 1.~ Fimt ~t,= 16~ 1~ 1G~ 1693 Gl? 11~ 16~ 5~ t&~ ~18 211 ............ I- II ............... ii ............... II I ~ci~L~is K~Le: YoL/S8~: 0.0~ 0.01 0.0~ 0.010.OZ 0.02 0,01 0.37 0,17 0.~ 0.16 0.16 GriStLe: 0,19 0.21 0,~ 0.0~ 0,~ 0.05 O.~O.&8 0.~ 0,~0.~ Wim/Cap~ 0.~0.0~ O.ZZ 0.~5 0.~ 0.~6 0,~ ~.~ 0,~ 0.~0,~ 0.~ ............ I ..... ii ............... 1[ ............... Il ............... I ~eL ~ Se~ice OetW~= ~.4 19.5 11.~ ;5.] )0.0 ~.0 ~,~ 10.) 10,] ZI.0 ~,9 DeLay~j: 1.00 1.00 1,~ 1.~ 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,~ I.~ p~jFctr= 1.00 0.~ 0.~ 1.00 0.~ 0,~ 1.~ 0.~ 0.~ 1.00 0,~ AdJDet~; ~.4 16,6 9.6 35,3 ~.5 ~,5 ~.4 8,8 8.8 21.0 4.2 ~; Z 0 Z 0 I I 1 6 6 3 5 Traff~x 6.8.141~ Cc) 1995 Do~L~r!g AsSoc. Licensecl to Sarton-~sciman, San aose #lTX~ PEAk:: liOUK ExXSTZ#G C:C:)NOXTZOflS Level O~~ Servfc~ DetaiLed CcinputatSon B~ VoL~ ~ch: Worth B~ S~ a~ E,St ~~: L - T - t L - T - ............ I ............... il ............... ii ............... il ............... I L~: 1 O t 0 I 1 O 0 1 ~ I O I I 0 I O I I 0 Gr~: L T R L RT RT L AT RT L RT RT ~l~: 1 1 1 I I I 1 2 2 I 2 2 ............ I ............... il ............... II ............... Ii ............... ~ l~ Sature~i~ ~j H~te: U;~h: 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Hey V~: 2 2 Gr~: ~ ~ pl~Hr: No Ho Stp/Hr= O 0 0 0 ~ft P~Hr: 50 SO 50 KT prtc~: O O 0 O ............ t ............... Ii ............... Ii ............ I ............... [I ............... ii ............... II ............... I HO4 0;~ saturaTio~ &dj ~q=:lute; Ln uid /&dj: 1,00 1.~ 1,00 1.00 1.~ 1.00 1,~ 1.~ 1,~ 1.00 1,00 1.00 Hey V~j: 0,~ 0.~ 0.~ O.~ 0.~ 0.~ O.~ O,~ O.~ 0.~ 0.~ O.~ Gr~ ~j: 1.~ 1.~ 1.00 1.00 1.~ 1.OO 1.00 1.~ 1.~ 1.00 1.00 1.00 Pe~i~ ~j; 7-~ ~ 1.~ ~ 1,00 1.00 ~ I.~ 1.~ ~ 1,~ 1.~ ~ S~ Adj~ ~ ~ 1.00 ~ 1.~ 1.~ ~-~ 1.00 1.00 ~ 1.~ 1.~ Area~j: 1.~ 1.~ 1,00 1.00 1,~ 1.00 1,00 1.~ 1,~ 1.~ 1,00 1.~ RT Adj: ~ ~ 0.~ ~ 0.87 0.87 ~ 0,~ 0.97 ~ 0.~ 0,~ H~ SaC ~j: Q,9& 0.~ 0.~ ~.g~ 0.~ 0.~ 0.~ 0.96 0.96 0.g& 0.98 0.~ ~r Sat &dj= 1.00 1,0~ 1.~ 1,~ 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 I,~ 1,~ 1.~ 1,~ HL~ Sat ~j: 1,~0 1.~ 1.00 1.00 1.~ 1.00 1.~ 1.~ 1.~ 1.00 1.GO 1.00 FnL ~ Ad J; 0.9~ 0.~ 0,82 0.94 O,8A 0.86 o,g& 0.96 0.96 0.94 O,9& 0.98 II ............... il ............... Ii ............... progress{on Adjus13mnt Factor #oduLe: StgmL Type: · · · < < < · · · < < < · Actuated · · · ) · · · · · · · · VoLm~./¢ap-' 0.~ 0,05 0.22 Oo&50.:T~ 0.3~ 0.25 0.3~ 0.36 0.36 0.25 0.25 Arr{v&tType: $ 3 3 3 Prog~jF~r; 1.00 0.85 0.8S 1.00 0.~5 0.85 i,00 0.~5 0,~ 1.00 O.~S 0.85 Tre'ff{x 6.8,,1/.12 Cc) 1995 DolL;lng Assoc. Ltcettsed to Bartort-Aactmum, San ,Ioae IqrrlGB Fri Apr 2~, 197 10:20:~,5 P,ge 1-1 PN PEAJ~ #OUR EXISTING CONDITIONS L~veL Of service CmlF~a~ion Repor~ 1985 HCl4 Operations 14ethod CBa~ VoL~ AL~er~i~) ~ T~ ~/~A~ ST ~ Cri~i~L VoL./Cap. (X): Q.~ ~Le; ~ L~et Of Se~lce; C Approach: North Bound #ov~n~T: L - T - R Cunt;rot: spLit Phase Ri.ghts; Inctuc~ Mis, G~: O 0 O Lanes; O 0 I I O S~hBo~cI L - T - R spL! t Phase ]ncL~e 0 0 0 1 1 O 0 ............ 1 ............... !1 ............... VoLume NoduLe: Base VoL: 0 /65 Growth Adj: 1.OO 1,so 1.oo 1.00 IniTiaL ese: 0 465 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF AcIj: 0.90 0,90 0.90 0.00 PHF VoLLnn: o 517 ReducT Vol.: O 0 O 0 ItKluo~ VoL: 0 517 pc:E Adj~ 1.00 1.Q0 1,00 1,00 HLF Adj: 1.00 1,0S 1.05 1.OO F~naL VOL.: 0 5/3 391 2S0 EaSt Bo~fld b~st Bc~d L - T - R L - T - i Protected Protected IncLude IncLude 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 I O 0 0 1 il ............... il ............... I 550 0 0 0 0 335 0 29O 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 550 0 0 0 0 ~5 0 2~0 1,00 1.GO 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 0,90 0.90 0.90 0.90 O,~O 0,90 611 0 0 O 0 3?2 0 Z~2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 611 0 0 0 0 372 0 ~ 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1o00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 611 0 0 0 0 ~72 0 ~2 saturation FLo~ nodule: Sat/Lane: 1~0 1~ 1800 1~0 1~0 1~ Adamant; 1~00 0.~ 0.~ 0,94 0.~ 1.~ L~ O.O0 1.16 0,~ 0.~ 1.40 O.O0 FilL Sat, t 0 1~7 1~ 1019 R&91 0 ............ i ii ............... Ca~i~ A~L~Js ~Le: voL~/~: 0.00 0.~ 0,~ 0.~ 0.~ 0.~ I ii II ............... Il ............... II ............... I 1~ 1800 1800 1600 18;10 18~)0 1.00 1.00 1,00 0.~ 1.00 0.~ O,OO 0°00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0 0 0 16~J 0 1&7~ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 O.O0 0.22 0.00 0.00 0,00 O.~-'t O.O0 0.00 O,O0 0.00 0.77 0.00 II............... II I LeveL Of Service #eduLe: DeLay/Veh: 0,0 21,2 21.2 23.3 23,3 0.0 Detsy'~j: 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ProgAdjFctrl .1,00 0.~ 0.~5 0.85 0,85 0.85 AdjOeL/Yeh: 0.0 18.0 18,0 19.8 19.8 O.O ~e~Je: 0 21 21 20 20 0 0.0 0.0 O.O 27.5 0.0 27.B 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0,85 1.00 0.&S O.a5 O,O 0.0 0.0 27'.5 0,0 23,6 0 0 Q 9 O 8 Traffix &,8,1&12 (c) 1995 OmdLtng Assoc. Licensed to Berton-Aschman, San de~e NITI~ Apr Zi, 1997 10:20:51 HOtJ~ EXISTIN~ CONDITIG#S Page HCH Ops lr~ut Saturation kd~ 14oclute; Lane Width.' 12 12 12 12 12 13 12 12 12 12 12 ~ Hey Veh: 2 2 2 Z Grade: O'~ O~ O~ 05 Pack,fig/Hr: NO No No No 0 0 0 0 50 50 50 50 ZrcLude TncTude incLude 12 2 Bus Stp/Hr: Area Cnft Pad/Hr: ExcLusiveRT: IncLude X iT Prtct: O O O O ............ I ............... il ............... II II HC34 Ops fort) arid felt) Adj Case Hodute: fCrt) CaGe~ felt) Case: . ........... I ............... ii ............... II ............... II UC# Ops Sa:urotlofl Adj Hodute: Ln Vid /Id:l j: tier Veh Adj; ;_--- 0.99 0.99 0,99 0.99 --~"~ xxax :;_v~v ,,~ 0.99 z;~x 0.99 ISrede kdJ; -_-_~-~_ 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 xJu~x .,_v_Y_v. ~x~ _v~_~_z= 1,00 .~__x~_ 1.00 Bus Stp Ad j: _,;_v_v 1.00 1.00 ~;_-* 1.00 :__~__~_ xx~x ---~ ~ x~u .~_~;_- 1.00 Area Adj: ;~_1.~ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 _~_-;-- xxxx ._~?_~_ :_-_'_"~ 1.00 zoom 1,C)G P,T Adj; LT /,dj: HCI4 Sat ~ij: 1.00 0.~2 0.9~ 0.g& 0.~ 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 O,~& 1.00 0.62 Usr Sat Adj; 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 .1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 14LF Sat Adj; 1.00 1.00 1.013 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 FnL hC Adj; 1.00 O.~ 0.92 0.9~, 0,~ 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.~ 0.~ !.00 0,~ I ............... II II --Ii ..... Prmresslon Adjustmmt Factor H~te: Vok~/~; 0.~ O.~ 0.~ 0.~ O.~ O.O0 0,00 O,~ 0,~ O.~ O.O0 O,~ Art1 ratty: 3 3 3 3 P~djFctr; 1.00 0.~ 0.~ 0.~ 0,~ 0.85 1.00 0.~ 0,~ 1.00 0.~ 0.~ Traffix 6.8,1&1~ Cc) 1995 DouLirql As5oc, Licensed to Bar"ton-Asr. Amen, San Jose #ITIG~ Fri ~ IS, 1~;7 10:16:~9 Pag~ i-1 N~ PEAl( HIXIR ;XISTZ#n COI~ITIO#~ Level Of Service CcmT~atJon Report 1985 HC~ OperacJorm I~echod C~e VoL~ ALte~ti~) lnte~ti~ ~ ~lN~ AVE./STATE ~. ~cLe Cs~): 67 Criti~L VoL./C~. CX); 0.52& L~ Tf~ C~): 3 Avere~ DeLay C~): 6.6 N~tl L - T - E L - T - R C - T - R L - T - A ............ I ............... Ii ............... il ............... ii ............... ~ Control: Protected Protected Rights: IncLude IncLude Hin. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: I 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 ............ [ ............... ii ............... VoL~ ModuLe: Base VoLt 23 &66 ~ 10 6~5 108 Drouth Ad]; 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 Initial ii,e; 23 ~ 37 10 ~5 108 User &dj; 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 PFIF Adj: 0.90 0,90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 PHF VoLIJoe: ~ 5GO &l 11 7T)~ 120 Reduct VoL= 0 0 0 0 0 0 ReCkmed VoL; 2~ 540 &1 11 7136 120 PC; XcIj~ 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 · LF AdJ; 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,05 1.05 Final VOL.: 2& 5&O &l 11 741 ~turat~on Fto. NoduLe; Sal;/Lan~'- 1800 Lanes: 1.00 Final. Sat-: 1695 CalamiTy AnaLysis VoL/Sat: 0.02 CriC Moves: Green/CycLe'. VobJ~/Cap: '''''' ..... ' I Permitted Permitted incLude IncLude 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 1&1 ~ 4~ ~2 25 27 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 141 25 ~6 42 25 27 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0,90 O,~) 0,90 0.90 0.90 0.90 157 28 53 &7 26 30 0 O O 0 0 0 157 ~ b'~ &? Z9 30 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.~ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 157 28 53 47 28 ............... ii ............... ! 1~0 1600 1500 1800 1800 0.98 0.98 0,~4 0,96 0,96 0,~ 0,07 1.00 1,71 0,29 16/0 124 16~ ~S 5~ ii II H~Le; 0.~ 0.~ 0.01 O.~ 0,~ 1800 1800 1800 1500 1800 1500 0.80 0.80 0.80 0,80 0,50 0.80 0,66 0.1:) 0.22 0.45 0.:)7 0.26 ;51 170 321 ~4 ~ &11 'i[ ............... I 0,170.17 0.17 0.07 0.07 0,07 0,63 0.63 0.01 0.60 0.60 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0,31 0,52 0.52 0.52 O.G2 0.42 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.23 0.23 0.23 Il Il II I LeveL of Ser~;ce ~IuLo: DeLiy/Veh; 26.5 5.6 5.6 &O,O 5,& 5,4 15.2 15.2 15.2 12.9 12.9-12.9 DetayAdj: I.~ 1.~ 1,00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.~ 1.~ 1.~ 1,~ 1,~ Pro~d~Fctr; 1,00 O.~ O.~ 1.00 O,~ 0.85 0.85 O.~ 0.~ 0.~ O.~ 0.85 kdjOet~: 26.5 &.8 4,5 ~.0 4.6 G.6 12,9 12,9 12,9 11.0 11.0 11.0 Q~: 1 6 6 0 9 9 4 6 & I 1 I Traffix 6,8.1412 Cc) 1995 D~dL{ng Assoc. Licensed to garton-Aschmn, San J~se #X?Zf,6 Fr~ Apr 25, 1~';7 10;16:3~ P.ge Z-1 PN PEN( H~ EXISTI#G COHOI?I~S Lane Midth: ~ HeY Grade; Parking/Hr: Bu~ Stp/Hr: Are. Type; Cnft Pad/Hr: Exc Lus~vaRT: g RT Pr~¢t~ Leal Of Se~ic~ Oetei Led COml~jtation Report 1~ #C~q Oper~ti~r~ Base VoL~ [n;ers~tim ~ ~Ti~G~ A~-/$TATE No--t: L - T - E L ............ I ............... 11 ............... Ii ............... Ii I L~s: 1 0 0 1 0 1 kn Gr~: L RT RT L RT RT LTR LTR L~ LTR LTR LTR ~I~: 1 I I I 2 2 1 I I 1 1 1 I I~ ............... II ............... ii ............... ! 2 2 2 2 ~o No No No O O O O 50 50 50 50 l~t~ 1~ L~ I~t~ l~t~ 0 0 0 0 ............ ! ............... 11 ............... ]i ............... 11 ............... I --- l ............... il Ii ............... il .......... ~ .... I HeN Ops Ln Mid ~j: 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,~ I.~ 1,~ 1,00 1.~ 1,00 1.~ 1,00 Hey Veh ~]: O.~ 0,~ 0.~ 0,~ 0.~ 0,~ 0.~ 0.~ 0,~ O.~ 0,~ 0.~ Gr~ ~: 1.~ 1.~ 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.~ 1.~ 1.~ 1.~ 1.~ ~irki~ ~j: =v 1,00 1.00 = 1.~ 1.~ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 B~ Stp ~]; ~ 1.00 1.00 ~ 1,00 1.00 1,~ 1.~ 1.~ .1,~ 1.~ 1,~ Area ~j: 1.; 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,~ 1.00 1,~ 1.~ 1,~ RT ~j~ ~ O.~ O.~ ~ 0.97 0.~ 0,870.87 0,87 O.~ 0,~ O.~ fl~ Sag ~J; 0.~ ~r Sa~ ~]: 1.00 1.~ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,~ 1.~ 1,~ 1.00 1,~ HLF Sa~ ~j: 1.00 1.00 1.00 I.~ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,GQ 1.~ 1.~ 1.Q0 I Fnt Sat Adj: o.g& 0,98 0.98 0,9~ 0.96 0.96 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 ............ I Ii ......... , ..... II Ii Progression AdjusT~nent F~cZor ModuLe: St~rmL Type: < c < c (< · · ( · · < < Actuated · · · · > · · · · > · ) · VoLm~/Cap: 0.42 0,52 0.52 0,52 0.42 0,42 0.52 0.52 0.52 0,23 0.23 0,23 ArrivaLType; 3 3 3 3 Pr~jFctr; 1.00 0.~ O.B5 1.00 0.85 0.~ 0.85 0.~ 0.~ 0.85 0,~ 0.~ Traffix 6.8.1L12 Cc) 19~5 Dot,~tingAssoc. Licensed to Barton-A~man, San J~ N[T[G8 Frl Apr ~, 1997 10:19:16 Page 1-1 iII i iii i IIi i Ii I i III Ilia i iill i IIlll lllldlll III. I IIIIll I I III111 IIIII I 11114111 IIII IIII P# PEA~: IK~ EXlb~r%#G CONDITIONS Level Of sarvic4 r. ca~utatS~ Report 1994 #eX ~(~LIz~ ~th~ CBase VoL~ ALter~ti~) lnce~ti~ ~I0 U.S. 101 ~ OFF~/T~ ~ Aver~ DeL~ CsK/v~): 1.8 Vo~t hse Level Of Se~l~: B ~r~: Nor~ ~ S~h ~ E~t B~ ~t B~ Horst; L T - R L - T - R ~ - T - R L - T - R ............ I ............... il ............... Ii ............... II ............... I C~troL: Stop S~ ~ S;~ ~t~LL~ ~t~LL~ LB~; 0 O O Q 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ............ i ............... II ............... !i ............... il ............... i VoL~HoduLe: Base VoL: 0 0 Grouth Adj; 1.00 1.00 lnlt~aL BM: 0 O user Adj: 1.oo 1 .oo PHF AdJ~ 1.00 1.00 PtIF VoL~: O O Redu~t VoL= O O Final VOL.: 0 0 0 O 0 ~ 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00 0 0 0 ~ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 0 0 0 ~4~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ]/,6 ............ ! ............... Ii Ac~ju~tt=:l VoLu~o Kodut..-. Grade: Z CycLe/Car's; ~_.~.,~ __vxv_ v PCE Ad,j: 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Adj VOL.; O 0 0 0 O 3~1 0 512 0 0 7.a~ 0 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 512 0 0 ~ 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 512 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 512 0 0 28~ 0 Ii ............... 11 ............... I 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 O 51Z 0 0 Z84 O Critical Gap Nodute.- I ............... !i ............... !1 ............... Ii ............... I ~fLict V oL~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ............ I ............... ![ ............... !1 ............... Il ............... I LeveL ~ Semite H~Le= St~ DeL~-~ ~y~ ~ ~y~ ~y~ 5.6 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~t: LT - LTR-- RT LT - LTR- RT LT - LTR - ET LT - L~ - BT Shmr~ L~: ' " " w * * * * * * * * ~~at = 0.0 ~.6 0.0 0.0 Treff{x 6.8.1&12 Cc) t995 Oo~L~r~ Assoc. L{cens~d to B~rCon-Asc~man, 8~n do, s~ ~r! ~r2S, 1997 10:~7:18 Page 1-1 P# PF.J~ ~ PROJECT C:GN~ZTiONS Level Of Service r. emputac~en Report 19~ ilO! Opm-et~ons Hethod CBaSe VeLum ALternative) In~ers~ct~m ~ TALJ4AGE EGK)/AIRJ~T P~ ELM). CycLe Csec): 82 Critical voL./cAp. (X): 0.819 LOG~ Tim Caen): 6 Average DeLay Cse~/vek): Z2.1 OptipmL CycLe: 60 Level Of ServSce; C ~ ~ ~_~&&~.~,. ~ &_ ~'_~_' ~. ~_~,~ ~ ~--II~&G~-- &-- ............. www .................. Appr__~h__: North Bound South Bound EaSt IJO~rd West Bound Novement: L - T i L - T - R L - T - R L - T - Ii ............ ! ............... I1 Ii ............... II ............... I C~n~ro L: protectecI Pra~ec~ed Proteg~ed protected Righ~s'- avl ln~Lude ;ncLud~ Zr~L~,de Min. G~; O O 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 O O L=: I 0 I 0 1 1 0 0 I 0 I 0 I 1 0 1 0 1 I 0 ............ i ............... II ............... i[ ............... II ............... I Vot~ HaLe; Base VeL; ~7~ 59 6~2 15 31 17 ~. 355 Zb~ /o14:37~ ~8 Growth Aclj-' 1.00 1.00 1,O0 1.QC) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 lfliti&L Ssa: 373 59 6&2 15 31 17 22:3§5 2&6 /01& 373 28 User Adj~ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.O0 1.GQ 1,00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.90 0.90 0.90 o.gQ 0.90 0.90 0.90 0,90 O,~Q O.~Q 0.9Q O.IKI PHi: VoLdm; &l& 66 713 17 34 19 ?.G 39/* 27~ 460 41/, 31 Redt,~t Vot: 0 0 O 0 O O 0 O 0 O O 0 m~ rot: /,1/0 6,6 713 17 ~ 19 ~ '~g& 273 J~60 /01/0 ~1 ~ Adj: 1.00 1.~ 1,00 1,00 1.O0 1.00 1.00 1.O0 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 NI. FAc IJ; 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.~ 1.0~ 1.00 1,0~ 1,0~ Final VOL.: 414 66 713 17 ~ 19 ~ 414 287 bS~ ~5 33 I ii ............... Ii ............... ii ............... I Se~Jration Fto~ HoduLe: Sat/Lane: 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Adjusl~ent; 0,g& 0.99 0.8~ '0.9(, 0.93 0.93 0,94 0,~2 0.9~ 0.9/, 0.98 0.98 LsmS'- 1.00 lo00 1,00 1.00 0.6~ 0.36 1.00 1,18 0o8~ 1.00 1.~ 0.1/, Final Sat.: 1693 1782. 1&79 1693 10~5 601 1693 1958 1:357 1693 3ZeO 2~9 ............ I II ............... il ............... I$ ............... I Capacity AnaLysis NoduLe: VoL/Sat'- 0.2/, 0.0~ 0.48 0.01 0'03 0,03 0.01 0.21 0.21 0.27 0.13 0,15 Cr~t Moves: ~ ~"* ~;; = ~reen/C~cLe: 0.30 0.33 0.66 0.01 O.C~ O.O& O.C)& 0.26 0.26 0.33 0.53 0,5:3 v=tw~/¢~p: 0.~2 0,11 0,73 1.46 0.S2 0.i2 0.25 0.~2 0,82 0,82 0.25 0.25 I ............... Ii ................ II ............... II ............... I Level Of Service ModuLe: DeLuy/Veh; 27./0 1/0.5 8.8 ?/.9.? 65.1 65.1 28./, ~6.2 26.~ 25.6 7.9 ?.9 DeLay AdJ: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.O0 1.00 1.00 1.O0 1,00 1,00 1,00 PrOG&djFctr~ 1.00 0.85 0.85 1.00 0.85 0,85 1,00 0.85 O.85 ~.00 0.88 0.85 AdjDeL/Veh: 27.4.12,3 ?.5 7&9.755.3 55.~ 28.~ 22.3 22.3 25,6 6.? 6.? Queue: 10 1 11 $ 2 2 1 16 16 11. 6 6 . . - ..................... .~"~'B'~lluw~m ~----&--~ ....~ Traffix 0.8.1/,12 (c) 1995 DmwL'~ng Assoc. L~cefl.qed to Gartm-As~ian, San J~ Pa~e 2-1 Level Of Service DetaiLed C~puta~ion Report 1985 #Ciq Operations Kethod Base VoLU~e A[ternetiva ~nter~act~ #1 T~ R~/A&PJK)ItT LPARIC ~I. VD, ~: North Bound South Bourtd E~S~ 8ound west Hovema~t: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T i ............... Ii ........ ' ...... [i ............... il ............... #Cl40ps Adjusted Lane U~i Lizetian l~duLe: Lanes; I 0 1 0 I 1 0 0 1 0 I 0 1 1 0 1 0 Lane Group; L T R L ~1' itt iK~s[r~rps ~ I 1 1 1 1 ............ I ............... il ............... Il' HOt Ops tnpJt; Sat~ratiofl Adj Module: Lane t/Jdth; 12 12 12 12 12 12 % Hey yah-, 2 2 Grade; Parkir~/#r: #o No L ItT RT L ItT itT I 2 2 1 2 2 Il ............... I 12 12 12 12 12 12 2 2 No No Bus Stp/Hr: Area Ty~: Cflft Ped/Hr: SO ExcL~i vP-qT: IncLude Z RT prtct'- 0 HOt C)ps f(r~) end fCLt) fCrt) Case: f(Lt) case: I I #CX Ops $aturat;o~ Ln Mid Adj: 1.00 1.00 0 0 0 0 50 IncLude O II ............... I 50 50 I nc Ll,,i:ie XncLu~e 0 0 Il ............... ii ~lj Case #odute~ 2 xr~x 5 5 _-;_. 5 _vv~v 1 X;XXX ~ il II NoduLe: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,o0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,O0 1.O0 0.99 0.99 0,99 0.99 0.99 0,99 0.09 0.99 0.99 O,g9 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.O0 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 __~_~_v. 1.00 1,00 ~' 1.00 1.QO _~_-;- 1.00 1.00 1.00 ~ t.O0 1.00 x~xx 1,00 1.00 ;_-_-_-_ 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.O0 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 0.8~ :_~_~, 0.9~ 0.g& xz~x 0.93 0,93 ~ 0.~;~ 0.99 0.82 0.9~ Q,93 0.93 O.g& 0.92 0,02 0.9& 0.98 0.98 1.O0 1.00 1.O0 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.O0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.O0 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 FnL Sat Adj: 0.9~ 0.99 0,82 0.94, 0.93 0,93 0.9/,, 0.92 0.92 0.g& 0.98 O.98 ............ i ii ............... ti ............... I! I Progression Adjustment Factor HeduLe: Signal Type: < · << < · < < < < < · < ActUated > > · · ·) > · · ) > · · voLume/cap: o.az 0,11 0.7~ 1.&6 O.SZ 0.82 0.25 0.82 O.8Z 0,82 0.~5 0.~5 ArrivstType: '3 3 $ 3 ProgAdjF¢~r: $,O0 0,85 0.85 1.00 0.83 0,85 1.00 0.8S 0.85 1,00 0.85 C).8~ Trefftx 6.8.1412 Cc) 1995 DouLing Assoc. Lfcermed to Bartofl-Aschnm, Soft dose 14lTl(~ Fr! Kur ~, 1~77 10;26:18 P~e 1-1 PH PEA~ KOUK PROJECT LevQL Of Service Cm~Jtation Report 1985 HO4 ~rati~ Keth~ CB~ Vo~ in~e~~ ~ T~ ~/~ATE ST CycLe (sK): 8~ Cr~ticnL VoL./~. L~s T~u (GK): 3 Av~age DeLay (~/v~): ~timL ~Le: 127 L~L Of $e~(~: D ~~: North B~ S~h B~ ~t B~ ~C B~ tlffl. Green: LBr~S; L ' T - R L - T ' R i ............... Il ............... SpLTt Phase SpLIt Phase lr~Lude IncLude 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 I I O O I 1 0 0 I ............... I1 ............... VoL~#oduLe: 0 548 ~35 299 592 O 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 54,6 335 290 ,692 0 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.OQ 1.00 1.00 0.90 O.gO 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0 609 372 332 658 O O 0 0 O O 0 0 609 372 332 658 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.05 1,00 1.00 1.00 O 639 391 332 658 0 BaSe VOL: GrmitltAdj: Initial &se: User A dj: P#F VoL~: Rm:lug~Vot~ Reduced VoL: Pe.~il~dj: F~L VOL.: Saturation FLed 14c~te; Sat/lane: 1~00 1800 18;)0 AcIjus~n~nt: 1.00 0,~ 0.92 L~: O.OO 1.24 0.76 F;mt Sat.: 0 2~6 1~ ca~ci~ ~L~is H~Le: VoL~at: 0.~ 0.31 0.31 Crit ~c VoL~~= 0.00 0.~ 0.~ ............ I ............... L~L of Se~i~ X~Le: OeLay~; 0.o ~.8 ~.8 DeLay Ad]: 1.00 1.GO 1,~0 ~JDeL~: 0.0 ~.6 ~.6 - T - R L ' T - R II ............... Protected Pro, ecrM Znctude l~cL~ie O 0 0 Q O 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 O 0 1 ............... II ............... 0 0 0 335 0 4,35 1.00 !.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 0 0 0 335 0 4,.TS 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 O.gO 0.90 0,~0 O.gO 0.90 O,gO 0 O O 37Z 0 0 0 0 O 0 O O 0 0 ~ 0 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 O' 0 372 0 /,,83 il............... il ............... I 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1830 1800 1800 1800 O.g& 0,~ 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 0.~ 1,00 0.82 0.69 1.31 O.OO 0.00 O.O0 Od:lO 1,00 O.O0 1.00 1174 Z3;Z8 O 0 O 0 1693 O I II 11 I 0,28 0.28 0.00 0,00 0.00 O.O0 O,ZZ O.OO 0.33 0.30 0.30 O.O0 0,00 O,O0 O.O0 0.~4 0.00 0.3,4, 0.~5 0.95 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 O,(;,G 0.00 O.OS t il ............... [t ............... t 36,2 36.Z O.O 0,,0 O.O 0.0 20.4, 0,0 4,2.4, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 0.~5 O.BS 0.65 1,00 0.65 0.85 1,00 0.85 0.85 30,8 30.8 O.O O.O 0,0 0.0 20.4 0,0 ~6.0 auburn; 0 30 30 29 29 0 o 0 o 8 0 15 Trafflx &.8.1&12 Cc) 1995 Oo~t~ngAssoc. Licensed to BarTon-~cFmmn, san dose #ITl&5 Frl Apr 2.~, 1~7 10:2.6:2/. Page 2-1 .1.. PM RE, AK HOUR PROJECT COla)ITION$ Level O~ Servfce Oetai Lcwd Comlmtacian F. el~ert 196~ HC:N O~rac~ors 14e~hod Base VoLm ALternaTiVe Intersection Q TALNAGE ROAD/STATE ST AI~'~; NorTh Bound South Bouml East Bound l~est Bound Novmr~lt: L - T - R L - T - I L - T - J~ L T - R I II II ............... Il- ! HO, I Ope Adjusted Lane UtiLization Hod~tel Lene~; 0 0 1 1 0 q 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Lane Group: xxxx RT RT L 1' XXJUc _v_v~vy v_vyy mw L ~r~ ii · Lnslr~rl~: 0 2 2 I 1 0 0 0 O I 0 1 ............ f ............... II ............... ii ............... ii ............... i ilO! lips [niz~ Saturatfon Adj NoduLe: Late U[dth: 12 12 12 12 12 Z Hey Veh: 2 2 Grade: 0% 0% Parki r~/Hr: No Ho gu~ Stp/Hr= 0 0 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 No No 0 0 I.n laid Adj: :yy_-_ 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 .~_-yyy. _-y_-_~ _~__~ _~_~_~_~ 1,00 --~ 1.~ N~V~ Adj: ~ 0.~ 0.~ 0.~ 0.~~ ~ m~ ~ 0.~~ 0.~ Gr~ ~j: ~ 1.00 1.00 1.~ 1.00 ~ Parki~ MJ: v~v 1.00 1.00 vvvv 1.00 Yvwv vvvv ~vv ~ ~ ~ 1.~ B~ StpAdj; ~_~ 1,00 1.00 ~ 1.00 ~ ~~~ ~ ~ 1.~ ~a ~j: ~ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ~ ~~~ 1.~ ~v 1.~ RT~]: ~0.~ 0.~ ~? ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ 0,~ H~ SaT ~: 1.00 0.~20.~Z 0.~ 0.~ 1.~ 1.~ 1.00 1.00 0.9~ 1.~ 0.~ ~r ~t ~: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.~ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.~ 1.~ 1.00 ~F Sat ~j~ 1,00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,~ 1,~ 1,00 FnT SaT Adj: 1.00 O.~Z 0.~ O.g~ 0.~ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.~ 1.~ 0.~ '"1 ............... I[' .............. II ............... Ii I P~r~i~ ~j~t Factor VoL~C~= 0.00 0.~ 0.~ 0,~ 0,~ 0,00 0,00 0,~ 0,~ 0,~ 0.~ 0,~ ArrivaLT~t 3 3 3 3 P~jF~r; 1,00 O.U O.U 0.~ 0.~ O.U 1.~ O.U O.U 1.00 0.~ O.U Traffix 6.8.1&12 Cc) lg95 Do~LingAssoc. Licensed to Gar~on-Lschman, San Jose #ITI6~ Fr~ Apr 25, 1~77 10:28:52 Pege 1-1 mmmmmmemmmmmmmmmmm.mmmmmmmmm. PPi P~ ~ PROJECT ~DITI~S mq,~;mmmmm,l;mmmmmmmmmmmmummmm,mmmmm, mmsmmmlfml, mo6o&&&oo&6=6 ....emmm--mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm L~L Of Se~i~ C~ati~ 3~ H~ ~rati~ He~ Ca~e VoL~ ALte~tive) Int~ti~ ~ ~IN~ A~.~TATE ST. ~Le Cs~); 6T Critical VoL./~. Cx): 0,~ L~ Tim C~)= 3 Aver~ DeLay (sK/v~)2 ~.8 ~ti~L ~Le: 1~ L~L Of $e~: D ~v~t: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L I Il I; ............... Ii ............... I ~Cro L; Prot~ P~t~tM Pemi tt~ RT~: Z~L~ T~L~ Z~L~ ZmL~ Lin: I 0 0 I O 1 0 I I 0 0 0 11 0 O O 0 1l 0 0 ............ i ............... ii ............... II ......... = ..... I[ ............... ! VoL~ x~Le: Ba~ voL: ~ ~ 155 I~ 5~ 1~ 1~1 ~ ~ ~1 1~1 157 Gr~th ~; 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 I.~ 1,~ 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Zn~tiaL ~; ~ ~7 158 1~ 5~ 1~ 1~1 U~r ~j= I.~ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,~ 1.~ 1.~ I.~ 1.~ 1.~ PHF ~j= 0.~ 0,~ 0.~ 0.~ 0,~ 0.~ 0.~ 0.~ 0.~ 0.~ 0,~ 0,~ PHF VoL~; ~ ~ 176 1~ ~7 1~ 157 ~ VoL: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R~ voL; ~ ~ 176 1~ ~7 120 157 M 53 2~ 1~ 2~ P~ Adj: 1.~ 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.~ 1.~ 1.~ 1.00 1,~ HLF Adj: 1.~ 1.~ 1.00 1.00 1.06 1.05 1.00 1.~ 1,~ 1,~ 1.00 1.00 Fill VOL.: ~ ~ 176 1~0 M9 126 157 i ............... Ii ............... It ............... Il ............... G~turatJ~' FL~ ~le; La~: 1.~ O,~ 0.27 1.~ 1.~ 0.~ 0.53 O,~ 0,16 0.~ O.~ 0.~ F[~L Set.: 1~ 1~] &50 16~ ~ 50 515 i II ............... I] ............... Ii ............... Vot/SaT: 0,~ 0,]90.3g 0.~ O.~ 0,~ 0,~1 0,31 0.31 0.~7 0.~70.&7 VoL~/Cap= 0.51 0.~ O,~ 0,~ 0.51 0.51 0.~ 0,~ 0,~ 0,~ 0.~ 0.~ ............ l II ............... II II L~eL Of Se~ice ~L~: Delay~ ~1.0 40.~ ~.& ~.A 10.4 10.4 12.0 12.0 12.0 S9,0 ~,0 ]~,0 DeLay ~j~ 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.~ ~.00 ~,00 1.00 1,~ 1.00 1.00 1.~ 1,00 AdjOeL~: ~1,0 ~.5 ~.5 ~.A ~.8 ~.5 lO.Z 10.2 ~0.2 ~,1 ~,1 ~.1 ~w I 18 18 S 11 11 5 S S 18 18 18 Traff;x &.&.1&12 Cc) 1~ OouLJng Assoc. Licensed to ~arton-Ascho,~, San NZTZG8 FH Apr ZS, 1997 10:28:58 Page 2-1 Piq PEAl( HO. IR PROJECT CONDXTION$ Level Of Service DetaiLed CallputationReport 1985 MOd Operetlon~ #ethod BueVoLumeALterrmtlve Intersection J3 HASTINGs AVE./STAT£ ST. Approech: North Bc~ South Bound EuC Bc~r=i 5;est ac~ Xov~nef'it~ L - T - R L , T - t L - T - R L - T - i ............ I ............... 11 II ............... il I HCX Ol~AdjUa~ed Lane Ufitization#odute: Lm~e~; 1 0 0 I 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 li 0 0 0 0 li 0 0 Lane Group; L ET RT L ET RT LTR LTl LTE LTR LTE LTR ~lnGrps: I I 1 I 2 2 I 1 1 I I 1 I .......... ~ .... II ............... 1! ............... II I HC:RC)puS Inp.it Satura;ionAd] ~odute: Lar~Uidth: ~ HeY Veh: Grade: Parking/Hr: Bu~ Stp/Hr~ Area Type~ Cnft PeeL/Hr2 ~t~iv~T: · ~T Prtc~: 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 17. 12 12 12 2 2 2 2 No No Ilo No 0 0 0 0 50 50 $0 50 IncLude ZncLucle IncLude trctude 0 0 0 0 Il II ............... ii ............... i HC;N ~ fCrt) ardfCtt) Ad/ Case#odute: fCrt) ca~e: __v~._~ 5 5 xxxx 5 5 7 7 ? 7 7 ............ I ............... II ............... Il ............... I1' I ~ ~ ~turati~j N~te: Ln ~id Adj= 1.~ 1.00 1.00 1.~ 1.00 1.00 1,~ 1.~ !,~ I.~ 1.~ HeY v~ Adj: O.~O,~ 0.~ O.~O.~ 0.~ 0.~0.~ 0,~ 0.~ 0,~ 0.~ Gr~ ~j: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.~ 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,~ 1.~ 1,~ Park~j: .. 1.~ 1.00 ~ 1.00 1.~ 1.~ 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 B~ S~p~j; ~ 1.00 1.~0 ~ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.~ 1,~ 1.~ 1,~ 1.~ Area ~j: 1.00 1.00 1.~ 1.00 1.~ 1.~ 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 RT Ad~: ~_~ 0,~ 0.~ ~0.97 0,97 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.~ 0.~ 0.~ LT~j: 0.~ ~~ 0.~ ~--m 0.~0,~ 0.~ O,MO.M 0,~ H~ Sat Adj: O.~ 0,~ 0.~ 0.~0.~ 0,~ 0.~ 0.~ O.~ 0,740.74 Usr Se~: 1.0~ 1.00 1.00 1.~ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,~ 1.~ MLF Sat Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.~ 1.~ 1.~ 1.GO 1.00 1.~ 1.~ 1.~ Fnt sat Adj: 0.94 0.~ 0.94 0.9~ 0.96 0.96 03& 0.54 O.5& 0.740.74 0.7~ Pr~r~si~ ~]~t Fact~ ~te: VoL~p: 0.51 0.~ *0.~ 0.~ 0.51 0.51 0.~ 0.~ 0.~ ~.~0.~ 0.~ Arr;v~t~; 3 3 3 Trafflx 6.8.1412 Cc) 1995 Oo~ting Assoc, Licet~ecl to Barton-A~c~mn, San dose #ITIG8 Fri Apr Z~, 1~77 10:Z6:~6 PBge 1-1 PEAK #O.J~ PROJECT COIIOI?IClI$ Level Of Service Cc~tetion Report 1~ NCXUnsi~rmLlzedNethod CBaSe VoLu~ ZntersecctanirlO U.S, 101SB OFFP.~P/TJJ~IAGE ~O Ave~e DeLay Csec/velO~ 2.7 Vorst Case Level Of SerYiGe; A~oproap:h: #or,h Sound SouthBound £astBo~rd We~t Have,mt; L - T - R L T - R L - T - R L - T - I ...... ' ........ ii ............... il ............... il ............... I Stop Si~n Stop S~ UnGo~ro~Led ~troLLed IncLude IncLude lrcLucte lncLucle 0 0 0 0 0 ............ i .... Il ...... VoLm ModuLe: Bose voL: O O 0 0 0 6r~ch Ax:Ii: 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.1)0 ¶~00 lnSt~&t ese; 0 0 0 0 0 00100 0 0 I O 0 ............... II ........... I 1.00 1,00 1.~ 1.00 1,~ 1.~ 1,~ user Adj; 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 PHF&dj: 1,00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.~ 1.00 1,00 1.00 PKF VoLune: 0 0 0 0 0 &S;)O 0 ~ 0 O ~6~ O ~ecr~ct VoL: O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 Final Vot,~ 0 0 0 0 0 &~X) 0 8~G 0 O ~ 0 ............ I ............... il ............... il ............... 11 ............... I Adjustlxl Vot~m= Nodute: Grade: O'~ 03; PC~ Ad~: 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Cyct/Cer PCE: .v_~_~ xxxx ~' ~ Trc~ P~: ~ ~ ~ ~ 1.10 1.00 1,00 1.10 1.00 1.00 Aclj voL.: o 0 o 0 o 539 o 8,~ 0 o 3,~ o I ............... it ............... Ii ............... II ............... Critical Gap Xodute,' MoveUp T~ee:x~ ~ ~ -~-- x~X 2.6 ~ ~_~ ............ i ............... Ii ............... Il .... ~ .......... II ............... I C~ci~ H~tal ~fLi~ VoL: v~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Ad~ Cap; ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ 1.00 ~e Cap.: ~y ~ ~ ~ v~ ~ ............ I [[ ............... !1 ............... Ii ............... I $t~ OeL:~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8.6 M~~: LT - LTR - aT LT - LTR - RT LT Sha~ Cap.: ~ ~ ~ ~w ~ ~_~ A~~DeL: O.O 8.6 0.0 O.O Trnffix 6,8.1&12 (c) 1995 Douling i~soc. Licensed to Barl;on-.AsCMmn, San dese UKIAH MUNICIPAL A'IRPORT" _..M.aster P-lan Report . _. Ukiah, California~ Adopted by the . Cih/of Ukiah ..~ - . July 1996. Land Use and Environmental Is. ue~ '/Cha~ter-7 the character of the Airport's environs, the nature of its operations, and the likely direction and magnitude of future changes to each. The rec- ommendations fall into four distinct groups: · Actions which the City can directly take as owner of the Airport. · Actions which the City can take as the agency having land use juris-. dicton in much of the airport vicJnit~; · Actions which the City can recommend, be t~ken by the countY in its land use jurisdiction capac~ for unincorporated portions of the air- . port environs. · Actions which the City .can recommend be taken by the/vtendocino County Airport .Land use Commission. Although these measure/are primarily directed at enhancing compatibili- ty by restri~g land uses, the other side of the compatibii~ coin aho must be recognized. To be mom specific, it is also important for-com~ patibility measures to assure that airport actv'.~ does not grow or change to the extent that it unnecessarily creates new conflicts with al- ready existing land uses. Measures of this type are examined with re- spect to act/ons which the City .can take as" owner of the Airport. ' -. . City Actions as. Airport oWner ' . Airport owners have certain airport/land' use compatibilitY.powers which other bodies normally do not have. 'Specifically, they'can-acquire prop- erty, mod~ airport facilities, and 'adopt airport Operational policies. __ ih'~perty acquisition provides the mos~ absolute means of controlling the u.q'es of land around an a!rport. It-al~o is the only. form of land use' con- troi which can'be directly implemented .by. the operators of airports (as . distinct from land .use jurisdicctons). Property acquisition can take the form of either fee title or easements. The most ..critical property for an airport to own or otherwise control are the runway protection zones' sit: · ' uated at the ends of the runways.. · Acquisition of Fee Slmple.Title - Outright purchase of property, by the airport owner is the most direct and certain, but the most costly, - means of e.nsuring 'land use compatibility in the vidnity of..an airport; The City'of Uldah has.had a program, to-acquire RFZ property in re- cent years and the most important portions a10ng the extended run- way centerline have been acquired.- Neverthe]ess; as outlined earlier, much of the RPZ land.., remains outside of airport bOundaries. The City is strongly encou, raged to continue to acquire fee title to proper- .. 7 -21 Land Use and.Environmental Issues/'Cha~er 7 -. ty within the RPZs, if not by 'condemnation, then at'the owners' op- tion or as the. property comes on the rnm'~t. 'v iiii Aa the'term has ~ome to be ap- plied in t~e aviation industry, a ' standard av'~a/fon easement ~ ..veys the following property ri~qta: obetzucted paas~t;le of aircraft property at any altitude atxwe ' ~n irn~J7 8urfac=e spedfied in the easement (usu~iy sat in accori~nc~ with FAR Part 77 crttmia). ~ sociated with normal airport ac- · ^ ght to pro. Ut the erecUon or ;ow~ of. any strucbJre, tree, or other object tl"~t would enter the mxiuimd airspace. · A rigl~t-of-entry onto the erty, ~ a,oproprlat~ advanoe n~, for tim purpOSe of're- moving, n'mr~ng ~ ligl'~T~ ~-'a~e or other ol~ec~ that entem ~e aoquired aimi~oe. · A .fight to prohibit ir~erferen~e, glare, rnisl~ng othm h~,arcl~ to aircraft flight' from being created on. the property. The FAA normally insists that no development be allowed within RPZs when federal grants have been used to acquire the. property. Certain Very-low-density uses can normally be considered acceptable, however. Agriculture is the best such example, although not often a very-practica~ one .within urban areas.,: Automobile parking, commer- c'~ nurseries, and outdoor storage are other potential uses which come to mind, provided that .the central po.rtion of the RPZ is avoid-' ed, no buildings are included, and no 'functions .which would attract more than about 10 people per acre'are involved. - Approach Protection Ea~ments -- As an alternative to fee .simple acquisition, the City might: be able to restrict development and use of RPZ property to a few identified, airport-compatible'activities by ac- quisition of approach gmtection easements. 'Residential dwellings and ali but low-intensity nonresidential uses wOuld-be excluded. The uncertainty arises because the circumstances at Ukiah differ from those in which approach protection easements are norrnallyconsid- 'ered. This type of easement is' generallY'best suited to situations in which the existing land uses are compatible with airport operations and it is reasonable to prohibit most other types of development Most applica~ons thus involve agricultural land. Despite the nonagri- cultu~ c~aracter of the RPZ property at Ukiah, a more broadly de- fined easement could be writ:eh to allow Other potentially compatible. land uses such as those noted 'above. Another important factor to consider in any decision to pursue acquisition of approach protection easements is whether the cost would be sufficiently less than that of fee title acquisition to warrant the added administrative costs. · Avigation Easements --A.third option which would provide a form of City .control over RPZ property, is a stan~ avigation easement. Avigation easements would protect the Airport against most noise and Overflight-related complaints or lawsuits and also keep the ap- . "Proach surfaces clear of obstructions. 'These restrictions are impor- tant to airport/land use' compatibility and worth acquiring, especially if they can be obtained for ii~e or no cost. It is impo .rtant. to recog- nize, however, that avigation easements do not explicitly res~ct the underlying types of land uses permitted on the property. Airports can implement such limitations only through fee title or approach protection easement acquisition (and cities and counties can .do so to some extent through zoning). Figure 7H depi~r~_ ~_e parcels for which property ac~_uisition_~ re,com-- - m; c jt6? pro_-_ ch n a'cqu itio ar a totals ' ~pPr~xi~am~y33 acres. The ~roposed acquisition area is al~o shown on the Airport Layout Plan. Depiction of the acquisition area on the A/rport Layout Plan will indicate the City's intentions regarding the property and al~o make. the acquisition, ~ligible fOr FAA funding a~sistance. All of the .o . . o' · · · .o C. Land Use and Environmental Issues / Chapter 7' I- a North South' Source: Shut~ Moen Associates (July 1996) % % .+ .-I- Figure 7H .PropoSed ProPerty AcqUisition ~... Airport APproach*Protection ,. -7 , 23 .. Land Use and Environmental Issues / Chapter 7 acquisition areas are shown as. approach protection easements. This is regarded as the minimum-acceptable form-of acquisiti0n. Where fee simple title can be reasonably-obtained, it is the preferable choice. A .factor to be .recognized with regard to the proposed acquisition area at the south end of the Airport is .that most of this property is not within the current Ukiah city limits. Thenew U/c/ah Genera/. P/an does not pro- pose .annexation-in this area. City acqu~ition of approach protection.- easements on this property, as proposed in this Master .Plan, would not necessitate annexation. However, if negotiations with property oWners results in fee title rather than easement acquisition of any of the parcels, then city annexation of those parcels would be appropriate. -. Airport Facility Modification The configuration and sizes of airport facilities, .partiCularly 'the runway system, have a direct bearing on the magnitude, of noise and safety pacts created by the Airport's operations. Modif'~ation of'these physical components can sometimes be an effective means of impact mitigation. Although.the opportunities for and potential usefulness of such measures are limited at Ukiah Municipal Airport, several have been considered. Airport CapaCity Umitations -- FOr general aviation .ai.rports, one means of limiting noise and safety impacts, is to restrict the number of based a'~craft. Only minimal growth in. based aircraf'c., demand, is pro- jected for Ukiah Municipal Airport, however, and this growth will not significantly increase the Airport's impacts. Even full utilization of.all the remaining vacant land at the Airport would not produce major additional impacts. This type of restriction, therefore, would not pro- vide any worthwhile benefits. Altamativea for the confi~ of the' Runway. 15 approach end are analyzed in O'mpter 5. For the reuona iclentified in that analyai$, "the Maater Plan recorrgrmncla.that the configuration remain u is. · C~nfiguration of Runway 15 Approach End -- As discussed in Chap- ter 5, the City of Ukiah has already taken the significant action ofre- ~. locating the Runway 15 threshold southward from the physical end of ; the pavement. This change was necessary in order to meet safely area length and approach surface clearance criteria relative to Hast- ings Avenue and also .to bring more of the runway protection zone onto airport property.. Recent changes to FAA design criteria allow' other configuration options not previously ava'dable. None' of the' modifications considered.woUld· have any negative effect on noise 'or safety compatibility. A very slight noise and safety benet'~c would oc- cur with respect to. aircraft taking off toward the south. . . · Southward Runway Extension -The advantages and disadvantages of 'extending the runway southward to regain, the. length lost by the threshold displacement on the north end were also examined in Chapter 5. From a compatibility standpo!nt, a runway, extension would have both advantages and disadvantages. The principal' ad- vantage would be. that aircraft departing on'Runway 33 would be at . : · .. Land Uae and Environmental Issues / Chapter 7 · ~!~'~ ~ ~~~..:..:¥~..::?.~`?~:¥........::.~...::.::~.:.~.~...~¥::~::.:¥~::.:::.:~::¥~:...?.:¥ .:'!~:":* .:: ..-~-':"-'.:-%'-.'-:-.~*?~'::'-'"-.'-'~ :~.-:':- .sJ,m~l~ "~l.':~.~:.-! ~.:..-~?..:.~.-.~.~:. ~e;.....-~:~:~>:.~*.-~:¢~:..-e.~.~.~.~?:~v...¥~:¥.<..:.~.~-.~.~.~:-...:.::~v~..~..¥...~¥v..... .:~.. · .~ ~.~..~ .............. :.........~.~....~?~.~..~..~.~...~::.:.~.- ~..~.~: ..?.¥. Runway P~ Zone or · High risk 0 10 Ail .~.-'.:'-~.~:'.~ within Building R~ · ~ noise ievei~ Remaining ~: Line Required : ....-:: :! ,.': :¥ ~ Ap~oac~/Departure Zone anc~ · ~ ~sk- ~ ~0 acres so 30% ~ Adjacent to Runway a3n',mo~ below 400 ft. AGL Required ~ · ~ubs. tanlial noise .., ~ '1"1 ......... ..... ~:~; Zone monly below ~00 ft. AGL ' Recommendad ::~..:.:,.:?;;;:.~::.:.:~. · Significant noise ~i~ CommonTrat~Patl~m · Limitedrbk-ain:;-aftator 15 uni~ 150 15% ~ below 1;000 ff, AGL. per acre Recommended ~.:~ om,r Aax~ a~i~or= · N,~ ~k No . No NO ~.~::.:.~-:::..:~ · Polantial for annoyance from ! Limit 'Limit · Requirement Table 7A · Current ComPatibility Criteria · Mendoclno. County ALUC 7-12 ff. Land Use and Environmental NOTES · . I ' ReSidential parcels should not be smaller than the indicated size nor have more :than the indicated . number of units per acre. Maximum densities expressed in acres are gross' acres;-those 'expressed in units per sc. re are net acres.': - 2 The land use should not attract more than' the indicated number of people per. acre at any time. This figUre should include all individuals who may be on the property [e.g., employeeS, cus- tomer~/visitors, et~). These densities are intended as general planning 'guidelines to aid in determining the accepteb~ity of proposed land uses. Special short-term events related to aviation (e.g., air shows), as well as non-aviation special events, are exempt from the'maximum density 3 Open land requirements are intended to be applied with respect to. the entire zone." This is. typically accomplished as part of the community's master .plan or a s.i~=ifio plan. . : . 4 These uses typically can be designed to meet the density requirements and' other development . 5 These uses typically do not .meet the density and other development conditions listed.' They should .be allowed only if a major community objective is served by their location in.this zone and no feas. ible alternative location exists. · · 6 See Policy Section 3.3. May be mo<~edby:airport-specif~c policies. in those portions of the B Zones located lateral to the runway, no restrictions on the storage of flammableS apply,' Within the'balance of the B1 and B2 Zones, up to 2,000 gallons of fuel or flammables is allowed per parcel. More than 2,000 gallons of fuel or flammables per parcel within the balance of the B1 and B2 Zones requires the review and approval by the ALUC. See Appencf0c G for a cfagram of typical area lateral to the runway. Refer to Policy 3~..3. for definitions which distinguish between hcsp'~is and medical clinics. .. Source: Mendodno County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (October 1993) · Note: The critetfa.listed in this table are the countywide policies adopted by the Mendoclno County Airport Land Use Commission. Recommended r~odification$ speoffioally applicable to Ukfah Municipal Airport are dis~uued on page 7-32. . · Table :7A - COntinued 7 ..13' .- Land Use and Environmental Issues / Chapter 7 The City should encourage the ALUC to take the following actions rela- tive to Ukiah 'Municipal .Airport: · The attached map (Figure 7]) should be adopted as the 'ComPatibility Map' for Ukiah Municipal Airport. · The following individual airport policies should be adopted for the Ukiah Municipal Airport. These policies modify the criteria set forth in the ALUC's 'Com,,patibility Criteria' table. _ _ ~ . ~- Lands within the ~not under airport /' ownership. HOwever, it is the int_enti.on of th.e..City_.,, of uldah ? ~. provide long-term cOntrol of the land uses within these areas by ~ either acquirins the property in fee or .ob..tain. ing a.p, pro, ach pr°tec- / ~ tion easements restricting the type and density of land uses - The B2 zone north of the Airport largely encompasses existing de- velopment- Some vacant land remains, however, and red. evelop- ment of other parcels is anticipated. The Infili policy (policy 2.1.6) of the county-wide Compatibility Plan is applicable to the entirety of this B2 zone. This policy allows new development of a similar intensity to that of surrounding, already existing, uses. A survey of the area has .been conducted to determine the current types and intensities of uses. The following limits on future devel- opment of this zone are set accordingly: (1) New.residential development is discouraged in-this zone; However, where such development is considered the best land use for a particular-parcel with regard to general city " planning shall - because of its lower.sensitivity to noise ' compared to single-family residential uses -be deemed · normally acceptable. Any new multi-family residential de- ~' velopment shall not exceed 28 dwelling units per acre. '; Also, any proposed multi-family development on a parcel of more than 4 acres shall maintain a minimum of 30% open space '(including major landscaping areas, non-en- closed automobile parking lots and driveways, and a share of adjacent streets). New single-family residential uses shall .., continue to be regarded as normally unacceptable. Note that using the standard mul- tiplier of 1.92 people per multi- fam~y residence as prescribed by the California Housing and 'Com- munity Development Department. the 28 dwelling-units-per-acre den- $ity equates to a maximum of 54 people per acre. (2) Non-residential uses shall not exceed 90 people per acre. (3) Routinely occupied portions of buildings shall not exceed two stories in height (equipment rooms, etc., are exempO. (4) Restaurants and motels are acceptable uses in the B2 infill zone provided that they do not exceed the above two cri- teria. eL Kraemer REAL ESTATE BROKER 417 Talmag¢ Road Ukiah, California 95482 (707) 468-8951 RECEIVED C~TY OF UKiAH Mr. Gary Akerstrom Redwood Business Park Ukiah, CA 95482 OPINION OF VALUE 1195 South State Street Ukiah, CA April 30, 1997 Dear Mr. Akerstrom, I am responding to your request for an opinion of value on 1195 South State Street, located in the City of Ukiah, in the County of Mendocino, State of California, a single family residence on a 21,845 square foot lot (85' x 257'), zoned "C-I" (see attached copy of regulations). In addition, you asked what the result would be of a taking of a 16' x 257' wide strip along Hastings Road for street widening (82% of the property would remain). The remaining parcel, with the Title Cloud, should have a value of $70.000 to $75.000 if the property can be developed under C-1 zoning (82% of the Final Conclusion Range) and ~ to $30.000 if the property can only be used for auto storage or other such uses (Allows for $5,000 cost of demolition). A "C-l" lot has a value of approximately $4 per square foot or $87,380, however, when that lot has a building on it that is not at its highest and best use, then we must choose the higher value of A) The building and lot under the current use (single family dwelling and lot), B) The lot value less demolition costs of removing the structure(s), or C) The lot value less the discounted (present value) cash flow from the improvement as a carrier less cost of demolition. A) Building and lot under the current use: 1176 square foot residence older construction - age 50 + or - garage - canopy - pump house Approximate Value $95.000 B) Lot value less demolition costs: Lot Value $4/sq.fi. x 21,845 sq.ft. = $87,380 Less Demolition Costs, approx 5.000 Approximate Value C) Lot value plus discounted (present value) cash flow from improvements (single family residence) less demolition costs: Lot Value $4/sq.ff. x 21,845 sq.ft. = $87,380 Plus present value of $800/month over 5 yrs with a time value of of money at 10% per annum Less demolition costs Approximate Value = $37,966 5.000 It should be noted here that the current owner purchased this property in August of 1996 for a price of $145.000. It is a reasonable assumption that a buyer not looking at the imminent loss of the 16' x 257' strip would make the following valuation for his purposes: Lot Value $4/sq. st. x 21,845 sq. ft. =$87,380 Plus Present Value of $800/month over 10 years with a time value of money at 10% per annum 61,041 Less Demolition costs 5,000 Approximate Value This valuation, without regard for the imminent taking of the 16' x 257' strip and the loss of the cash flow fi'om the rental, readily accounts for the difference in the valuation under method "C" and the price paid by the current owner. INITIAL CONCLUSION: HIGHEST VALUE $120,000 CLOUD OVER TITLE During my research of the property, I examined the "Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan Report" adopted by the city of Ukiah in July, 1996. In this report, the subject property is depicted as being in the A* Zone which the report depicts as follows: "Lands within the A* and B-1 * zones are currently not under airport ownership. However, it is the intention of the city of Ukiah to provide long-term control of land uses within these areas by either acquiring the property in fee or obtaining approach protection easements restricting the type and density of land uses permitted." (Chapter 7 page 33) I cannot predict if there would be any compensation to this property if the City zoned it accordingly, however, that downzoning would leave basically a lot for auto storage or other such uses which would drop the value drastically to $25,000 - $35,000. This cloud impacts my opinion of value even assuming compensation fi.om the city since Buyers in the market do not normally buy temporary investments or business sites. I must, therefore, assume that the improvements must be removed in a time period much shorter than the 5 years used in my valuation method "C" and that the $5,000 demolition cost is a real cost presently. Assuming a 6 months to one year remaining cash flow results in the following calculation: Lot Value $4/sq. ft. x 21,845 sq.ft. = $87,380 Plus Present Value of $800/per month over 6 months/over I year with a time value of money of 10% per annum Less Demolition Costs Approximate Value 4,702/9,175 5.000 87.082/91.555 FINAL CONCLUSION RANGE OF VALUE: $85,000 TO $90,000 Sincerely, Leland S. Kmemer In Neighborhood Commercial (C-N) Districts the building site are required shall be as follows: (a) For each main building a minimum of seven thousand (7,000) uare feet of area. Existing lots as of the date of this Ordinance unde 7,000 square feet are considered legal building sites. (Ordinance No. 793, Sec. 2, adopted 1982) Section 9065 - Front setback lines: D~_._=l~_~_P[~i~ns fo~ ~ont setback lines in Neighborhoo,d/Commercial (C-N) (a) On interior lots, the front setback line s~l be a minimum of 5 feet measured from the street right of way line fr~ing such lot. (b) On corner lots, there shall be a front/~tback line on each street side of a corner lot. The front set-back li3Z& shall be a minimum of ten (i0) feet measured from the street right of?a~7 line adjacen: to such lot. (Ordinance No. 793, Sec. 2, adopted 1982) x~ / Section 9066 - Yards required: In Neighborhood Commercial (C-~/Districts yards shall be required in the following minimum widths: (a) Front yards - The mini~m depth required shall be five (5) feet. . (b) Side yards - None r&quired, except where :he side of any lot in a C-N District abuts the si~e or rear of a lot in any R-i, R-2, or R-3 District, in which case ~/~ide yard of minimum five (5) feet in width shall be required (c) Rear yard.s/- None required, except where the rear of any lot in a C-N Distric~ abuts'~ the side or rear of a lot in any R-I, R-2, or R-3 district, in whic~ case a rear yard of minimum ten (10) feet in depth shall be required. (Ordinance N~/~793, Sec. 2, adopted 1982) ? Section 9067 - Parking required:. ~ - T~.~ minimum parking area required in Neighborhood Commercial (C-N) Dist~fcts shall be that determined %y Section 9198. (O~d~nance No. 793, Sec. 2, adopted 1982) ~ection 9068 - Additional requirements: (a) Ail new construction, exterior modifications to existing buildings or on site work shall require a Site Development Permit. (Ordinance No. 793, Sec. 2, adopted 1982) ARTICLE 7 - REGULATIONS IN LIGHT COMMERCIAL (C-l) DISTRICTS 376 Reprint No. 6 10/82 Section 9080 - Light Commercial or C-1 Districts: The regulations contained in this article shall apply, to all Light Commercial (C-l) Districts and shall be subject to the provisions of Article 16 of this chapter. The purpose of this article is to implement the General Plan Policies for Commercial areas. (Ordinance No. 793, Sec. 2, adopted 1982) Section 9081 - Uses allowed: The following uses are allowed uses in Light- ~ommercial (C-i) Districts: . (a) Any use allowed or permitted in any R-l, R-2, or R-3 District, except for single family dwellings, duplexes or mobile home parks. .(b) Retail stores and personal service establishment~ ~mrried on within a building, including: apparel, appliance stores, bakerie bar, barber shops, ~, banks, beauty parlor, book store, bowling, candy store,'ocaterer, cleaning (agency only), clinic , department store, dress shop, dr~g store, florist, food shop, furniture store, hardware store, jeweler, launderette, liquor store, millinery, new car sales, newsstand, office~, photographer, plant nurseries, print shop, radio and television repair shop, radzo store, recreation uses, restaurant, shoe shop, sign shop, studio, tailor shop, upholsterer, variety store, yardage store, and all other uses which in the opinion of the Planning Commission are of a similar nature. (c) Accessory uses to any of the uses allowed in a C-1 District. (Ordinance No. 793, Sec. 2, adopted 1982) Section 9082 - Uses permitted subject to first securing a use permit: (a) Animal hospitals, auto repair shops, car wash, cleaning and dyeing establishments, creameries, drive-in establishments, launderies,~ outdoor markets, outdoor sales establishments, pet shops, public garages, Theaters, used car sales lots, mini storage, service stations, parking lots,~ and all other uses which in the opinion of the Planning Commission are of a similar nature. (b) Any residential use. (c) Social halls, lodges. ~ (Ordinance No. 793, Sec. 2, adopted~982) Section 9083 - Building height limits: The maximum height of any building in a Light Commercial (C-l) District shall be fifty (50) feet, (Ordinance No. 793, Sec. 2, adopted 1982) Section 9084 - Building site area required: No minimum building site area except for residential development which shall be that of the R-3 zone. (Ordinance No. 793, Sec. 2, adotped 1982) 377 Reprint No. 6 Section 9085 - Yards required: In Light Commercial (C-l) Districts yards shall be required in the following minimum widths: (a) Front yards - none required on interior parcel. On corner parcels there shall be a ten (10) foot setback for a distance of ten (10) feet along both street frontages measured from the point where the property lines meet at the corner. (b) 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. (Ordinance No. 793, Sec. 2, adopted 1982) Section 9086 - Parking required: The minimum parking area required in Light Commercial (C-l) Districts shall be that determined by Section 9198. (Ordinance No. 793, Sec. 2, adopted 1982) Section 9087 - Additional requirements: (a) All new construction, exterior modifications to existing buildings or on-site work shall require a Site Development Permit. (Ordinance No. 793, Sec. 2, adopted 1982) ARTICLE 8 - REGULATIONS IN HIG}~AY CO}~ERCIAL AND ~TESTRICTED INDUSTRIAL (C-2) DISTRICTS Section 9095 - Highway Commercial and Restricted Industrial C-2 Districts The regulations contained in this article she y in all Highway Commercial and Restricted Industrial (C-2) Distri~ and shall be subject to the provisions of Article 16 of this chapter, purpose of this article is to implement the General Plan Policies Commercial areas and provide regulations for transitional areas betwe, rciai and Industrial. (Ordinance No. 793, Sec. 2, adopted~ Section 9096 - Uses allowed: ~ The following uses a~~allowed in Highway Commercial and Industrial (C-2) ?s~. Restricted (a) Wholesa~ stores, storage and service establishments, new car sales, s ig~~o.p/,, upholsterer. .. (b) /4~eavy commercial uses including bottling works, auto repair shops, creamers, launderies, cieanin~ and d ' · fe~.d~tores, and other use~ _L~, . .~ezng ~s~ablzshments, farm im lemen=s, ~r~ of a similar nature. ~ wazcn zn the opzn~on of the Planning C~mmission -~' 378 .'"' Reprint No. 6 / 10/82 I I I Note tha! using ~e standatcl mul- ~plior of 1.92 people per multi- family residence as prescribed by the Californin Housing and Corn- munity Development Department, · e 2~ c~mlling-units-per*acm den- sity equates to a maximum of 54 people per acre.. Land Use and Environmental Issues / Chal~er 7 The City should encourage the ALUC m take the following actions rela- tive to Uldah Municipal Airport: · The attached map (Rgure 7J) should be adopted as the 'Compatibilib/ Map' for Ukiah Municipal Airport. · The' following individual airport policies should be adopted for the Ukiah Municipal Airport. These policies modify the criteria set for:h in the ALUC's 'Compatibility Criteria' table. Lands.~in the A* ~nd B1' ~q~.,.~Qt~y?~u_nder~m. mort? ownership, However. ~~;~,~;;~at~~~.~=-.~x~-- pr°vid.e~lgn-g=-term~co.n, tzol-.:-of, the }and.~S~ _within' theS~':~ ei~er,~..~~-ng:i~e~pr°penY'in t~ee or' ob~a~n'ine aooroa~ o.n easements restd g the LTpe' and density of mitted~- ~' The B2 zone north of the Airport largely encompasses existing de- velopment. Some vacant land remains, however, and redeveJop- ment of other parcels is anticipated. The ln~il policy (policy 2.~.6) of the county-wide Compatibi/i~ Plan is applicable to the entirety of this B2 zone. This policy allows new development of a similar intensity to that of surrounding, already existing, uses. A survey of the area has been conduced to determine the current types and intensities of uses. The following limits on future devel- opment of this zone are set accordingly: (1) New residential development is discouraged in this zone: However, where such development is considered the best land use for a part/cular parcel with regard to general c~ planning shall - because of its lower sensitivity to noise compared to single-family residenUal uses - be deemed normally acceptable. An), new mulU-family residenUal de- velopment shall not exceed 28 dwelling units per acre. Also, any proposed muJU-family development on a pamel of more than 4 acres shall maintain a minimum of 30% open space (including major landscaping areas, non-en- closed automobile parking lots and driveways, and a share of adjacent streets). New single-family residenUal uses shall conUnue to be regarded as normally unacceptable. (2) Non-residential uses shall not exceed 90 people per acre. (3) Routinely occupied portions of buildings shall not exceed two stories in height (equipment rooms, etc., are exempt). (4) Restaurants and motels are acceptable uses in the B2 infill zone provided that they do not exceed the above two cri- teria. 7 - 33 Redwood Business Park o/ Ukiah 425 Talmage Road · Ukiah, California 95482 · (707) 462-1961 May 1, 1997 ECEiVED C~TY OF UKIAH MAY 0 1 1997 Ms. Colleen Henderson City Clerk City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Ukiah, CA 95482 Dear Ms. Henderson: The following comments are addressed to the City Council relative to their upcoming Establishment of Airport Industrial Park Capital Improvement Fees Ordinance on May 7, 1997: Since this City Council is new and does not have first-hand knowledge of the history of the Airport Industrial Park project, I believe it is appropriate to present some of the historical events. These events are important in that they give reason to some of the actions and reactions of Redwood Business Park to the current proposals of the City regarding traffic mitigations and future development of the project. o In 1980, the City received a State Planning Assistance Grant to develop a Master Plan of the specific area between the Railroad and Freeway south of Talmage Road (Specific Plan). The purpose of this effort was to facilitate the annexation of the area, to be known as the current Airport Industrial Park (AIP), into the City of Ukiah. This annexation would provide certain economic benefits to the City of Ukiah. This work effort would generate a Specific Plan, an EIR, and a land use designation document as well as annexation information. Preparing an EIR for this project (Exhibit 1) was an important part of this advance planning and used by the City as an enticement to the property owners to annex to the City. After promises to the State and property owners that an EIR was being done, the City only prepared a Negative Declaration for the project (Exhibit 2). Ms. Colleen Henderson May 1, 1997 o o , o o On 1/21/81, the City Council adopted the Specific Plan (Exhibit 3) which called for the City to be responsible for the off-site improvements while the property owners would be responsible for the streets and utilities within the AIP development (Exhibit 4). On 3/4/81, the City Council, by Resolution 81-59 (Exhibit 5) adopted a Use Permit on AIP setting forth various uses and locations for those uses. Even though AIP was to be primarily industrial in nature, the portion of the development north of Hastings was designated as "Office/Commercial" and "Highway Oriented Commercial" (Exhibit 6). This portion of AIP has never been designated as "Industrial" by the City. The existence of the Specific Plan as a detailed definition of uses in the AIP was referenced in the 1984 General Plan (Exhibit 7). On 4/16/86, the City Council approved the Tentative Map for Redwood Business Park stating that "... the City Council adopted a focused Environmental Impact Report for the Airport Industrial Park, the area within which this project is located, thus the Tentative Map does not require further environmental evaluation" (Exhibit 8). This information was supplied to the City Council by the Planning Director who was originally responsible for the preparation of the EIR (Exhibit 9). This Tentative Map approval also required Redwood Business Park (RBP) to widen Talmage Road on the south side and pay for one- half of the traffic signal at the Talmage/Airport Park Boulevard intersection, even though the adopted Specific Plan identified these off-site improvements as being the responsibility of the City. In 1987, Street Improvement Plans, including grading, utilities and landscaping, were prepared by North Counties Engineering Co. and approved by the City Director of Public Works for all of RBP. In 1987 the northern portion of the RBP street improvements, including Talmage Road widening and electric conduits for the traffic signals, were constructed by RBP. On 4/5/89, the City Council approved Use Permit 81-39(c) which clarified the "Highway Oriented Industrial" and "Railroad Oriented Industrial" designations within AIP by designating them as "Industrial/Commercial" for a portion of AIP adjacent to the Freeway, and "Industrial" in the remaining area south of Commerce Drive (Exhibit 10). Ms. Colleen Henderson May 1, 1997 o ° o 10. 11. 12. On 1/19/90, in response to a request by Wal-Mart to build a store in RBP, I received assurances from the City Manager that construction of the Wal-Mart store on Lot A-1 in RBP was an acceptable use and that the Site Development Permit and Negative Declaration could proceed simultaneously so there would be "no unwarranted delays" (Exhibit 11). On 3/19/90 and 4/12/90, the Mendocino Environmental Center (MEC) filed two suits against the City of Ukiah for improper noticing of the Negative Declaration, not doing an EIR in the first place, and for not approving the Use Permits as required by State Law (Exhibit 12). On 7/6/90, a stipulation to dismiss the MEC suits was filed which contained agreements to set aside certain Use Permits, and prepare an EIR for the Wal-Mart and AIP project (Exhibit 13). Wal-Mart and RBP were required to pay 2/3 of the MEC attorney's fees, even though the suit was brought against the City of Ukiah for improper and illegal actions by City staff. On 7/12/90, I wrote a letter to the City Manager informing that the City was on a course of action to change the Use Permit without proper notice in response to the MEC lawsuit against the City for not properly noticing their actions. I felt that this proposed action by the City inexcusable (Exhibit 14). On 2/1/91, RBP was forced to file bankruptcy due to cash flow limitations caused by the extensive delays caused by City staff's mistakes and procedural errors. On 6/21/91 Wal-Mart and RBP entered into an agreement (Exhibit 15) with the City to fund the required EIR on Wal-Mart and the AIP. Wal-Mart and RBP were required not only to pay for the consultant's time in preparing the EIR, but also pay for the City staff's time in processing the EIR. This seems unfair to me in that the only reason for these delays, damages, and added expenses to RBP were the misrepresentations, irresponsible actions and alleged illegal activities of the City staff. Nevertheless, this funding agreement called for the City to be responsible for the preparation and certification of the Final EIR. Ms. Colleen Henderson May 1, 1997 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. In the spring of 1992, after the Draft EIR had been circulated, it was determined by Wal-Mart's attorney and the City Attorney that the Draft EIR had some significant deficiencies that could prove fatal if the EIR were to proceed with the EIR as prepared. At that time there were two options: A) Rewrite and recirculate the Draft EIR, thereby causing a delay of three to six months; or B) Revise the "project" to fit the EIR and proceed with the public hearings and EIR certification. Since RBP was in bankruptcy and time was of the essence, it was decided to reduce the scope of the "project" to that of the Wal-Mart site only, and proceed with the Final EIR. The Draft EIR was not changed and included a traffic study and associated mitigations covering the entire RBP. The traffic mitigations actually performed were for RBP buildout including Wal-Mart. The Wal-Mart/RBP EIR was certified on 8/14/92 by the City Council (Exhibit 16), leaving the balance of RBP without proper environmental clearance even after expenditure of substantial effort and expense. The balance of RBP was to receive environmental clearance via a subsequent EIR that was to be paid for by RBP. During 1993, approximately $450,000. in off-site improvements were built and paid for by Wal-Mart/RBP (Exhibit 17). These improvements were on the listed improvements in the Specific Plan as the City's responsibility. On 9/9/93, I submitted a letter to the City Planning Department regarding the anticipated RBP buildout uses and areas which would be utilized in the subsequent EIR (Exhibit 18). The building areas were approximately 20% less than those specified in the Wal-Mart/RBP EIR. After receiving price quotes and proposals for the preparation of the subsequent EIR during the winter of 1993/94, it was decided to utilize LCA Associates to prepare this document. I had expressed a concern to Chuck Rough, City Manager, that a new traffic consultant would be chosen and that we would be presented with a new traffic study containing new assumptions, new calculations and new mitigations. Chuck Rough assured me that this would not happen and that the City Engineer would do the traffic portion (Exhibit 19) since all that would be required for this study would be to utilize the revised building areas with all the assumptions and methodology present in the Wal- Ms. Colleen Henderson May 1, 1997 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. Mart/RBP EIR and merely revise the calculations. To save time for the City Engineer I volunteered to do the actual calculations and supply these calculations to the City Engineer for checking and inclusion in his summary report for the traffic portion of the subsequent EIR. On 5/27/94, I supplied the City Engineer with the required traffic calculations. On 6/6/94, RBP submitted a check to the City for payment of the preparation of the EIR (Exhibit 21). During the months of June through August of 1994, LCA prepared the Draft Subsequent EIR with the exception of the traffic and drainage portions that were to be done by the City Engineer. Correspondence reflects that in spite of repeated requests (Exhibits 22, 23, 24), the traffic portion had not been completed by the City Engineer. In October of 1994, the Planning Department requested that LCA subcontracted this traffic work to a new traffic engineer which is exactly what the City Manager promised would not happen (Exhibit 25). Finally, at the end of November of 1994, the traffic data was given to the traffic consultants. This inability of the City Engineer to accomplish the traffic analysis resulted in a delay to the project of approximately six (6) months (Exhibit 26). On 2/7/95, the Planning Department provided me with a copy of the overview section of the Administrative Draft of the Subsequent EIR. I was shocked to find out that the consultant had not followed the building coverage figures that were provided to the City a year and a half earlier (Exhibit 27). On 3/3/95, I reviewed the traffic section of the Administrative Draft and to my horror discovered that the traffic consultant had also utilized the wrong buildout areas as supplied to him by the City (Exhibit 28). On 3/25/95, the City received a letter from the traffic consultant requesting additional funds to recalculate the traffic figures since he had initially been given erroneous data (Exhibit 29 & 30). On 3/23/95 I met with Bob Sawyer expressing my frustration with the progress of the traffic portion of the EIR (Exhibit 31). The Draft EIR essentially showed an increase in traffic over the WaI-Mart/RBP EIR after a 20% reduction in building area was made. Bob acknowledged Ms. Colleen Henderson May 1, 1997 24. 25. 26. that there was something wrong with the analysis and promised to have the EIR numbers revised for the Final EIR, even if he had to ".. pay for the traffic consultant himself." This was never don, and in spite of opposition to the traffic portion (Exhibit 32), the Final Subsequent EIR was certified with the erroneous numbers and resulting mitigations. The length of time to produce the Subsequent EIR was unreasonable and excessive and appears to have been due to lack of cooperation of the City staff (Exhibit 33), inability to staff to provide the consultant with correct information and lack of proper monitoring of the consultant's progress by staff. On 3/3/94, the City entered into an agreement with Langley to purchase a site for the Mendocino Brewing Company (Exhibit 34). This action compromised the City's position as an independent local governmental agency and placed them in a position of a competing developer. Numerous subsequent actions by the City reflect their bias towards minimizing the loss on the Airport Business Park (ABP) (Langley Property) project. The economics of this project are so bad that the City will probably lose between $1.5 million and $2.5 million in public funds prior to the completion of this project. On 7/25/95, RBP submitted a request for a Boundary Line Adjustment to configure the lot lines of a parcel to fit the Friedman development (Exhibit 35). The City Engineer required the dedication of an easement over the undeveloped portion of Airport Park Boulevard to provide access to the City's project (Exhibit 36). This was done in violation of State Law (Exhibit 37). In May of 1996, the City Engineering Department published a set of Plans and Specifications for building a road over the easement on Airport Park Boulevard to the City's ABP project. The plans on this project were not stamped and signed by the City Engineer as required by State Law. Also, the plans did not follow the City-approved Plans for Airport Park Boulevard and were designed in such a manner as to generate substantial later costs to RBP as the street was developed. It was only after RBP hired legal counsel, and under the threat of suite, that the City redesigned the project. Although a Cost Sharing Agreement was reached between RBP and the Redevelopment Agency for this new portion of the road, the Agency has yet to pay their fair share of the existing portion of Airport Park Boulevard that will become the main access route to the City's project. Ms. Colleen Henderson May 1, 1997 27. 28. 29. In March of 1996, W-Trans, a traffic consultant, produced a report for the City on the traffic impacts of the AIP. This report and subsequent reports were so flawed that an entire series of reports have been produced by W-Trans. The last report is still not correct. Original - March, 1996 Revision #1 - 12/13/96 Revision #2 - 1/17/97 Revision #3 - 1/29/97 Revision #4 - 3/19/97 Revision #5 - 4/17/97 It has been absolutely impossible to keep up with the changes in traffic analysis obtained by the City. On January 3, 1997, an engineering report on AIP capital improvement fees was produced by the City. This report, as well as subsequent reports, contain significant errors. Below is a list of reports produced by the City: Original - 1/3/97 Revision #1 - 1/8/97 (Dated 1/3/97) Revision #2 - 1/29/97 Revision #3 - 2/3/97 Revision #4 - 3/19/97 Revision #5 - 4/17/97 These reports have been repeatedly generated in spite of repeated requests by RBP to coordinate with RBP at the various stages of the development of this report. One factor that has been perplexing to me is the lack of support for the RBP project considering the quality of the project and it's benefit to the citizens of Ukiah and the financial benefit to the Redevelopment Agency, and the City, itself. The Redevelopment Agency will receive over $150,000. in property taxes from Redwood Business Park this year alone ((Exhibit 38). Also, the City will receive approximately $500,000. in sales tax from Redwood Business Park this year. Both of these figures will continue to grow over the years. Ms. Colleen Henderson May 1, 1997 This history is not all inclusive, or complete; however, I hope that it provides some indication of the frustration that we are experiencing in trying to develop a quality project here in Ukiah. If you have any questions at all regarding Redwood Business Park, I will be happy to answer them. GLA:bs encl. Very truly yours, G~//L. Akerstrom CC: Kenneth B. Finney Candace Horsley - City Manager Dave Rapport - City Engineer A C]~'NDA C~I_TY loL%NACER REPORTS (cent' d.~ Facility plan for wastewater treatvaen~ (cont' d. ) A_ C T'I 0 N T A X E · CITY ~NAOEI~ REPORTS Various alternatives available to Council were discussed. Kermedy Engineers r~presentatives wer~ present in the audience and answered questions raised by Council, · · M/S: }Hckey/SimpsOn to aocept and ~pprove the 'Project P, epor: w~:h'Addenda and submit the recommended Projec~ Alternative 6B to the State for concept approv,~l' Carried by roll call v::e: AYES: IL[ckey, Myers, Simpson, Snyder Brannon N~ES.: None ABSENT: None. ' ... . M/S:'Simpson/Hickey t° request Kennedy Engineers. " proposal for the next phase of subjec- pro oct w~~6 submit a standing that Council ~-- -~ ..... '- J ' k. the under- · ~ ua~ ~na£ ~e~eznninatton as to who:kef .~ or not the project is adopted. Carried by roll call vote: AYES: Hickey, Myers, Simp~on, Snyder Branuon NOES: None _ .____ABSEh~: None ' .-' 12) Consideration of 701 Grant Funds for 1979-80.' · On file: Planning Director --=--~-.o, 2' 15 79 & Airport. Indus~ria- ".-i~-. - Park MaSter Plan The master plan is for landa lying. between the airport amd fre~',-ay, south .of Talmunge F. oad. There would be no cash cu~l--_-, by the City; only in-kind Councilwoman SnYder expressed concern ~iEb the possibilic-.., ef need f~-_- additional personnel. Council was assured there would be'no -lan to include additional staff in any department. There would a need for 52 days of consu!tam= time. PlanninE Director. pointed out the area in que,~tion ~s not ann-axed at the present ~ime which provides an opportune pote:ltie! 'advance plannimg in. the area. Councilwoman Snyder stated this plan the private owners in the area would be compelled :c uake t.._y get:, i.e. the laying ef reads may not be acueptabi~_ s_aid owners. Planning Director pole,ted-out the pr¢,gr~m of advance plato%ins would keep each property-o%n~er from doiug a.separa=a . M/S: Hickey/Myers to authorize the City Manager to apply for- 701 funds for 1979-80. Carried by roll call vote:. AYES: Hickev, Myers, SimPson, Brara~on. -NOES: 'Snyder ABSENT: None Recess - 8:45 p.m. · 13) Request for training subsidy for Sgt. Marcheschi, Police Department 14) Budget transfer authorization for purchase of tape recorder for Council' Chambers On file: c/Mgr, memo, 2-21-79 Marcheschi memo, 2-9-79, Pal~ 24 Personnel Policies ' Request was for reimbursem~= of certain training expense. Ciiv Manager recommended rejecti:n' 'of the request on the basis :hat the primary benefit is to the employee. M/S: Htckey/Myers to deny :ka requesl for financial assistance lea!ing to a Masters Degree in Public Admiui=- tration as requested by Sg:. Mar- cheschi. On file: City Clerk memo, 2-15-79 Transfer authorization M/S: Hickey/Simpson to. purckase tape recorder as recommended. Reg.Mt~. 2-21-79' uoso, oLL.LL a, 'O.H/S : J. S3J.J.V aUON :.LN3SBV aUON :S30N ~a~o~H 'saa£N '~ap~u$ 'qosnq~aj '£aL~ s:aqtuamt~ouno3 :S3XV :~o^ LLO~ 6u~otLo~ a4~ £q OB6L 'aun~ ~o ~ep 43b s~4~ O31dOOV QNV Q3SSgH '£~aado,4d ~oa~qns aq~ ~o uoL~exauue a4~ uodn aA~a~a amooaq LLeqs aoueuDp~o s~ql '~ uoL~oaS '4e~N ~o ~3 e4~ u~ peqs~Lqnd uo~3etn3~3 Le~eue5 ~o ? aadeds~au euD ~e£ ;q paaLnbaa se paqsLLqnd eq LL~qs aoueu~pao sL41 'g uo~oeS 'LLa~ se atu~ ~e4~ ~e papueum aq LLeqS 'seSue4o euoz snoLAadd ;q papuaure se '9005 uo~oaS £q pa~dope detu 5uDuoz aql 'qe~4~ ~o £~DO eql ol paxauue s~ peuozadd os ~ado~d aq3 se arum3 4ons 3e eAL33e~a amo~eq LLeqs uo~3 -eo~Lsset3 6uLuozaad s~41 '~oaaaq 3~ed e apem pue o3aaaq paq~e33e ¥ ~qLqx'3 u~ paq~aosap pue t~oqs se LLe !sa~oe 9SL ~La3em~xoadde §u~uDe3uo3 eaae p~es f3uamdo£aAaQ pauue£d 'Od qeD4~ ~o ;3~3 o3 d:S:E-3 pue L-N 'L-¥ £3uno3 ou~3opuaN mod~ pauoza~d sL LO-OSO-~SL pue ~O-OgL-OSL ~gO 'LO'OLL-OBL !~0 'LO-OOL-OB/ f~O '~0 '~0 'ZO 'LO-O~O-C~L ~80 'ZO 'go '~0 '~0 '£0 'gO 'LO-OZO-OB£ 'son LaO~ed ~ossess¥ £3uno3 ou~oopueN se pa3eu§~sap £Luoumdo3 £3~adoad ~e41 (~BYd 9VIBI$DONI IBOd~I¥) Al~13dOBd NI¥£B33 9NINOZ3Bd H¥I~D JO ZlI3 3H£ 30 9IONDOO A£ID 3H: ~0 3DNVNIOBO 9~Z 'ON 33NYNIQBO : trltl be. fot-~rded ~ Counctl ,at & subsequen~ ~eet~ngo Counc~lmember'R~ey asked ~or expiation ~f ~/arrant No. 16334 to Ace Aertal Servtce, Znc. i~a~or Htckay stated tt was alrl'are for attendance at a HCPA meettng. i~/$: lqYers/Fetbusch to approve Warrants ~163Z3-1G485, $$58 ,333, 0~. Hot'ton'carried by the following roll cal~ .'vote: AYe: Rtle.v, Fa?busch, Hyers, Hfckay t;OES: ~e. A~FJ~T:$nyder 4) J, rmtes' lanu'a 198I-- H/S: ;e busch/ le.y to · . · .. · approve mtnutes of ragu'let · · meettng of danu~r~ 8, 1981 eS amended by CouncilOrs' Fe~busch and Rtle~. F, otion carrted by' the follo~rlncj ~o11' call-vote: AY[S: 'P, tle¥, Fefbusch"- ,'~,),ers,'l~ckey I~OES: None, ABSE:lg':' Shader · -. PUBLIC $) Alrport IndeStrt&l P~rk-' ' P~r~l~c Heartn~ opened- Spectftc Pl ~n · ·' - Otm l;estr~dge, Chr?sttan A - Foster Associates, who spoke on subject matter at Ctty Counctl meeting of <lanuary 7, lgS1, stated he'~ould answer any questions the Counctl. mtght' have. .- Bt11 Fo~le~, Chamber of Ccmne~e, urged the Council's speedy approval of the program so the Chamber can pranote lt. :'Publtc Hearing closed. In answer to Counctlmember RJley's question-regarding potentta'l drainage .p.roblem~.; Pl.an.n.~ng.Dt?~.tor stated that dratnage ~s addressed tn the yla~.a~a.wou~a.~e ~nc/uded'tn the implementation program. Counctlmember Rt;ey expressed concern that tf coa=erctal useage were allowed tn the Park, tt ~ould draw aw~y frcm the downtown area. It ~ras the consensus of Counctl that the follo~rlng changes be made: statement referring to antJgro~th sentiment on page 7 should be strtcken fram the report; page 17,: paragraph O, the wordtng. "ot't' stte tmprove~ente wt11. be the responsibility of. the City" be changed to "off site Improvements may be tbe-respons16111ty of the C1'ty"; ?n favor of moving the south cross road further down to Norgard Lane and conttnue Atrport Road to lqorgard Lane;' pages ~4-~5, Paragraph F per- ta?ntng to storage of materlals tnslde should be ~eviewed and allowance 'made for storage outside the building; reference made to "Planning Director" on · 26 and 28 be changed to read "Planning Caaa~ssion"' page 29, feltPagessite , off parktng ~as too restrtctlve and should be Increased to 350 square feet; page 33, capttal Improvements should be addressed 'and determination made who wtll pay for them; the tntent of the proposed Park not be retail development but primarily an Industrial ~rk. 14/$: .Fetbusch/~rs to ftnd the Kegattve Declaration adequate end compleX. Iqotton carried .by'the following roll call vote: AYe: Rtley, ;elbusch', YO~ers, atckey NOES: ~ne ABSS:~iT: Snyder - · ~$:. R~le¥/Fetbusch to adoPt.~e A~rport Industrial Park Plan as amended to. tnclude cammnts.contatned ~n the Plannlng Director,s .d. anuary lG, 1~81 memorand=, and Council's cammnts 'above.- · Morton card, ed' by the follo~rln; ~0~1 call vote: AY;S: p,?ley, ;eJbusch, - 1dyers, H$cLey I~OES: l~one A~$;,~T: Snyder - · 7) Public Jnput on desJ'rable . Public ~iearlng opened: quallflcatlons of Clty I~nager' . ~yor Htckey ·read the -; attar recelved from the' Uktah Chamber of Ccmaerce recamendtng the person · .. nag.erg. -. 1/21/8! ' Page Z .-289 · . o. SECT_._.__ION V: ;MPLEMENTATION PROGRAM The following capital improvements, financing plan, and implementation procedures are recommended for effectuation of the Ukiah Industrial Park Specific Plan. · , ., A. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTs LIST ' Th.e' fol lowing off-site improvements].:. ~:l'~l~i~!'ithe remponsibil.ity of the C~ty of Ukiah. All site improvements":inclU'ding primary and secondary s t feets, lateral extensions for utilities, street signs, fire hydrants, etc. are presumed to· be the responsibility of the property owners. Estimated costs for off-site improvements include: 3~ Talmage 'Road Widening a. street construction b. curbs.& gutters · c..~ traffic signalization at intersection of primary road Street ImproVements North of Talmage a. Betty Street Extension b. Lorraine Street Closure LeWis Lane/Hastings Road Improvements a. .street- construction b. curbs & gutters c. traffic signalization, at Talmage .Airport Boulevard, Extension a, .. street' construction b.'.' railroad crossing ~Southern Access From-State Street · . a. ' .street construction b... curbs &. gutters c. street. 1 ighti ng d. railroad crossing e. traffic signalization at State-Street f. utilities (water & electricity) · .. PAGE 33 COncePtual · _Cost Estimate' $356,000 $ 20,000 $156,000 $160,000 $403' 000 · . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 io 11 12 14 15 i7 21 22 23 .24 25 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. ,91-59 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COb~.:CIL OF !HE CITY OF UKIAI1.APPROVING USE PERMIT NO. 81-39, AIRPOR¥ INq]USTRIAL pARK ,. WHEREAS, the land· encompassed by the Airport Industrial Park is the subject of a .proposed reorganization known'as the Airport Indu~r.r{.a! Park Reorganization,. and. WHEREAS, said territory has been prezoned PD, Planned D-ve~.op..~,-.~.~ · anticipation of the. reorganization (annexation-), and · Wq{EREAS, on January 21, 1981 the' Airport industrial. P'~rk .. Plan and' attendant Megative Declaration were adopted, and ~{EREAS, the':"PD", Planned D~v~lopment_ - zone requires a u.,e ~e--~i~.. to be reviewed and approved by the 'Planning Cor~mission and the Cir" prior to any develoPment taking place.within that zone, and WHEREAS, on Febr. uarv 25, .1981 th~ Planning Commission apr ....... .. use permit specifying development standards for thc area, -NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOI .... D, that Use Permit :;o. 81-3~ :.-. with the following specific .reghlattons applicable to deve!o~' the .Airport Industrial Park. The.specific'zoning requirem'cnts for the Airport Industrial ParP -.ha~~ ~.~ as follows. These Planned Development use permit regulat~or.~ applicable within t~re industrial-office-commercial compIex ~!ali...~;~,,-~, . the generalized -land. use. plan. Development standards, not address-_4 · this use perm.~i~ shall be the.~e specified in the C£~y of' Ukiah · · ~Ordina-.nce. The uses soecified here as industrial or- c:~.-imcrc:' ~'~-' allowed in t.hcse respectfve- c!assification" 'areas idea~{~ied '.'- '"' . Generalized [.and Use Plan. . . -. UKIAH, CALIFORNIA -12- objectives of the General Plan, annexation would be necessary t~ ensure. consistency in implementation. Cooperation between the City and the County relative to land use decisions and urban delivery systems exists, however, because of the two different agencies, the policy implications will be different. The position of the municipal govermment is to provide those urban services that are necessary for commercial, residential and industrial development in heavily built-up areas and those services which are appro- priate for agricultural uses in less urban locales. The planning area, because of its geographical definition, should have one jurisdictional boundary involved in it and development policies and implications related thereto. An aggressive annexation policy, adopted by the City and County, should provide for the most effective governmental responsibklities in this area. Considering the vast territory, administered by the County, greater resourses should be directed toward more rural county functions with urbanized resources provided by municipalities. The Urban Services/Governmental Function study, recently completed does provide that direction. With particular respect to annexation, all county islands should be eliminated and those areas west of the freeway should be included in the City jurisdiction. It is believed that both the County and the Local Agency Formation Commission are tending toward a more efficient means of providing urban services within the urban centers by relying on the cities' efforts where most appropriate. SITE DEVELOPMENT REQU~.,~.JTS Specific requirements in the actual development of a site including landscaping, specific architectural treatment, layout, etc., most directly affect the Urban Design segments of the General Plan. Through these methods, one can identify a specific character to be followed. It can also be utilized to integrate new buildings with older buildings and make them compatible so that there is not a tremendous differential between the two styles. . Provision of necessary 'on-site parking, compliance with proposals for circulation, etc. can all be- made through this technique in which the Planning Commission would review the various proposals as presented. SPECIFIC PLANS Specific plans are detailed delineations of proposed land use, circulation, and other items for various locales. These plans identify capital improve- ments which can be programmed into the development phasing; determine circu- lation elements prior to any specific land use taking place so that when the project is constructed, the infrastructure is placed; mitigate anticipated impacts; and basically address concerns long before the timing is of a critical nature. Utilization of septic tanks for sewage purposes can be reviewed in these plans, with implementation subject to appropriate soils testing and compatibility with surrounding uses: Th~ ~ity has completed such a plan for the airport Industrial Park. -- -- _ _ -76 - I 5 6 ? 9 10 11 14 15 16 17 18 19 9.0 23 25 RESOLUTION NO. 86-41 RESOLUTION OF THE CIT~ COUNCIL OF THE CIT~ OF UKIAH APPROVING TENTATIVE SUBDIVI$ION MAP NO. 86-48 REDWOOD BUSINFSS PARK ~EREAS, the Planning Commission has considered and, recommended approval of. Tentative Map No. 86-48 for the Redwood Business Park, and WHEREAS, the City Council approved Use Permit No[ 81-39 on March &, 1981 specifying conditions and development standards for the Airport Industria1 Park, and WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works reports that the City of Uktah has sufficient wastewater capacity to handle waste waters for this project without violation of Water Quality Control Board Standards, and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a focused Environmental Impact Report for the Airport Industrial Park, the area within which this project is located,__ thus the tentative map does not require further environmental evaluation. "' NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Tentative Map No. 86-&8 (Attached F. xhfbtt A) for the Redwood Business Park is approved conditioned upon compliance with all applicable State statutes, local ordinances, conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 8'1-39 and the following specific conditions: 1. All utilities, sewer, water, electric and drainage be installed with each phase and that all utilities be undergrounded at developer's expense. 2. Full street improvements on interior or abutting streets be constructed. 3. Street improvements on Talmage Road shall include traffic channelization. Developer contribute 50Z to Talmage-Airport Park Boulevard signalization fund with the condition that signalization occur prior to develo.Dment of the last property or money refunded. Payment to be pro-rated over the development of the project based on the formula that meets the approval of the City Council. 5. Street pavement sections shall be Cai Trans design based on soil R values with Traffic Index to be determined by City En§tneer. DATE: TO: FROM: MARCH 21, 1986 PLA~%qING DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR OF PLARNING SUBJECT: TENTATIYE iUBDI¥ISION MAP NO. 86-48 REDWOOD BUSINESS PARK OF UKIAH SOUTII SIDE OF TALMACE ROAD, EAST OF N.W.P.R.R. DEVELO.PMENT - CAKY AKERSTROM RECO}~ENDATION: Recommend approval of' the tentative map t° the City Council subject to the conditions presented'in this staff report. ZONIN.___.~C: PD, Planned Development. CEN~..RA_L PLAN DESICNATION: Industrial. ENVIRO~ENTAL ASSESSMENT: 'A focused Environmental Impact'. Report was previously approved for-this, use permit andthus uo further environ- mental evaluation is necessary. PROPOSAL: The proposal is'the Tentative SubdivisiouMap for the Redwood B--usiness Park of Ukiah to be developed on the south side of Talmage Road, Just east of the N.W.P.R.R. and west of the 101 freeway. ANALYSIS: The City Council approved Use Permit No. 81-39 on March &, 1981 subject to special conditions regarding Uses, Development Standards pesigu Guidelines and Site Development 'Pemit approval, That use permit encompassed all of the area between the railroad and Highway'f01, south. of Talmage Road. The area to be developed with the subdivision is approximately 99 acres. Development is proposed'in nine phases, with each phase expected to take at least a year to complete. The main access road through the park,' Airport Park Boulevard, will have a landscaped divider strip. Landscap- in§ will be maintained by a property owners ,ssocta~ion. Al! parcels are over an acre in size,.large enough to eliminate on-street parking, Staff would prefer that the in~ersection, of Talmage Road and Airport ~'ark ~lvd. be located further west; however, there is apparently major utility equipment located Just to the west of the proposed intersection precluding such a location. .. Ihs proposal is consistent with the approved use permit. · . Tbs major issue to date between the applicant and the 'City. is the developer's proposal to only build the center portion (median strip .and cwo lane travel lanes) to begin each phase and then complete the im- provements as each property develops. Staff believes this is not appro- pti:toe and ha~ recommended that .full improvements.be made with each ~C AIRT-ORT INDUSTRIAL · -12- UI{IAH, CA 95482 - ^DMIN. 707/46~-~200 ~ P~LICE46~-6242 ~ FIRE q6~-6274 Janua~- 19, 1990 Hr. Gary L. Akerstrom Redwood Business Park of Ukiah 425 Talmage Road Okiah, California 95182 Dear Hr. Akerstrom: The utilization of Lot A-1 of the Redwood Business Park of Ukiah for a Wal-HarC SCore is an acceptable use under the existing Use Permit No. 89-I27 as approved by the City Council on January 17, 1990. The size of the proposed structure is such Chat a s}ecific Negative Declaration for ~he project ~s appropriate. This can proceed simultaneously vich the Site Development Perait so thac there are no unwarranted delays in development process. Wal-Harc will be required to obtain the usual Site Development Permit and Buildin~ Permit. I viii do whatever I eau to be of assistance to them in processin~ ~he necessary Permits. If you or Wal-Mart have any further questions, please feel free to contact me. C~ty Ymna§er CLR:kk R:¢m c: Community Development Director usan B lmdt-Itawlcv A'I'II)R XI"Y AT LAW " ('huux'ct Ilou~ · Post Office Ih~x 309 Glen Ellen, California 95442 (707) 938-3~8 · (707) 576-0198 Attor,,cy fi,r PETITIONERS I/IAR 1 9 1990 MARSHA A. YOUNG ~DOClNO COUN[Y MENDOCINO ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER, ELIZABETH L. BALL, and ELLIS J. COLVILLE Petitioners, CITY OF UKIAH, PLANNING COM- MISSION OF THE CITY OF UKIAH, and DOES I through X Respondents. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MENDOCINO ti WAL-MART STORES INC GARY L 18 I: ' ' ' ' i! AKERSTROM, and DOES XI through XX 19 20 Real Parties in Interest. Petitioners allege: GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 1. Petitioner MENDOCINO ENVIRONMENTAL PETITION FOR WRiT OF MANDATE AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF [Public Resources Code Sec. 21167] CENTER (MEC) J.s a 24 ' California nonprofit corporation whose purposes include the 25I dissemination of environmental information, the promotion of ;. 26' environmental awareness, and the protection of the environment. MEC maintains an office at 106 W. Standley Street in the City of Ukiah, and includes among its members approximately 189 persons 27' 28. :' '1 .i I h -1- usan Blkndt-Hawley 2 ~' ATTORRI~Y AT LAW ' 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Chauvet House · Poet Office Box 309 Glen Ellen, Calff~ia 95442 (707) 938-3908 · (?07) 5760198 Attorney for PETITIONERS 1990 MARSHA A. YOUNG MENDOCINOIIOUNTY CLERK SUPERIOR COURT OF THE. STATE OF CALIFORNIA , IN AND FOR'THE COUNTY OF~0CZNO MENDOCINO ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER, CASE NUMBER ELIZABETH L. BALL, and ELLIE J. .COLVILLE, 60148 Petitioners, V. CITY OF UKIAH, CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH, and DOES I through X, PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Respondents. WAL-MART STORES, INC., GARY L. AKERSTROM, and DOES XI through XX Real Parties in Interest. _/ ____/ Petitioners allege: .GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 1. Petitioner MENDOCINO ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER (MEC) is a California nonprofit corporation whose 'purposes include the ,. dissemination of environmental information, ~he -promotion of environmenta~ awareness, and the'protection of~'the environment. MEC m&i~tains an office at 106 W. StandleY Stree~ l~ the City of · Ukiah, and includes among its members approximately 189 persons --1-- DAVID J. RAPPORT CITY ATTORNEY RAPPORT AND MARSTON 200 W. Henry Street Ukiah, California 95482 Telephone: (707) 462-6846 Attorneys for Respondent MARS/lA A. YOUNG SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MENDOCINO 10 MENDOCINO ENvIRONMENTAL CENTER, ) ~1 ELIZABETH L. BALL and ELLIE J. )- COLVILLE, ) 12 ) Petitioners, ) 13 ) v. ) lb ) CITY OF UKIAH, CITY COUNCIL OF THE ) CITY OF UKIAH, and DOES I through ) X~ Respondents. · , , WAL-MART STORES, INC., GARY L. 18 AKERSTROM, and DOES XI through XX, Real Parties in Interest. NO. 6~-14 8 STIPULATION TO DISMISS ACTIONS, SET ASIDE DECISIONS AND REMAND FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties to the 99 above-entitled actions through their respective attorneys of record as follows: 1. Respondents shall set aside the following portion of City of Ukiah Use Permit No. 81-39(c), adopted by Resolution No. 89-35 on April 5, 1989: Subsections d iii-vi, of Section A.1 including desig- nated' "Commercial" uses as principal permitted uses, specifi- STIP TO DISMISS ACTIONS C:'U'PLDGS'APEV. 3 -1- Hr,; :; ~sr I es Rough 300. 8;~d. nary Ukiah'; CA 9548:l Dear ~Chuck: Redwood B us ness 425 Talmage Road. Ukiah. Californi~ 95482. (707)4~-1~1 '" 0uly 12, 1990~ · At yesterday's meeting on. the HEC/Ukiah suit you indicated that the recision of the Use Permit will be adopted by the City Council on August 10 1990 since the 7/5/90 City Council meeting was cancelled due to lack of a quorum. In reviewing 'the proposed recision package I do not see where any notice at all has been posted or filed. Since there are a nun~ber of. o~mers who will be affected by this action, proper noticing is probably required to prevent additional suits on the same noticing Issue. It is' our intent that the process be done correctly so we do not experience further delays caused by procedural mistakes or oversights. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Gr, A:bs cc: Hr. Frank Bacik AGREF~ZENT TO FUND CONSULTING SERVICES This Agreement is made and entered on June 21 , 1991, in Ukiah, California, by and between the City of Ukiah ("City"), a general law municipal corporation located-in Mendocino 'County, California, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. -("Wal-Mart"), a corporation or- ganized and existing under the laws .of the State of Delaware but authorized and doing business in' California under and in com- pliance with the laws the State of California, and Redwood Busi- ness Park of Ukiah, a California Limited Partnership, organized under and in compliance with. the laws of the State of California, (herein referred to as "Business Park"). RECITALS: 1. City has agreed to contract with Leonard Charles. and As- sociates ("contractor'') to prepare an -Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") for a project ("the Project") more fully described in the agree- ment between City and Contractor ("the Contract"), a true and correct' copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incor- porated herein by reference as though set forth in full. 2. Several parties, including Wal-Mart and Business Park, have interests in the Project, but Wal-Mart has agreed to pay the City for the costs of preparing the EIR, including the costs charged by Contractor under the Contract or any Supplemental Agreement approved by Wal-Mart and the City's costs of adminis- tering the Contract or-Supplemental Agreement. 3. Wal-Mart may have separate agreements with the other parties interested in the Project to share the costs of preparing the EIR, but Wal-Mart's agreement with the City as expressed herein does not depend in any way on the terms of those other agreements or the parties' performance' under them. 4. The parties anticipate that the EIR will address a site development permit sought by Wal-Mart and amendments to the Air- port Industrial Park Planned Development sought by Business Park. In consideration Of the above-recited facts and the terms and conditions as further stated herein the parties hereby agree as follows: 1. Payments by Wal-Mart. Contract. .The parties agree that City's costs of administering the Contract or any modifications thereof are equal to $10,325.00 June 21- 1.2 By no later than , 1991, Wal-Mart shall deposit with the City Finance Department the estimated costs of preparing the EIR in the total amount of $113,575.00, consisting of $103,250 for Contractor's services under the Con- tract and $10,325 for the City costs to administer the Contract. 1.3 City shall separately account for all funds deposited to cover the costs for Contractor's services by deduct- ing therefrom payments to Contractor under the Contract, and shall furnish Wal-Mart and Business Park with copies of all in- voices submitted by Contractor and documents prepared by City evidencing payment of such invoices. City shall credit this ac- count with interest based on the average balance in the account each calendar month at the average rate of interest received by City on all its invested funds during the same time period. The average..simple annual interest rat~ currently received by the City is approximately 8%. This rate will change on a monthly basis. If funds remain on deposit after full payment to Contrac- tor under the Contract and certification of a final EIR for the Project, City shall refund those remaining funds to Wal-Mart within 30 days after certification of the final EIR. 1.4 If the City determines that (1) additional serv- ices by Contractor are needed or (2) additional experts are required to prepare a final EIR for the Project and propose to enter a Supplemental Agreement under paragraph 5.05 of the Con- tract or to retain additional experts by independent contract for this purpose, City shall provide Wal-Mart and Business Park with 15 days prior written notice of its intent to enter such a Sup-- plemental Agreement or other contract along with a copy of the proposed Supplemental Agreement or contract. Within 10 days of the date City provides notice under this paragraph Business Park and Wal-Mart shall notify City whether either of them will deposit the additional funds required by any such Supplemental Agreement or other contract. If Business Park and Wal-Mart fail or refuse to deposit said funds with the City within a total of 20 days from the date notice was given of the intent to enter' such Supplemental or other agreement, and the City determines, in its sole discretion, that it cannot complete and certify the EIR within ,the time required by law without such Supplemental or other services, Wal-Mart and Business Park shall be deemed to have withdrawn their applications for the permits comprising the Project and the City shall be entitled to deny the applications on this basis. Wal-Mart and Business Park shall make no claim against the City, or its officers, agents or employees,, based on the denial of the Project or the City's failure to complete and certify a final EIR for the Project, where such denial or failure results from the failure or refusal of Wal-Mart or Business Park to provide additional funds under this paragraph 1.4. If the ad- ditional funds are deposited within the time required by this paragraph, 'the City shall administer said funds as provided in paragraph 1.3. 2. City obligations. 2.1 City shall arrange for the preparation of and cer- tify a final EIR for the Project, provided funds required for the preparation of a final EIR are deposited with the City as provided in paragraph 1. The provisions of this paragraph shall not provide Wal-Mart or Business Park with any legal or equitable claims or remedies against City in addition to those claims or remedies provided by CEQA. 3. Remedies. 3.1 Wal-Mart, Business Park and City agree that any litigation relating to the enforcement or interpretation of this Agreement shall be brought in a court of competent jurisdiction in Mendocino County and that venue-shall lie in Mendocino County, each party waiving any objections to venue in Mendocino County. 4. Paragraph headin.gs. 4.1 The paragraph headings contained herein are for convenience and reference only and are not intended to define or limit the scope of this Agreement. 5. Notice. 5.1 Whenever notice to a party is required by th.is Contract,. it Shall be deemed given when deposited in the U.S. Mail with proper address and postage affixed thereto or when per-- sonally delivered as follows: CITY: CITY OF UKIAH Civic Center 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, California 95482 WAL-MART: Department 8703 701 South Walton Blvd. Betonville, Arkansas 72716 BUSINESS PARK: c/o Gary Akerstrom 425 Talmage Rd. Ukiah, CA 95482 6. Duplicate Originals. . 6.1 This Contract may be executed in one or more duplicate originals bearing the original signature of all parties RESOLUTION NO. 93-15 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH CERTIFYINg FII~tL EIR FOR AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ~MEND~ AND W~L-MART SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AS ADEQUATE AND COMPLETE 1. The City has 'circulated a Draft Envirnmental Impact Resport ("DEIR") for the Wal-Mart Store and Amendment to the Airport Industrial Park Planned Development ("AIP-PD"), dated January 1992, after consulting with public agencies and interested parties as required by the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and implementing guidelines ("CEQA Guidelines"); and 2. The DEIR was circulated to all interested public' and private persons and entities and made available for public review and co~ent as required by CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines~ and 3. The City had prepared a Final EIR ("FEIR"), dated June 1992, which includes responses to comments and changes to the DEIR in Compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines~ and 4. After the public comment period and in connection with the noticed hearigs on the project and the EIR, the City. received additional comments after the public comments period had expired; and 5. The City Council has chosen to consider those comments and the responses thereto prepared by Staff and the EIR · Consultant, which are contained in the July 10, 1992 Staff Report ("Staff Report") to the Planning Commission and the Agenda s:\u\docs\.aLmar~2.¢er Summary Report for the August 12-14, 1992, City Council hearings ("Agenda Summary"); and 6. Under' applicable provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelins, no changes to the project or additional information requies recirculation of the DEOR or a supplemental EIR; and 5. The City Council finds that the DEIR, FEIR, Staff Report and Agenda Summary comprising the EIR for the Wal-Mart project and the proposed amendments to the AIP-PD adequately discuss the potential environmental impacts from the project, as revised, both individual and cumulative, and fully complies with the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; 'and 6. The City Council has fully reviewed and considered the contents of the EIR prior to approving the project; NOW, THE~FORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the EIR is hereby certified as adequate and complete and adopted as the final EIR for the amendments to ~he AIP-PD proposed in Planned Development Amendment Application No. 90-77, as revised, and the Wal-Mart .Site Development Permit Application No. 90-87. PASSED AND ADOPTED on August 14, 1992, by the following roll call Vote: AYES: Councilmember ~alone, and Ma~or Sc~-eiter NOES: None McMichael, Wattenburger, Shoemaker, ABSENT: None ~~Sc~ AT~E~:o, -- Fred Mayor /? Redwood' Bus,ness Park 425 Talma~e Roa~. Ukiah, California 954~2 · (707) 462-1961 September 9, 1993 Mr. Robert sawyer Principal Planner Citl of Ukiah 300 Seminary. Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482-5400 Re: Redwood Business Park Temtative Map Dear Bob: I have reviewed the list of Airport Industrial Park uses that were assume~ for the Wal-Mart EIR. I find that the use mix has not =hanged significantly, how,vet, the ~en~ities are still too high. I have e~close~ a revise~ usage/density list which is more in line with the anticipated developmemt in the Industrial Park. In the Al-A7 lot areas L have mot made specific allocations to office, R & D, busLness service, etc. as the EIK Traffic Study uses the same traffic generation rates for theme uses. Also, have shown all of lots Fll-R$ as being retail, even though this area would b.e designated industrial and commercial. This retail use would be,.-the most intense use from a traffic generation sta~dpoimt. ~ From what. I cam determine, there is nothing that we have requested that provides more impacts tha~ what is assumed in the Wal-Mart EIK. I' still feel that the AIP Development Plan needs to be cleaned up, as we have been' trying to do for the last ten (10) years. ~iEzuclosed is a copy of the Development Plan that we presented to the City in 1991 which I still feel is applicabIe. If ~ou have any questions, please feel free to contact me. GLA: ]as - G~y'L. Akerstrom- -BUILDOUT PROJECTIONS FOR AIRPORT. INDUSTRIAL PARK parce! A1 A1A Si~e 13.5 Ac 1.4 Ac 7.8 Ac A2-A7 152,000 SF · . 8 Pump 2,500 SF 75,000 SF FI-B2 29.3 Ac 380,000 SF Fll-B3 36.4 Ac 400,000 SF AIP West 4.4 Ac 40,000 SF AIP 'South/30.0 Ac 400,000 SF USe Discount Retail Service Station Restaurant Office, Retail, Business Service Industrial Retail Office., Retail B~siness Service Industrial Note 1 2 $ 4 . · · Existing Wal-Mart with proposed expansion (22% total). Service station similar to Chevron at Perkins and Orchard. · Site layouts indicate that parking and ¢ircu~.ation provide limiting factor for use density. Densi.ty of proposed and likely bull dour of 22% coverage by one-story buildings. If two-story buildings are utilized the amount of parking would increase and the building coverage and usable area within' the building :~ould decrease. Industrial buildings that would be likely for Ukiah would not cover over 30% of the site due to requirements for parking, outside storage, loading area and traffic circulation. 6. Using 25% building coverage for large retail on entire area. General 'Note Although the development plan for Airport Industrial Park sets certain development criteria such as 45% maximum lot coverage, 50-foot maximum building height, and a variety of allowable uses, all of these factors will not occur simultaneously. In other words, 45% building coverage would only be possible for a facility of warehousing use. Such a warehouse use would have a low traffic volume. If the use is more intense such as manufacturing, office, or retail, the space requirement for outside storage, parking, and traffic circulation causes the building coverage to be reduced. Based on construction in the Industrial Park to date, lot coverage for office and retail use is in the 21 to 22% range and industrial use is i~ the 18 to 28% range. LEONARD CHA'RLES & ASSOCIATES Environmontal Analysis & Planning 7 ROBLE COURT SAN ANSELMO, CALIFORNIA 94960 PHONE'(415) 454-4575 FAX (415) 454-2585 Mr. Rick Kennedy Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 May 24, 1994 Dear Riel __Ic~ .~n. d~n. g you th.e.s~c. ~ons..out of our Bid Proposal describing the scope of work the sra__~ you w_oma ao_wr_me_ hydrologic and Waffic ~,lyses of the NJR for _the south_em portron-or~e .~XlX~ axuu~u-iat rm~ ~,ff.m-ms6 ~d~g ~uu ,~ ~4~y 6~me letter i sen~ ~ob Sawyer regarding the lO0-year flood issue. Reference data includes the original Draft EIR for the Wal-Mart project and at least the following pages from the Final EIR: Traffic - pp. 23-33, 57-61,209-210, 217-221,349- 370, and 443; Hydrology - pp. 78-81,203, 206-207, 244-247, and 334-348. You should also refer to'the City's Findings on the project and the final Conditions of Approval for the Wal-Mart project. Spedfic issues for hydrology would be: le 2. 3. 4. 5. Pre- and post-project runoff for 10 and 100 year storms. Culvert adequacy. Cal-Trans' concerns Impact on drainages east of the freeway lO0-year flood elevations and the need to flood-proof structures Specific issues for ua.fflc include: 2. 3. 4. Does Wal-Mart FJR adeqtmtdy identify trip generation and distribution for project and cumulative lraffic? Are all impacts ~y identified? If not, please amend. What additional mitigations are'required? Do the mitigations imposed.on Wal-Mart adequately address the impacts identified in the~ original EIR? Is there a need for a southern entrance? At what point of area buildout will this be required? Where will it go7 Please note that my air quality analyst will need traffic projections to conduct the air quality analysis for project and cumulative conditions. He has a copy of the original HIR traffic analysis. I will ask him to call you in two-three weeks to determine if there are any changes you wish to make in the traffic projections. I do not have any maps of the site or proposed development and suggest that you can get them from Bob Sawyer. NORTH COUNTIES F NGINEEi ING COMPANY 425TAI.MAG~FiOA~ · UKiAH..cAg~ · ('70'7) 4~2-1g~1 May 27, 199%- Mr. Rick Kennedy City Engineer City of Uki~b 300 Seminary Ukiah, CA 95482 Dear Rick: The followinq data is provided a.~ input for ~our ev~!uation of the -revised T~affi. c I~acts of th~ ~aw~d B~s~ness P_ark development- -and th. eir e££~ct on the associa~d traffic mitiqaC~ons t~at were- ]proposed in the Wal-~....EIR. A copy of thes_e, traffic mi6iga=io~-- '~-= ~=iose= (Exhibit 1). ~ -- As part of the Supplemental EIR for Redwood Business Park, the lot coverage has been revised (Exhibit 2) to reflect a more reasonable estimate of future lot coverage. These revised building areas are then utilized to generate revised traffic volumes (Exhibit 3) utilizing the same .traffic rates that were used in the Wal-Mar~ EIR. The traffic volumes thus generated for the PM peak hour is 88% of the EIR incoming and 82% of the EIR outgoing traffic. Applying these reduced traffic volumes to the "total project increment" .shown on Figure 15 of the EIR yields revised "total project inc.~ements" as shown (Exhibit 4) for PM peak hour traffic. When evaluating traffic impacts uti.lizing PM peak hour traffic, an important .factor is the intensity of the peak When compared with the traffic during the remainder of the day. If the peak is only slightly greater than a good portion of the remainder of the day,' then the facilities required for the peak will also be required for most of the day. However, if the peak is sharp, then the turn lanes, multi-lanes, or signals will not be needed during the remainder of the weekday or anytime during weekends. If this is the case, a minor amount of congestion may be tolerated during a short period to eliminate costly improvements (usually signals) and their associated maintenance costs. In order to evaluate the intensity of the PM peak, a 1990, 48-hour, traffic count for Talmage Road taken by the City of Ukiah has been graphed (Exhibit 5). This graph indicates that 90% of the ~ime the traffic volume is less than 83% of the PM peak hour traffic. Assuming that this Talmage Road traffic count is representative of future usage, the 1~-~'. Ri. ck Kennedy May 27, ~994 traffic volumes in all but 10% of the weekday time will be less than 83% of PM peak hour traffic. Several intersections are re-evaluated utilizing the same methodology as was used for the Wal-Mart EIR. Copies of applicable pages of the Highway Capacity Manual are enclosed (Exhibit 6). It should be remembered that the methodology uses estimations and approximations which do not take into consideration poorly designated channelization, ill-timed traffic signals, stalled cars, etc., etc., which can completely negate the best plans and designs. TaT~,qe/sta~e intersection with the revised traffic volume will be under the capacity level (Exhibit 7). A second left turn lane on Talm~ge Road would not be needed. The critical volume is in the north-south direction anyway, since the southbound left-turn movement is the only movement that has conflicting traffic. T~l~qe/Nor~-h~O,,-.d 101 Offr-~p intersection shows LOS of E for northbound left turn. Calculations of revised total project and 83% of the revised total project (Exhibit 8) yield a LOS of D and C, respectively. A signal is probably not warranted for a LOS of D less than' 90% of the time. ~oodrich Traffic Group assumptions are overstated since they show a westbound right-turn movement of 240 VPH at this intersection when, in reality, the right-turn movement occurs approximately .200 feet east of this intersection leaving only., westbound through traffic. One item of concern is the speed limit.on Talmage Road. The overpass itself is designed for 35 MPH based on sight distance. Therefore, a 30-35 MPH speed for planning is not an unreasonable assumption; however, nothing works at 50+ MPH... ; State -~',d Wa~',~tg- intersection operation for the projected traffic on both the EIR and revised estimates fall below intersection capacity' (Exhibit 9)'. Neither of the above figures justify adding second, east-west, approach lanes, especially from the east where insufficient right-of-way exists and the City of Ukiah just recently built the existing curb returns under the State Street widening project. Tal~=ge/Wau.~h intersection would operate at a LOS of E under the revised traffic figures for PM peak hour or a LOS of D at 83% of the peak traffic volume (Extui~it 10). Improving the LOS at this intersection for a limited number southbound left-turn movements would not be cost effective. Providing sufficient stacking length between this intersection and the railroad tracks for a signal at this intersection would be difficult. The bottom line is that this tee intersection is not in a good location and has a poor design. If it is difficult to turn left from Waugh Lane during a substantial portion of the day, people will use alternate routes Mr. Rick Kennedy May 27, 1994 which will alleviate the problem. This may be the best long-run solution. ~bbi ~ Wau=h intersection would have a LOS of D less than 10% of the time with a LOS of C or better the remainder of the' time (Exhibit 11)'. This is probably acceptable especially in light of this intersection's proximity to the railroad tracks and people using alternate routes. Tal~e/Sout~o,,~ 101 Offr-~ intersection as designed and constructed would operate at as LOS of D or less th~n~ 2% of the time (Exhibit 12) with the revised traffic flows. This would not warrant a signal. The EIR assumed that the southbound offramp would be brought under the'overpass and around to a point adjacent to the southbound onramp. The resulting intersection would result in the westbound Talmage, eastbound Talmage, 101 onramp and 101 offramp traffic all converging at the same intersection. The offramp as constructed eliminated this intersection. An ongoing concern is the speed of the traffic on the overpass. The designed sight distance of the overpass due to its vertical curve is 35 MPH. The speed limit should be no more than this amount. Also, there should be a W 10 "side street" warning sign placed on Talmage Road east of the overpass. Wi4e~_.~ Airport Park Boulevar~ by 12 feet is not justified by the amount of traffic generated in the development. The EIR writer assumed Airport Park Boulevard to be a high-speed, arterial road, which it is not. A revised estimated PM peak hour traffic flow of 817 vehicles is substantially less than a. typical lane volume of 1600 vehicles per hour. Also a speed of less tb~n 35 MPH does not justify acceleration and deceleration lanes. High-use driveways would be more effectively served by utilizing larger radius curb returns. Hopefully this will provide some helpful information for your review on .the proposed mitigations, for the Redwood Business Park project. ~ If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. GLA:bs encl. Redwood Business Park Ukiah 425 Tairna~e Road · Ukiah, California 95482 · (707) 462-1961 June 6, 1994 Mr. Robert Sawyer Director of Planning City of Ukiah 3 00 Seminary Ukiah, CA 95482 Dear Bob: Enclosed is a check in the amount of $18,960. as payment for the Draft Supplemental EIR on the Airport Industrial Park Planned Development in accordance with the attached "Draft', contract agreement between the City of Ukiah and Leonard Charles and Associates (LCA) · It ~s understood that the contract amount is a "not to exceed price" and that the City will pay-for 50% of the Final EIR that is not to exceed the price of $7500. .- We would'request that a firm time schedule be obtained from L.C.A. prior to giving them a Notice to Proceed. This schedule will be important for scheduling public hearings/and for evaluating progress by L.C.A. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, GLA:bs encl. 300 uKIAH, CA 95482-5400 · AI3MIN. 707/463-6200 · PUBLIC SAI=E13' 463-6242/6274 · FAX # 707/463~ Mr. Gary Akerstrom Redwood Business Park 425 Talmage Road Ukiah, CA 95482 RE: Airport Industrial Park Planned Development Amendment- Redwood Business Park Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Dear Gary:. This correspondence is intended to provide an update as to Lhe status of the above referenced project. Following receipt of your check in the amount of $18,960.00 to ~nd the preparation of the EIR, staff created an a~ount and deposited the money (receipt enclosed). A revised draft cona'act between the City and Leonarc~ Charles Associates, was also submitted to the City Attorney for finai review and col~ment. In'addition, Planning Department staff has prepared the required Notice of Preparation in anticipation of contract finalization. ._On_Ju_ne 14, 1994, i Staff m_et b~_efly_with~the. City' ~ngi.neer to discuss the status of the _-traffic_ar?alysis.-AYtrccang was aTso ~,ond-ucted that s~ne a~y ~[ Leoharci Charles To discuss the project, status of the contract, and other associated issues. One area of concern to both Mr. Charles a.nd stafl is the necessary resolution of the biological issue. During our meeting on May 18, 1994, you indicated that discussions were proceeding with the State Departrne~it of Fish and Ga'ne, a,-~d ~h~t agreement conceming the development of a mitigation plan for the loss of Baker's Meadowfoam was forthcoming. Staff urged timely resolution of the issue, and indicated that if it remained unresolved, the draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report would generally rely on the analysis and conclusions cont=ined in the original EIR. and probably would have to analyze the newly graded condition of the site. In addition, it would appear that failure to enter into a reasonable mitigation a~reement with, the State Department of Fish and Game would represent a failure to comply with the court, ordered stipulated sgreement, dated June, 1990. . . '~/e Are Here To Serve" , June 16, 1994 ,- EbNARD CHARLES & ASSOCIATES Environmental Analysis & Planning 7 ROBIE COURT SAN ANSELMO, CALIFORNIA 94960 PHONE (415) 454-4575 FAX (415) 454-2585 June 28, ].994 Mr. Char i Stump- Senior Planner UIci,la Community Development Dept. 300 Seminary Avenue U~h~ CA 95482 RECEIVED JUL 1 1 1994 ..... ":"'AFl ;,),i i' [ii- Deut. of Co~mun~' ..... · .tY Dev3lopm~=nt I am enclosing a draft version of the Introduction Section of the EIR for the Redwood Business Park. I would appreciate your review, especially as concerns the description of the project and the land use assumptions that will be used for the enviromen~ analysis. _Oja another note. I am a~m~min~z _fl~_t the City En~neer is working o~,th, e traffic and drainage analyses, i particularlY nee~l~e traffic analysis so that I can i~ave the air ~-ua~ty analysis done. ~Fne contract time for this project is very short, and I especially need the traffic analysis as soon as I can get it. I have also reviewed the contract that you sent me and reg.. uest several changes. The changes are listed below: Xe Section 1,05 (a) should be amended to state tha~ the AD~TR will be submitted within 6 weeks if the City Engineer supplies the Consultant with the traffic and drainage analysis within 2.5 weeks from contract execution. We need at least three weeks to do the air quality analysis which is dependent on the new traffic analysis. / Section 1:.07 should be amended to state that we will attend one meeting on the Dmf~ ErR (per our Price Quote) and two hearings on the Final EIR. If we are required to attend two heatings on the Draft EIR, then the price must be amended by $1500. If this is a problem, then the City should be clear that.we will bill the second meeting for the DEIR as part of our 'time and materials' billing for the Realizing the potential litigious nature of this project, we would like some protection from any future lawsuits. We suggest that a Section 9.02 be added to state: 'HOLD HARMLESS: Recognizing that the CONSULTANT is preparing an "informational document" per CEQA and that this document will be used by the CITY to make land use determinations that may result in less intense land uses than the property owner may desire, the CITY will hold harmless the CONSULTANT for all claims, lawsuits, actions, liability, damages, losses, expenses, and costs (including but not limited to attorney's fees) brought for, or on accouat of, loss of RECEIVED 1994 Dept. of Community Development July 29, 1994 Mr. Rick Kennedy ~(~ _Seminary Avenue Uldak, CA 95482 Dear Rick, I am sending you this letter to summarize several previous letters and phone conversations axc~ng~ the wark the City has delegated to you and the' information we need for both the Business Park (Akerstrom ~) and the Langley Property (Mendocino Brewing Company) ~2Rs. ~Tbe OW ~_tha_ ~u ~would .be respons/ble for. me .wg~c a~!_~vsis and drain~-e '-~.__ to.~ ~.,~.~_d [thai mt< regaining those issues. I believe the following analyses ~eed'tO-- le gauons are suit appucame gxven tim actual mitigations required for the Wal-Mart project. e Determine whether the trip generation and distn'bution for the R.BP lm'oject are accurately descxibed. These data will then be used to prepare the air quality analysis for that' project. e Trip generation and distn~ution must be determined for the Langley property. The Wal-Mart. analysis incorporated Irips from this portion of the industrial park into the cumulative traffic analysis that included a number of other projects. Them is no explicfft ~ption of trip generation, distribution, mitigations, or impacts specific to the ~ ~ngley property. This analysis will be required for the wa~c section for the Langley EIR and will be used to prepare. .the air quality analysis for that property. The Langley EIR will need to identify the southern access to Norgard, and you will need to'distribute traffic to that mute. Please note any right-of-way that the City must purchase/condemn in order to provide this southern access. You need to review the drainage analysis to determine whether it accurately describes drainage impacts for both the RBP and the Langley properties. Your analysis should incortmm~ comments made during the Final '~R for Wal-Mart. Please note that you should identify the lO0-year flood elevation on the Langley ~ given the findings of the earlier hydrologic report for Wal-Mart and FEMA maps. Other hydrologic issues include: Xe 2. 3. 4. 5. Pre- and post-project runoff for 10 and 100 year storms. Culvert adequacy. Cal-Trans' concerns _mpact on drainages east of' the freeway O0-year flood elevations and the need to flood-proof smmmres. J , In terms of schedule, I need these analyse~ as soon as possible, but no later than August 23, o~ we will not be able to meet the schedule the City desires. Please call if you have questions. Leonard Charles cc: Ch~ey Stump EXHIBIT "Al" October 14, 1994. would ' ~out~our '~ uo ' - · e ~ · .. The follmCmg outtin~ thc ~:~ for each task. Hydrol~y ~ the drain~e analyses and the impncU on culveris; amend the earli~ analyses u necessary, This will inetna~ and post-proje~, runoff'. This wRl include mca'potation 'of remarks :md co=cc~ons nmce a~ ~ of thc Final HR. . --- 2~ 3~ ParticuL~ty r=view draina$e calculations done for the sou~ site as this sim was assessed under cumulat/ve i .mpac~ in the.Wal-Mart HIR. ~ impac~ on rae three ditch s~=ns east of I-Ii~~ 101. Del~=iue if additional m/z/~n measur~ ~r= required. e T. HU P,~view previous Caimans comments and address tho~e conc. erm. · ~Detarmlne ~e 100- ~ar flood · . .. 1 & w 6~ 7~ wilI do ~e Ha.sting~~. ~ ,F,~, ~ x'a~x z~omevara, Talmage/$tate, and Describe existiag tm/ftc. Calcula~ and distribu,, projec~ tra~c fa' the PM peak hour for both projects. counr~). Assess the success ofthe Irzffic di~~n Assess'the miti 'OhS ' . ' .. ~ re~uL,'ed for theWal. Man Store, m~e~,_~proveme~ta w~ me~t the additional demand A~se~ cumulative' ' , ' · . ~,.-..-., ,.,.,,. ~umu.~u:[~ en'ectS WILl. mc, lude buil and Waugh). :,,c cost woulct be an additional $1,700. Please note that the cost for the ~-afl'ic analysis is greater ~ I earfier mentioned. Given that the cost for the franc work on the Wa-Mart Store was abut $14,000, these new c~sts are. still quite reasonable. Mark Craae said he could further reduce the cost if we used the old base counts for existing tra~c done far Wal-Mart. He 2 MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: NOVEMBER 30, 1994 FILE- REDWOOD BUSINESS PARK (ACKERSTROM EIR) CHARLEY STUMP, SENIOR PLANNER EIR PROJECT STATUS Leonard Charles & Associates (LCA) have been selected to perform the supplemental work for the EIR. They were chosen because they are preparing the major components of the EIR and have a strong familiarity with 'the project, they have the capabilities to adequately perform the assigned tasks, and they can complete the work in a time frame acceptable to the City. While we are finalizing the contract addendum, LCA is progressing with the supplemental work. On November 18, 1994, Rick Kennedy and myself met with the traffic consultants and provided detailed information about the project, existing conditions, environmental setting, etc. The subconsuitants for the drainage and acoustical work have also started working, and the additional air quality analysis associated with the traffic work will be prepared once the supplemental traffic and circulation study is completed. We anticipate delivery of the administrative draft within four (4) weeks of contract execution. /° Gary: February 7, 1995 Attached, please find the Overview Section of the RBP Administrative Draft EIR for your review. Your close scrutiny of the Project History, Project Description and Buildout Assumption Sections would be most appreciated. As you know, the buildout assumptions are crucial, because they form the basis for the impact analysis, and will dictate the intensity of fu~re development. We are just beginning our intemal review of the document, and will provide additional Sections for your review if legally and ethically feasible. ~dA~KIM~AO e UI~dd4. CAO6a8~ e ~-~~ TO WE ARE SENDING YOU O Shop drawings COPIEI DAll NO. Attach~l l-1 Under Mparat~ cover via_ the following item~ Prints C] Plans Change order THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:. C! For approval / I:::I For your use ~ [] As requeslzcl C! For ruview and comment O FOR BIDS DUE_ O Approv~ as submitf~ O Approved as noted I-1 RMumed for coni~ma O, 19_ 0 ~ltiubmit 0 Submit 0 Ftutum_ copies for approval topi# for distri~ corrected prints 0 PRINT~ RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS I~II:IR--2 1--9~ 'rue , 8 :?9 510 23G 9375 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP -- ! ii i __ i- i i i · i .... lilt MEMORANDIJM TO: 1.cofurd Ch~t~ FKOM: DAT~: SUBJ..CT: C~rolyn Co~flvferk Cra~e March 1~, The E~lowlng would bo noGeesar~ to perform ;6vhbaru to ~o ~wood ~u~ P~k ~ ~s~ s~dy, r~~ ~~~ ~ ~oj~t~ sq~ footaS~s} ~ uteri ~lud~ p~j~t · /~vise project trip 8efleratio. - Re~bute project · Revise '~roject" traffic volume grephlc - Aeane]yze mitisations need~ t'or tim Redwood Busineas Park projoe~ - Rev]se "project" ~npacts &nd mkiB~tions sections (re-write s~ction., aa TI is under, toed tKtt t~e City doe~ not requh'e revisions to the Ah-port (in re~onse the "]Ledwood" revhion~), and will accept the crunulatlvc anal~ prepared for NR.edwood" and/'or "Airpo~" with the marsin o/'orr~r tha~ would re.~tdt ia ~e cumulative &nalys;s tq~n',he revlatons to the ~R~dwood" project volume~ 18 i~ possible, however, that u a result of' ~ rc-anal~d,, there oould be soma reduction in project-related miti8~o,~ (I.e.. uuouswary tu initiate impacta related to the l~edwood Ii ., · · ! . · ! · .! · ADMIN. 707/4636200 · FAX # 707/463-6204 UKIAH, CA 95482-5400 · PUBLIC SAFETY 463-6242/6274 · Mr. Gary Akerstrom 425 Talmage Road Uldah, CA 95482 Re: Redwood Business Park Subsequent EIR Dear Gary: in the next week or so, I intend to quantify with specificity and precision exactly what the differences in buiidout assumptions are, so that this information can be evaluated by Leonard Charles and City staff at an early date. I will sham this information with you before it is distributed to Leonard Charles to ensure accuracy prior to any additional calculations and conclusions. i hope this clarifies our intentions relative to this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need additional assistance. Sincerely; Planning Director c: Charley Stump, Senior Planner lease__be_aci?se_d. that_the City fully !,ntends to have the final EIR for. th, e RedwooH usiness ~'arK reflect the ~esser_bui.!dout assum~io_ns provided by you~ arid not those ~eve~opea t0r-tne 0~i~i-n~.l EiR and reflected in the current d"raft~ S~ifiCal~' ~h" ..... ~- r- -- ' ..... ~ i i i i __ · ~ r---- w~ ~m~ ev~sea assumptions vou submittea, in ie~ers to the City dated Se_pte'mb~ 9, 1993~and ~-~u]y-15, 1994, will be' u,sed, ~nd the somewhat I~igher-qu~nt~rties 'in the- d~a~ EIR Will be corrected. Moreover, the C'~ will re-assess the impacts and mitigations which are correlated to buiidout assumptions, and revise them, if warranted. March 31, 1995 MEMORANDUM To: From: Date: Subject: Gary L. Akerstrom March 23, 1995 Meeting at City Hall Bob Sawyer Gary Akerstrom I. Akerstrom expresses his complete frustration Supplemental ErR is going on the following items: a) b) c) on the direction that the d) After Akerstrom gave the City the building coverage areas on two occasions (9/9/93 AND 7/15/94), Leonard Charles still got the numbers wrong. After being promised by Chuck Rough that the City Engineer would do the traffic analysis, and after Akerstrom on 5/27/94 gave the City Engineer the data to do the analysis, the City Engineer waited until October of 1994 to decide he could not do the job. The City authorized Leonard Charles to do the traffic analysis on 12/20/94, but did not receive any preliminary traffic data until the Administrative Draft was submitted on 2/7/95. Chuck Rough told Akerstrom that the City staff was to have the Admini9strative Draft EIR reviewed by 2//20/95. To date the Planning Department has still not received written comments from the City Engineer. In spite of the fact that Chuck Rough promised Akerstrom that he (Akerstrom) could review the Administrative Draft ErR to eliminate the possibility that erroneous traffic data was being published in the Draft EItL the opportunity for such a review has not been provided to this date. e e) Even though Ak~rstrom made repeated requests to review the traffic data, it was not until 3/1/95 that he was provided a portion of the traffic section of the EIR. On 3/3/95 Akerstrom returned his comments to C. Stump, indicating that the traffic generation numbers were significantly too high. Now, after all this unnecessary delay and messing around by the City staff, the question is .asked "Do we want to further delay the proiect to fix the traffic section?" Sawyers responses were as follows: a) b) Sawyer took fiall responsibility for Leonard Charles using the wrong building coverage numbers. Sawyer took full responsibility for not reviewing the direction Leonard Charles was going prior to the 2/7/95 submittal of the Administrative Draft EIR_ c) d) e) Sawyer acknowledged that Rick Kennedy did not, and has not, done the traffic data review that he was supposed to do. Sawyer acknowledged that he did not have any control over Rick Kennedy to obtain from Rick an adequate review of the proiect. Sawyer promised that he would personally see to it (even if he had to pay for the traffic consultant himself) that the EIR numbers would be revised for the Final EI2L Sawyer said that he would provide a written letter to Akerstrom to document the above comments. Redwood Business Park Ukiah 425 Talmage Road · UkJah, CaJJfornj& 95482 · (707) 462-1961 April 10, 1995 Senior Plaaner City of~ 300 S~'nlnn'r~ Ukiah, CA 954S2 Re: RBP DEIK- Tza~c. Ia the Wal-Mart EIR there were four (4) main assumptions that the Traffic ~n~o~n~er mnde when developing hiz report regardiag RBP. 1. Total building area= 1,393,00 SF (Exhibit #1). 2. Passer-by traffic within RBP = 26% (Exhibit #2). e All RBP would exit to ~ or Talmage as a "worst-case" scenario. This traffic would be r~luced as the soulhem pan of A.LP. would develop in conjunction with the southern access (Exhibit #3). e Airport Park Boulevard would be a "high-speed) roadway (ExMbit ~,.). At tl~ time I had a major concern with #1 and//4. The building area was appro~m~ely 40% too high and there is no way APB was ever imended to be a high-~ mad with assodaIed accelermion and deceleration lanes. Bob Sawyer and I agreed that in the subsequent t~. ~IK that buildi~ areas would be as submitted by Redwood Business Park, that ~ Park Boulevard would not be C°nsider~ a high-speed road and that the ~maiuing two assumptions would remain "as is." Chuck Rough also promi.~xl me that I would have an oppommity to review the Adminislraiive Draft EIP, for t~_hn!cal c, ozToction~ SO we could be assured that en~neous material was not distributed to the public in the Draft ElK. It appears tha~ the Tra~c Section of the Draft EIR has ignored all four of these agreed upon First - The building areas for the project do not reflect the numbers that were r~peal~lly given to the Planning Department by RBP which are now shown on Page 10 of the DEIR (Extn'vit S~nd - Passer-by m~flic has been assumed to be 10% instead of 26% (F. xh~it #6). Third - The DEIR should retain the same assumption as in the Wal-Mart ErR; namely, that the most severe condition would be present at RBP buildout with no southern access via Norgard · Lane, and that the southern access would develop con~tly with the area south of RBP thereby providing an additional access that would result in no net 1fa/tic increase to the streets on the north end. Cun~-mly the DEIR assumed that 81% of the uaffic generated by Fourth - Airport Pa~k Boul~ is still assumed to be a "high-speed" road with associ~ed deceleration lanes at drivewa~ (ExMbit #8). These erroneous assmnptions artifid~y inflate thc amount of traffic generated on surrounding · streets which g~ mitigation that are totally unwammted. In addition to the above e~oneous assumptions, the writer of the DEIR makes statements that are not consistent with real/ry. On Page 49, the distance between the APB/Talmage intersection and the 101SB Off2~alMralmage int~x~onis shown as 325 f~t. The ~e dismuce is aztually 575 f~t. On Page 49, the last portion of the paragraph on the Talmage Koad description doesn~ fit Talmage Road at all. On Page 50, the lands to the east of Hastings Road are shown to be vacant. This should be to the north. On Page 54, an "Observed Safety Concern - #3" mi~laces the ditch with respect to the railroad and a/tpon nmway. On Page 55, it shows the sight distance at the SB 101 Offrmnp as 1 ~0 feet, when in reality as the driver pult~ ~ into the crosswalk/n prep~on to make a turn, there is actually 300 feet of sight distance. At the bottom of Page 55, the writer indica~ that he does not understand the severity of his misassumptions. On Page 60, under #12, it indicates that the drivers are using the curb lane to accelerate onto the US 101 Onramp, when in reality they have to make a ~atp fight turn onto the Onramp. The above concerns (Exhibit//9) are inch'cafive that the wr/ter may not understand the existing conditions and as a result, is presenting erroneous analyses and'mitigations. · Under the ~ assumptions, the following "Level of Service". would result with RBP buildout at various ~ons as comtmred to the exist/ug, as shown in the DEIR. LOS Existing LOS RBP Buildoqt 90°,40com~x~ Talmage/S. State Talmage/Airport park Blv& B C B A C A April 10, 199:5 Talmage/lO1 SB Onramp rahmse/ Ol ss Talmage/lO1 NB ~p APB/Commerce A A A A C B C C B B C A A D C Another consideration is the ~ of peak tm/tic flows which would indicate the longevity of any congestion. This is important in that substantial initiations, such as lraffic signals, with their associa~l ~ce costs, would not be wammIed if the duration of the congestion was quite short. In a lraffic count pedonned by the City of Uldah on 3/5/90 for Talmage Road, it was shown that the traffic volume was below ~3% ofthe peak P.NL Ra~ for 90°,4 ofthe time. Therefore, a third colmnn has been added indicating what the LOS would be, or better 90% of the time. The fonowing comments address-the "Tm/tic and Ckculation- I .rrna'ts and Mitigation Summary" items as shown in'the DEIR. The comments ~ reflect the conditions thai would exist under the RBP buildout utilizing the assumptions as pl~-Sent~ above. ~ At RBP buildout the LOS a~ the S. S~almage intersection would be "C" dwing the peak P.M. hour and "B" or better 90% of the time. Tbls is an acceptable level of operation - no mitigation is necessary. ~ At RBP buildotn the LOS at the Airport Park Blvd./Talmage imers~on would be 'C' dur~g the peak P.M. hour and "A' or better 90% ofthe time. Thi.~ is an acceptable level of opera/on -- no mitigation is necessary. ~ At RBP buildotn the LOS of the US 101/Talmage ~ would be "A" for the north to west ~on and "C" for the south to west direction, and 90°,4 of the time the south to west direction will have a LOS of"B" or better. These are acceptable levels of openuion -- no mitigations are necessary. ~ At RBP buildou~ the LOS of the S. Sta~/Hastings intersection will be 'C' duilng peak P.M. wa/tic and 'A' 90% of the time. This is an acceplable level of operation - no ~ At RBP buildoul the LOS of the Airport Pa:k Blvd./Commerce intersection would be'D' from the eastbound direction dm/ng peak P.M. traffic and 'C~ or better during 90% ofthe tim~. The balance ofthe lra~c would operate at aLOS of".&." 'Ibls is an acceptable level of operation - no relegation is necessary. T-6 The Talmage overcrossing is designed as a 35 MPH ~. CalTram requixexnents for 35 MPH stopping distance is appro~ly 240 feet. The signal distance for a westbound Mr. Chadey Stump April 10, 1995 4 vehicle w see a vehicle at the souIhbound offramp stop sign is approVing_ely 300 feet which is adequate for the required stopping distance. An additional warni, g sign such as a W-10 indi~ a right approaching street should be installed. T - 7 At RBP buildout peak P~M. traffic would generate 361 VPH, or 8.4 VPM (assuming 35% of peak P.lVL volume in 15 minutes). This yields 13 left-tainting vehicles per 90 second waffle light cycle and a storage requirement of $ vehicles or 200 feet. The existing Waffle signal was designed for 16 left-turn vehicles per cycle with a left-turn storage of 250 feet which should be adeqn__~_e for the RBP buildout condition - no mitigation is required. · T - S. 11 & 17 The souItaem comaeaion to Norgard Mae is not a part ofthe RBP project and as such, no mitigation should be required. T-9 Airport Parle Blvd. ~ been designed to limit cross traffic to no closer than 200 feet . All driveway design to date has been done in a manner to miniml _~e the number of driveways by ulilizing shared driveways ~ctm~g at the same l~aIion as median breaks. Traffic ~ is not great enough to warrant right-turn deceleration lanes. Separate left-ttn-a lanes are plann~ at major driveways and major driveways are also plamaed to tnilize wide radius ttmas. Wid~i~g of the sireet should not be done to a~ommodate u-trois as u-tums are not necessary or provided for at any other intersection in Ukiak T-10 The shared driveway to Lot A1-A is over 250 feet ~rom the Talmage intersection_ Since Airport Pa~k Blvd. is not a high-speed street and essentiaI1y ends at Taknage Road, the driveway to Lot A1-A should not adversely affect the intersection_ Also, a fight-turn only exiting from LOt A1-A onto the curb lane of Talmage Road, which is slowing to make a turn onto the southbound onmmp, may help the traffic flow at the TalmagegAPB intersection. Enclosed are the calculations (Exhibit #10) showing the basis for the above comments. Substantial l~vision needs to be done on the mitigations for the Tra~c Section of the DEIR as the traffic impacts are severely ovei~mIecL If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. GLA:bs end DATE: May 16, 1995 TO: Rick Kennedy, EM ineer AN UM FROM: Charley Stump, Senio SUBJECT: Airport Business Park (~y) Subdivision · . This corresponde~ended to prov~ a status report on the Airport Industrial Park Environmental~l~a'~ Report, and the~irpo~J~ess Park/Mendocino' Brewing ~~~~.~~t~' Th.e formal public com~ the A~Yport Industrial Park Draft ~eport (DEIR) clo~='~'~'~ ---22., 1995. As you know, the May enwron~ iifi~g from the Airport Business Park/Mendocino Brewing Company project is being assessed in thi ,We expect the Mendocino Br~mpany (MBC) to pment Permit application in tl1~~. Their imm~ project will include approximately eight (8) of the twen~s currently by Mr. Langley. it is my understand'~~~.~ City Redevel( will be purchasing all or a .port. ion of the Langl~a~--~~nd will be pursuin ' the site to facilitate the MBC proje~nd futur~business/ii ht ma ~ g . ~onceptuai --~---'.m~~of the parcell~ion of the prope was ........ rty some ti~ and the project architect has in--he final survey .rk for the MBC project has been completed. ~ EIR 'th be certified in late June. The developme will likely ~ediately or shortly h~ ,.a,._1 '. Based on his sched~ that the~ra'{~n and processing of i~ '~bdivi~;ion ~ap be unde~ logical is my u.nderstand~ that City ~ ,c,ted to p a role in soon. it processing of the r~p. I wo~ · i,ity I ted. and ~ontact w~h-Y(~J-ir~'t~ very to tine the s to be in r~b in this process, your de :ment's Additional issues that need immediate Ision are the frontage improvements along the p~ northe portion of the improvements to Airport Road, and the, 'on of utilities Thank you for your assistance on this timing of street g of i Addendum' ~'' 'Contra .... ~ ~' ¢[ aated 3/3/94 [.... all subsequent Counter offer(s) and Addendum(s) wherein the Uk Council/Redevelo-men. --- . iah City ~ ~ /~gency is named as b Langley et al is n aa .. __,,___ . uyer, and am~, oo ~er 1:o purchase Ap#180-110- O1 & Z, 28.33 approx, acres For purposes-of this contract, it i~ assumed that the property consists of 28.33 acres. Actual acreage for calculation of payment shall be based upon survey of the property. It is understood and agreed that the buyer has not exercised their option to extend said contract; however, !I r f um shall r~aln~.. §1 Buyer, at their sole cost and expense, shall legally describe and subdivide a portion of Ap~180-110-01 & ;~ equal to eight(8) acres, providing for roadway and utility-easement(s) to the sellers remaining lands, remove contingencies to purchase and close escrow on or before June 9, 1995 under the following terms and conditions: §2 Price shall be $696,960 ($Z a square foot) $204,088 cash down, seller carryback of $49Z,87Z balance @9%, $4,434.50 monthly all due in two. years($473,545.03 balloon). Standard late'penalty of · -"5% after 1 5 days. No due on sale. No prepayment penalty. §3 Balance of 28.33 acres: buyer shall have the option ~o purchase ~he entire remaining balance of said 28.33 acres @$1.75 a square foot, terms of.. ail cash, on or before th· two year due date of the seller carry, back note.and deed of trust. §4 Should buyer fail to. eXercise the option to purchase the entire remaining balance on or before said two years for whatever reason, buyer shall pay the seller an additional $1 a square foot overide applied ~o ~he eight acres purchased(S348,480).. This additional $1 a square foot overide shall be paid at the same-t~me and in addition to the balloon paymen~ in ~he note and deed of trust, but with no accumulated interest. ' §5 During the interim two year period of the seller carryback note and deed of trust, the buyer may subdivide the remainder of the 28.33 acres and purchase any portion(s) thereof on terms of $1.75 per square foot, cash, with the provision that the Purchase of any subdivided portion(s) requires the buyer to purchase the remainder of the ;?8.33 acres by the end saic~ two year period. Upon Completion of the purchase of remainder acreage said $1 a square foot. overide no longer shall apply. §6 During the interim' two' year period, 'sellers shall have the right to accept a bonified offer on .any.subdivided portion or all of the remaining 28.33 acres, providing the buyer a 30 day first right of refuser to execcise their option either to purchase that subdivided portion or the entire balance @$1.7~; a square foot, terms of cash. Should the buyer exercise this right of first refusal for the subdivided portion only, the. buyer is required to purchase the 'remainder of the :)8.33 acres by the end of the two year option period as stated in paragraph above. If the buyer does not so exercise and seller consummates a sale to a third party, said $1 a square foot overide shall, no longer apply, These instructions(§§ 3-6 inclusive) shall be additional escroW instructions not to merge with the close of escrow at the completion of the sale of the eight acres. ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS STATED IN CONTEA~'I' DATED 3/3/94 AND ALL SUBSEQUENT COUNTER OFFER(S) AND ADDENDUM(S). SELLERS: BUYER'S IS )NED UPON APPROVAL BY THE · o IvlAY 5,1 CITY' OF uKIA! ,300 .Semi ..na-y Avenue, Uidah, CA 954~ . . (707)' 463-62C -. PLANNING DEPARTMEN · MINOR SUBDIVISION 'l/YE ARE HERE TO SERvE YOU" Address: ~'~ ~r P~I N~s).: . Site Area (net equam .footage) Building Square Footage. Parking RU~--2¢--~5 ' THU f . From. tlta d~k of 'RICK KENNEDy o. SUB DIVISION MAP .ACT D!.VISlON 2- SUBDIVISIONS CHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS AND. DEFINITIONS ARTICLE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS 6641(3. Subc~vLslon Map Act Name Cited 66411. Local Control of Common Interest Development~ and Subdivision Design and Improvement; Short Term Lease. a~r, acics. Bach local a~cncy shall, by ordinance,, rcgulatc an~ com~ol the ~ dcsi~n and ~nprovcme.~t of commoa iata-est dev¢lopmcals as de, Fmcd in Scctioa 1331 of the C~'Code and subdiv~io~s for which thh division requkes a tcam~vc and final or pazcel map. In the dcvclopmm~, adop~o,, ~ and application of such ordinance, the local aF. ncy ~ comply with thc ~ of Sec~ ~913;2.. Th~ ordiaaaca shalI s~y provide for proper and crosioa comrol, i~cl~l~g th~ Feveatioa of scd/mc~iatioa or damage to o~i~ propers. Bach local agcacy may by ~ca rc~la~ and c~mtrol othcr su~ providcd that the re~latio~3s am no~ mor~ restrictive than the regulations for t~3ose subdi~o~s forwhich a ~r~¢and ffmal orparccl rasp ara required by this diviskm, ;md provided further th~ the rcgulagom shall not b~ applied to shore-term leases (Im'min~lc by cilhcr party on not mo~ than 30 days' noticc ~n wrir~g) of a portion of ih~ opcrat~g ri~h£-ofoway of a ~ cx)rporal:ion as defined by Section 230 of the Public Ut~l~ics Code unless a showh~g is made ia indiv~lual cascs, under substantial evidence, ma~ public policy necessitates the app~n of' the re~ to those sho~.,term losses ia h3dividual cases. ' 6641'1.1. knprovaments'for DivisiOns Not Subdlvlsions'of Five or More Lots; Construction (a) ~o~Z~~.~ Secz~oa ~,~, whenever a local ordinmc= ~cquh~s imtxo~;cmems f(r a d~k~n of land which is not a subdivisMa of five or mor~ lots, the r~~ shall be limited to the dcdication of rights-of-way, casemcnm, and the coos~c~ca of rcasom131c of~si~: and o~'i~ improvcmcms f~r the parcah being created. Require. meals for thc cons~'uo, ioa of or-itc and o~s/tc improvemca~.shall be noticed, by a statcmc~ on the parcel map, co the i~strummt evidencing the waiver of the pa'cal map, or by a separ~e instrument and shall be recorded oa, concunum'y with, or prfor to the parcel map or Jnslrumc~t ofwaivcrof a parc=l map being fi]ed for record. (b) ~o~i//~~~ Sec~oa ~42~, ful~c~t of thc co~tmc~ioa requiremcn~ shall not be requked un~il the ~e a pcrmit or other ~ant of approval for development of the parcel is issued by the local a~.acy or, where lm3vidcd by local ordinances, unt/1 the ~im¢ the co~mruc~ion of ~he improvcmcnts is required pursuant to an a~'cemeat betwcca · e subdivider and ~ local agency, cxcelx th~ ia ~he absca~ of aa a~'ecme.~ a lOCal agency may require fulfflkncat of the coaslruction requirunents wJfl~n - · a rcaso~able ~me folknv~g approval of thc parcel map and prior to th~ issuance ora parent or other ~'ant of approval for the devclopmcnt ora parcal upoa a finding by the local agency that of the consort ~eats h~ for e~er of the followiug reason: (1) 'l'he public health and safay. . (2) The required consl~uction is a necassm-y prerequisite to the orda'ly development of tl3e surrounding mca. E-1 (comm~ w/th Sect/on 512.,40) of Chapter 7 of Part I of Divhion I of Tg. le$ and wh/ch wfllremain subject to that contract subsequent to the ~ of thc ~ m~ of final, map. Whh respect to any parcel created by a parcel map or final map subject to thh scct/o~ paymcnt of cxaa/ons and acceptance of offt.~ of deal/cation under thh scction shaH. be dcfcn-ed by thc local a~ency unl/Ithe ccntrnct ~ or /s cnnccl~ ns to that ~ except that no dcfewa[is tequit-ed · I/able for pcrfo ..finance of obligac/aus dcfcr~ under th/s scaic~ at thc timc they become duc. £,~a,aa, c~ 494, s~ma, ~ ~as] "REDWOOD BUSINES,~I PARK OF U~[IAH -, -- 1012/96 YEAR TYPE TAXES ADJ. BASE Non-RDA .AB RDA TAX TOTAL 1989-90 Base $25,058 $25,058 $0 $0 $0 1990-91 Actual $27,081 $~_5,559 $61 $1,962 $1,962 1991-92 Actual $30,803 $26,070 $122 $5,623 $7,585 1992-93 Actual $29,654 $26,592. $186, $4,410 $11,995 1993-94 Actual $63,311 $27,124 $250 $38,003 $49,998 1994-95 Actual $129,8481 $27,666 $316 $104,474 $154,473 1995-9,3 Actual $137,955. i $28,219 $383 $112,514 $266,987 1996-97 Actual $178,241 $28,784 $451 $152,732 $419,719 1997-98 Projected $359,932 $29,359' $1,523 $333,352 $753,071 1998-99 Projected $400,791 $29,947 $1,731 $374,002 $1,127,073 1999-00 Projected $525,186 $30,546 $1,943 $498,185 $1,625,258 2000-01 Projected $548,811 $31,156 $2,159 $~3,031 $2,068,289 2001-02 Projected $677,321 $31,780 $2,379 $552,0~,~ $2,620,333 2002-03 Projected $735,968 $32,415 $2,604 $601,669 $3,222,002 2003-04 Projected $764,548 $33,063 $2,834~ $625,732 $3,847,734 2004-05 Projected $839,788 i $33,725 $3,068 $689,453 $4,537,187 2005-06 Projected $856,584 $34,399 $3,307 $703,490 $5,240,678 2006-07 Projected $899,413 $35,087 $3,550 $739,652 $5,980,329 2007-08 Projected $944,384 $35,789 $3,799 $777,628 $6,757,958 2008-09 Projected $991,603 $36,505 $4,052 $817,511 $7,575,469 2009-10 Projected $1,041,183 $37,235i $4,31.1 $859,396~ $8,434,865 2010-11 Projected $1,093,243 $37,980 $4,574 $828,610 $9,263,475 2011-12 Projected $1,147,905 $38,739 $4,843 $870,977 $10,134,452 2012-13 Projected $1,205,300 $39,514 $5,117 $915,471 $11,049,923 2013-14 Projected $1,265,565 $40,304 $5,397 $962,198 $12,012,122 2014-15 Projected $1,328,843 $41,110 $5,683 $1,011,270 $13,023,392 2015-16 Projected $1,395,285 $41,933 $5,974 $1,062,804 $14,086,195 2016-17 Projected $1,465,050 $42,771 $6,270 $1,116,923 $15,203,118 2017-18 Projected $1,538,302 $43,627 $6,573, $1,173,757 $16,376,876 2018-19 Projected $1,615,217 $44,499 .$6,882 $1,233,~.~.2 $17,610,318 2019-20 Projected $1,695,978 i $45,389 $7,197 $1,296,120 $18,906,438 2020-21 Projected $1,780,//'7 $46,297 $7,519 $1,133,699 $20,040,137 2021-22 Projected $1,869,816 $47,223 $7,846 $1,191,246 $21,231,383 2022-23 Projected $1,963,307 $48,167. $8,181 $1,251,681 $~,483,0641 2023-24 Projected $2,061,472 $49,131 $8,522 $1,315,147, $23,798,211; 2024-25 Projected $2,164,546 $50,113 $8,870 $1,381,797 $25,180,009! 2025-26 Projected $2,272,773 $51,115 $9,224 $1,451,790~ $26,631,799 2026-27 Projected ~$2,386,411 $52,138 $9,586 $1,525,294 $28,157,092 2027-28 Projected $2,505,732 $53,181 $9,955 $1,602,483 $29,759,575 2028-29 Projected $2,631,019 $54,244 $10,332 $1,683,543 $31 ,~.~. 3,118 2029-30 Projected $2,762,570 ' ~ $55,329 $10,716 $1,768,667 $33,211,784 . . Assumptions: 1. Tax in;teases by 5% I~er year.after RBI3 buildout due t¢ resale 2. Base tax adjusted ~y 2% per year 3. Non RDA portion o tax = 1.2% (to 1996) & 35.4% (~ffer 1996) of ba.,~e adjustment 4. REA part of increm .=nt taxes aboveadjusted base = 100%(1990-99), 85%(2000-09), 78%(2010-19), 65' ~o(2020-29) r MENDO REALTY, INC. 444 NORTH STATE STREET [] UKIAH, CA 95482 BUS. (707) 462-5400 FAX (707) 462-3857 1460 SOUTH MAIN STREET [] WILLITS, CA 95490 BUS. (707) 459-5389 FAX (707) 459-4825 May 7, 1997 Mr. Gary Akerstrom Redwood Business Park Ukiah CA 95482 Dear Mr. Akerstrom, As per your request I have reviewed the Opinion Of Value completed by Mr. Lee Kraemer pertaining to the property located at 1195 South State Street, Ukiah, dated 4/30/97. Its conclusions appear to be valid based upon the data presented. Very Truly Yours, Robert D. Levy Broker/Co-Owner RDL/ll An Independently Owned and Operated Member of Coldwell Banker Residential Affiliates, Inc. Redwood Business Park 425 Talma~te Road Ukiah, California 95482 · (707) 462-1961 ~'~ May 7, 1997 Ms. Colleen Henderson City Clerk City of Ukiah_ 300 West Seminary Ukiah, CA 95482 Re: Fair Share Distribution of Total Redwood Business Park Street Costs Dear Ms. Henderson: Several developments within the Airport Industrial Park receiv~ or will receive, direct benefits from the street improvements within, and constructed by, Redwood Business Park. It is-only reasonable to expect that these developments would pay their fair share of the costs of these streets in proportion to the benefits accruing to those particular developments. Per the attached calculations, the amount owing to Redwood Business Park from the Airport Business Park development is $518,309.00, and from the Norgard Property is $327,816.00. These amounts should be included in the traffic mitigation costs for the Airport Industrial Park. If you have further questions, please, do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, ' ..Gary"~.. Akerstrom GLAzbs encl. CC: Kenneth B. Finney Candace Horsley David Rapport STREET IMP USlNESS OF KIAH Station Area Use ABP & 300 345.2 ksf Industrial Lot Fll ~ G2 LetG& H 600 Factor 0.91 65.9 ksf Auto 2.62 132.8 ksf Industrial 0.91 Vehicles 314~v~ ~ Vehicle.~ RBP Vehicles %RBP 0 0 05/05/97 0=50-28=5( 48.4% 290 ft 0 133 ft 305 ft 60O Lot F8 - G3 Lot F6 & D' Let F7 & G4 Lot D2 Lot C 32.1 ksf Auto Deale 2.62 118.7 ksf Industrial 0.91 33.5 ksf AutQ 4.00 66.4% 398 ft 4OO 53.3 ksf Industrial 0o91 80.0 ksf Retail 4.28 76.3% 305 ft 83.5% 668 ft Lot 81 & B2 Lot B-I - B-III 800 Less Hasti] 12+50 - 6+50 Lot A2 ~ A4 Lot A5 & A6 84.9 ksf Industrial 0091 116 ksf Retail 4.28 668 ff 600 31.8 ksf Office/Retai 2.06 80.0 ksf- Retail 4.28 87.6% 526 ft 526 ft Let A1A 6O0 31.2 ksf 2.06 44.0 ksf Retail 4.28 2.4 ksf Fast Food 36.6 2.5 ksf Gas Station 62.6 Lot AIA TQtal RBP Total AlP DISTR1BUTIQ Pk Commerce RBP 70.0% 77.7% ABP 22.0_% x 30. 16.4% 8.0% (91 ;.2ksf-x 5.9% RBP 88.7% ABP 8.3% 3.0% 90.5% 253.7ksf/345. 30.0°~ 91.5ksf/345.; x 3000°/~ 543 ft 543 ft 2730 ft 2175 ft Page 2 III. STREET COST AIRPORT PARK BOULEVARD Cost to Complete Existing Extension (Not Included in Existing City Contract) a. Embankment (100)(3)(1100)1/2 12250 cy @8 b. Subgrade Prep (Existing Contract) Lump Sum c. Type A - 1 Curb (Existing Contract) Lump Sum d. Curb & Gutter (Existing Contract) Lump Sum e. Pavement Striping (Existing Contract) Lump Sum f. Class 2 AB (Existing Contract) Lump Sum g. Type B. AC (Existing Contract) Lump Sum Existing Contract Subtotal Engr/Design/Admin/Financing 30% Total Construction Cost Cost/Foot (1100') TOTAL STREET COST Construction Costs Land Costs 90 @ 93.00 TOTAL COST 3900' @ 9962./Ft. = $3,751,800.00 COMMERCE DRIVE Construction Costs 40/70 (962) = Land Cost 60 @ 93.00 = TOTAL COST 375'~ $732./Ft EXISTING OFFSlTE IMPROVEMENTS Construction Costs to Date Engr/Design/Admin/Financing 20% TOTAL COST 9692. 998,000.00 910,734.00 99,240.00 915,577.00 91,213.00 924,921.00 931.677.00 $191,362.00 $585,584.00 9175.675.00 9761,259.00 9692/FT 9270/Ft 9962/Ft (2800' @ 9962./Ft -- $2,693,600.00) 9550./Ft 9180./Ft 9730/Ft $273,750.00 $540,539.00 9108.108.00 9648,647.00 05/07/97 Page 3 05/07/97 TOTAL STREET COST FAIR SHARE DISTRIBUTION Amount ABP Norgard Airport Park Boulevard 0+50 - 28+50 0+50 - 39+50 Commerce Drive Existing Offsite Total Fair Share 92,693,600.00 93,751,800.00 1 3 9441,750.00 5 6 9300,144.00 9273,750.00 922,721.00 98,213.00 7 6 9648,647.00 953,838.00 919,459.00 9518,309.00 9327,816.00 REFERENCE Total Cost for 2800' of Airport Park Boulevard Based on the 1996 cost (Page 2) of the City's APB extension project. . Total cost for 3900' of Airport Park Boulevard based on the 1996 cost (Page 2) of the City's APB extension project. . ABP's fair share of costs based on the percentage (16.4%) of ABP generated traffic utilizing northern 2800' of APB (Page 1). . Norgard's fair share of costs based on the percentage (8.0%) of Norgard generated traffic utilizing the entire 3900' of APB (Page 1). . Total cost of 375' of Commerce Drive based on the 1996 cost (Page 2) of the City's APB extension project adjusted for Commerce being a narrower road than APB. . Portion of the improvement costs based on percentage (Page 1) of the total AlP traffic generated by the individual development. 7. Total cost of off-site improvements constructed by RBP adjusted to 1997 costs (Page 2). MAY 06 '97 01:24PH BOYLE EHGIHEERIHG 707 578 2395 Suite 750 131 Stony Circle Santa Rosa, CA 95401-9522 P,.ick Kermedy, PE, Dkector of Public Works/City Engineer CITY OF UKIAH 300 Seminary Avenue ,Ukiah, CA 95482 707 / 578. 2370 FAX 7071 578 ' 2395 May 6, 1997 Budget Level Cost Estimates P, IP Traffic_Related Miti~,a_~_fio_n .Projects Dear Rick: As you requested yesterday, we have reviewed our budget level cost estimates and related preliminary sketches prepared in May, 1996, for certain off-site roadway and traffic control improvements related to potential future development within the Airport Industrial Park (ALP). More specifically, we have reviewed the'estimated fee for ENOINI~ERINO related services for each of the five potential projects we investigated. Estimated services included in this line item include: · Pre-design and Design Phase Services (surveying, geotechnical, engineering, utility research, preliminary design report, final design engineering and specifications, preparation and reproduction of contract bid documents); · Assistance During Bid Phase (prepare for and conduct a pre-bid conference and respond to questions fi'om prospective bidders); · Construction Phase Services (prepare for and conductpre-construction conference, provide on-site inspection, materials testing and contract administration); · Project Close-out (finalize project accounting detail, andprepare record drawing,) In developing our estimates for these five small projects, we based the estimated professional services costs as a percentage of the total construction cost (CC) for similar small projects. HAY 06 ~97 Oi:~PH BOYLE EHGIHEERIH~ ?0? 5?8 ~395 P'~-?~ P,.ick Kennedy, PE Page 2 May 6, 1997 For budget-level estimating, we used the following percentages of' total estimated construction cost: Pre-design and Design Phase Services: __ Geotechnical/Geological: 3 % -- Design Surveying/Utilities 3 % -- Preliminary Engineering 3% --- Final Engineerk~g: 9% · · Bid Phase Services: 2% Construction Phase Services: -- Pre-Construction Conference 1% -- Onsite Inspection 6% -- Contract Admi~stration · 3% · Project Close-out Services: TOTAL 32 % Boyle Engineering Corporation Project Manager SC.B99-197-10/¢j STATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS: TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY ~ t,~, ~..,~,4~ETE WILSON; Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NORTH REGION, EUREKA OFFICE, P.O. BOX 3700 EUREKA, CA 95502-3700 TDD Phone 7071445-6463 (707)445-6416 March 28, 1997 1-Men-222/101 CC: Mr. Rick Seanor Deputy Director of Public works City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Drive Ukiah, CA 95842 Dear Mr. Seanor This letter is in response to a discussion I had yesterday with Mr. Steve Weinberger of Wtrans, and the fax you sent to me, concerning proposed modification to the existing roadway striping on Talmage Road on the Route 222/101 Separation. As I understand it, the proposal is to move the centerline of Talmage Road from its current location approximately six or eight feet south, thus narrowing the eastbound lane on Talmage Road to 12 or 14 feet wide. As we discussed, Caltrans has concerns with moving the centerline of Talmage Road to the south. We believe the added lane and shoulder width is necessary to accommodate the merge and weaving movements that occur between the southbound to eastbound Route 101 offramp and the eastbound to northbound Route 101 onramp. The shoulder is also needed for bicycle traffic. I will not be able to attend next week's City Council meeting and hearing on this matter. Please present this letter to the City Council so that Caltrans' position on this proposal is understood. If you have any questions next week concerning this matter, you may contact Mr. Royal McCadhy, District Permit Engineer, at (707) 445-6385. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed change. Sincerely, ~ ~M~S E. GRAHAM, Chief Traffic Operations Office Mr. Steve Weinberger, WTrans /',PR - 3 '[997 CITY OF UKIAH DEPT', OF PUBLIC WORKS 15:24 707-542-9590 WTRANS PAGE 82 a-.--..... May 6, 1997 Mr. Rick Kennedy City of Ukiah 300 Semina~ Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Airport/Redwood Business Pnrk Traffic Analysis - Response to Comments Dear Rick, As requested, we have reviewed comments made on our report, Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysts, dated April 17, 1997. The comments were made in a memorandum dated May 1, 1997 to Mr. Gary L. Akerstrom, from Gary K. Black of Barton-Asehrnan Associates, Inc. Following are our responses to the results and recormnendations of that memorandum. , The Barton-Aschman analysis used a different intersection level of service so~vare, TRAFFIX 6.8 by Dowling Associates. Our analysis used the software, LOS by TJKM. Both software programs have been developed by private Bay Area firms and both are used by othex traffic engineering firms and public agencies in California. In fact, we also own and use TRAF3Zg 6.8 for specific analysis purposes. Our experience is that the soffwares can result in similar, but not exactly the same results, if the same input factors are used. The Barton-As~ analysis used some different input factors in their intersection level of service analysis than what was used in our calculations. Their assumptions seem to be mostly default values that are provided by the software. Our assumptions were based on field measurements of the actual average stopped delay by approach at the four study intersections during the weekday p.m. peak hour. The method used in obtaining the delay was based on. guidelj, n~s pr~nted in the Highway CapacttyManual, Special Report No. 209, Transportation Research Board, 1994. Using the computer software and the existing lanes and volumes counted during the field measurements, the average delays for the intersection and its approaches were calculated. A calibration process was then employed to match the field measured delay with the calculated delay. This process included the adjustment of default values such as lane capacities and critical gaps. Specific differences in input factors included: b. The Barton-Aschman analysis used a saturation flow per lane of 1,800 vehicles p~. hour for nil lanes at the study intersections. Our analysis used a saturation flow per lane of 1,700 vehicles per hour for most lane approaches and 800 vehicles per hour for the Hastings Avenue approach at South State Street. This reduced flow was based on the results of our field measurements. The Barton-Aschman analysis ~ a "right turn overlap" (free fight turn arrow during opposing left turn movement) and an incorrect lane assignment for the northbound approach on Airport Park Boulevard at Talmage Road. There is currently no right turn overlap at the inters~:tion. However, our mitigated calculations do include the addition of a fight turn overlap. At the intersection of U.S. 101 SB Offramp/Talmnge Road, the Barton-Aschman analysis assumed a default critical gap (time gap accepted by a vehicle to turn into thc traffic stream from a side street). Our assumptions included a longer critical gap which was based on the results of our field measurements. WHITLOCK ~r- WillqlEllOill TRANSPORTATION INC 2200 Range .Avenue, Suite 102, Santa Rosa, California, 95403, (707) 542-9500, FAX (707) 542.9590 . Mr. Rick Kennedy Page 3 May 6, 1997 considered unacceptable operating conditions on an approach by approach basis rather than the average conditions of the intersection as a whole. The Barton-Aschman analysis r~ommendation that no lane improvements and only signal timing optimi~,ation would be necessary at the study intersections to maintain LOS D or better does not se~m r~asonable considering the conditions we have continually observed in the field and. the fact that traffic into and out of the project area could increase by a factor of 4.5 with buildout of the project. Please call me if you have any questions regarding these issues. Sincerely, SJW/UKI005,I.,4 Law Offices Of RAPPORT AND MARSTON An Association of Sole Practitioners David J. Rapport Lester J. Marston Scott Johnson 200 W. Henry Street P.O. Box 488 Ukiah, California 95482 (707) 462-6846 FAX 462-4235 MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and Council M~m~ FROM: David Rapport, City Attorney~ / /~ DATE: May 6, 1997 SUBJECT: Memorandum responding to Impact Fee issues Attached please find revised pages 6 and 7 of the Memorandum previously sent to you responding to issues raised by Redwood Business Park about the proposed impact fees for the Airport Industrial Park. I received the letter from W-Trans after the memo went out. The revised pages incorporate the W-Trans analysis. I apologize for any inconvenience this has caused. DJR:can Enclosure cc: Candace Horsley, City Manager Rick Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer s:\u~memos97~rbp2.rpl May 7, 1997 Memorandum to Council Subject: Reply to Redwood Business Park May 6, 1997 Page 6 parcel in a commercial development like the AIP will make the highest and best use of the parcel under the applicable zoning. The assumed lot coverages are reasonable in my opinion. 4. The City has made an adjustment to account for the present value of money. RBP contends that the City is required to recognize that fees paid to fund future capital improvements have a present value. Rick Kennedy will explain that since he doesn't know when any parcel will pay the fees, he accounted for the present value of money by reducing his assumed inflation in construction costs to 4% rather than using 5%. 5. 32% for administrative costs is reasonable. RBP maintains that the City has not justified 32% of construction costs as a reasonable amount to allow for project administration. It argues that this percentage is clearly excessive as applied to real property acquisition. The attached letter from Boyle Engineering explains the basis for using 32%, which was recommended to the City by Boyle Engineering, the City's consultant in preparing the engineering report. (See Exhibit I, attached.) As to property acquisition, administrative costs will depend on the steps required to acquire the real property. The City will be required to obtain an appraisal of the property from a certified appraiser. Based on recent appraisals obtained by the City for similar properties for the road project at Brush and State Streets, $3,000 is a reasonable estimate of appraisal cost. The City will, then, attempt to negotiate a purchase price. If that is unsuccessful, the City must acquire the property through condemnation, a legal process that could consume $20,000 or more in attorney's fees, if the case requires a trial. A property owner is entitled to a jury trial on compensation in a condemnation action. In addition, the City will incur litigation expenses and expert witness fees. In addition, the City will incur substantial costs in administrating the provision of relocation benefits to the property. When the specific administration costs are added to the general costs of administration spread over all project costs, including property acquisition, they support the 32% allowance. s:~u~memos97~rbp.rpl May 7, 1997 Memorandum to Council Subject: Reply to Redwood Business Park May 6, 1997 Page 7 6. The proposed off-site improvements are necessary to mitigate impacts from the build-out of the AIP. As Rick Kennedy will explain, the staff has actually proposed fewer off-site improvements than were recommended in the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the build-out of the AIP. W-Trans, the City's traffic consultant, responds in the letter attached as Exhibit J, to Barton-Aschman's use of the Traffix software. The use of the Traffix software apparently accounts for Barton-Aschuman's conclusion that no intersection will be degraded below LOS D, while W-Trans concludes that the affected intersections will require the proposed improvements as a result of project traffic. In summary, W-Trans explains the differences between its conclusions and Barton-Aschman's by noting that Barton-Aschman used "default values" in the Traffix software, whereas W-Trans used values derived from actual field observations. In addition, W- Trans evaluated the individual turning movements and traffic stacking within each intersection. Based on those observations and realistic traffic light timing changes, it continues to believe that the recommended improvements are necessary to avoid unacceptable operating conditions in the intersections. DJR:can s:\u~memos97\rbp.rpl May 7, 1997 - ,85/06t1937 14:53 707-542-9590 May 6, t997 Iv,-. P~h Ci~ o~ 300 Seminnry Avefluc Ukinh, CA 95~,B2 Airpor~/Rsdw~od 3usiness Ptrk Trzffic Annlysis - Response to Comments Dem' Rick, As ~equestcd, w~ have revi¢~l c~mm~ ma~ on our ~ ~trpori/l~d~ood J~uslnez; ,V~rk ,4nn/y.n',r, ~d April 17, 1997. The conmm~'~;r~ m~ule in n memormdum dat,~l Mey i, 1997 to Mr. L. Ak~strom, fi'om Osry K. Black of Bnrton-A~ Associates, In~. FoUowing are our res~ to the r~s~lts god r~colmvlcndations of that memorandum. The B~rton-A:-~rrmn ~ysi; =c~ a di. ffcrent int,'section Ic'vcl of' sa'vice soRwa~, Y'/~4.A'~/A" ~.8 by ]Dovdiug A-,mci=res. Our annlysis u~d th= software,£O6' by TJIG~. ]Both safe, am progmns have been devclopod tO, private ~ay A2u finns end bola ar~ ~d by othu' traffic mgineetins firms and p~biic ascetics in Co/if'omA. in fa:t, we also own. and use 7Rr~FY.,Y' 6. a' for spedfl= malysis purposes. Our expe,"icnc, is · i ~ ~w~s enn ~esult in similnr, but not exactly the same rmults,//'the san2e input fsetots ~re usod. The Barton. Asdrnm analysi~ used some ~ input factors ~ ~e~ ~~ 1~ ~ s~i~ n~ysis 209, Tt~~~ Bo~ 1~. Os~~ ~~ ~ ~e ~~ Im mxd vol~ c/~ A olibratio~ pr~n w~ lee ~1~ m ~ ~ ~eld m~d dd~ wi~ ~e c/cula~ dcl~'. ~is process incl~ ~ u~~ ofdef~t vi~ ~u~ u lee ep~itics n~ mt~ ~aps. The Barton~Ascbmsu analy~ um:t a saturation flow per lane of 1.800 vehicles l~r how for all lanu at the study intersections. Our analysis use~ a saturatica flow per lane of 1,700 vehicles pet bout for most tnne ~tm:~:tm and SO0 vehicles p~ hom'~or tl~ Ha~dnl~ Avm~ approach at South Slam Street. This reduced flow was based on the re, nulls of our field memuemuas. b, The Emofl-Aschmnn analysis used n ~ tam ove~" (fx~. ri~t turn nrrow during opposin8 mov~O and an incorrect lee nssignmmt for the northbound approach oa Airport Perk Boulev~ at Tnlmase Road, There i$ ~'r~t, ly no rilO~t turn oven'lnp at ~c intersection. However, our mitigated cakuladons do include tl~ addition ora right turn ovcrl~, At the intersection ofU. S. 101 SB OtTrnnlffl*ab:~ge Eoad, ~ Bm'ton-Aschmarn analysis nsstml~ a default critical ~p (tiflu ~p -_~_,_~t~d by a veixidc ~o tm~ into the trnffi~ stream ~ fi side $trcct). Our VSSumptio~ iflctuded a itmgcr oritieal gnp which was based on thc mattlts of our field measurements. EXH.--~PG / OF _.~_.PC.-.~ 14:53 707-~42-9590 WTR~S PAGE Th~ atlalys~ re~mmmcb lttat no lane hntwovmmlts attd 0nly signal timing optin~zation umuld be necessary ,'tt the study intcrsc4tions sinoc LO~i D or better world bc nchieved w~th the addition of thc project traffic. Th~ may be ~alty possib~ based m the method~ ofusit~ default values ins~ad of' observed field ~onditions, optimum ~atm~don flow values, sisnnl timin8 optimizad~, and average dclny for ttm intcrsc~ions u a whole. Howler, furdicr exammation of the Barton-Aschmnn level of service calculations for thc existmg plus project conditions reveals thnt: At the intcrsectmn of Tnlms~ Rond/Aiqx~ Park Boulevard, some queues would extend to 16 vehicles. In fa~t, thc av~,e queue of ! IL vchicJts or 27:t feet for the westbound lc~t turn lnn~ would cx~cd the storage capacity.of the lant~ b. Also et 1he Talm~8~ Roed~Airlx~ Park Boulowrd imersa:tiou, the southbo~md lcR tom lane was shown t~ have tidcl~ ~7~0 ~ per vehicb. Altlmu~ the traffic volumo is vetT minor for this mev,m~nt, this dclny would be unacceptable and shows that ~ arc som~ issues whic. b would still need to bc resolved 1'or this intersection. ¢, At thc Tatmap.,c P. Joad/$out~ .qtnt~ Strut intron, queues o~ 29 to 30 vctticlcs would exist in the noflhbound and southSound lanes. d. At tho Hastings Avenue/South State Strcut {n~ou, tlm~ mvouM bc queues of' approximately 18 relates on (he we~~ ~, ~ eoosist~ of'one narrow lmtc with no ~ouldcr. Tl'Je delay on this epproach ~,d~ bc near LOS E co.4itions under tl~ op6mum nssmnptions. Thc Barton-As~ analysis reco~ that no lane improvements would be requital at thc U.S, 101 SB Offrsmp,'fnimal~¢ Road ~ntcrscction due ~o level of servi~ co. difions. Howevar, ss describer in our report, ~ i~mvements ar~ ~ommmded dar ~o restricted ~i{~ht distance and safety issues at thc rnmp. Our analysis did include updated ~aflie signal timing m ncceaunodato tho change in trafnc volumes. These chang~ ~ inctudcd ~n the mitilation of the intm-so~on. It should be noted that with thc update of the signal t~tiflg som~ of thc intersections woo]d bc expectea to operito unde~ ncouptable conditim~ based on rite avcruge delay for the entire intersection. H~, fmther maiysis showed that bdividual Mov~nents and approaches wcrc operatic8 tma¢ccptabty which cotdd not bo 8ddressed tbroush timlns chanscs ~nly. Based (m our review of the analysis subadtted by Bmfloa-Asc~ Assocmt~, wo ~ ~t ~~ ~y w~h ~ s~~ i~ ~ f~d ~ ~i~ miami t~g w~b may ~ ~mt~ally ~sjble but nm practi~ ~ ~ali~ic. Also, th~ ~flng ~ui~io~ ~t ~ q~e ~ ~ ~i~ f~ s~ a~bcs ~ich ~y considered ~a~pt~]e op~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ a~r~ b~Js ~ ~ ~ av~a~ condit[~ of ~O h~~ ~ n ~le. ~e ~~A~~ ~alysis ~~~~ ~at no lmo May 6, I~97 impn,vatwn~ and ~at.~ si~n~ ~ optimization wnuld be necess~ et the study inte, rsc~ione tn maintain LOS D or borer do~s not seem reasot~able consi~$ thc conditions we have continually obse, rv~ in the field and the fact that traffic into end act of'the project area could inexcns= by a factor of 43 with btdidout o£th¢ project. call mc ifyou have any {lueations regarding thcso issues. Steve Wcinbcrgcr, P.E. RESOLUTION NO. 93-17 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH MAKING FINDINGS PURSU]~NT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21081 AND CALIFORNIA E1TVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ("CEQA") GUIDELINES SECTION 15091 IN CONNECTION WITH THE APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 92-9 'AMENDING AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK PLANNED DEVELOPMENT; AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 90-87 SUBMITTED BY WALMART STORES, INC. WHEREAS: 1. The City Council has certified as adequate and complete and Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"), consisting of a Draft Environmental Impact Report, dated January 1992 ("DEIR"), and a Final Environmental Impact Report, dated June 1992 ("FEIR"), for Ordinance No. 929 amending the Airport Industrial Park 'Planned Development ("AIP-PD"), submitted by Redwood Business Park of Ukiah, a 'California limited partnership, Gary L. Ackerstrom, general Partner, and Site Development Permit Application No. 90-77 submitted by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (hereafter, referred to collectively as "the Project"); and 2. The EIR has identified significant environmental impacts of the Project; and 3. The EIR has identified an alternative location for the Project which the EIR has concluded will have fewer significant environmental impacts than the location propgsed by Wal-Mart; and 4. The City Council has determined to approve the Project; and 5. Public Resources Code section 21081 and CEQA Guideline section 15091 provide that the City shall not approve or carry out s: \u\docs\wa [ ~rt2. res 1 a project for which an EIR has been completed which identifies one or more significant environmental impacts, unless it makes specified findings; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Ukiah finds as follows. 1. The EIR was prepared and made available for public review and comment in full compliance with the procedures set forth in CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. 2. Both the EIR and the Project were considered by the Planning Commission and City Council at noticed public hearings on July 22-24, 1992, and August 13-14, 1992, respectively, which were conducted in full compliance with all legal requirements. 3. The City Council has considered all documents submitted for consideration prior to or during the hearings it conducted and all testimony presented during the hearings as well as the EIR, the Staff Report, dated July 10, 1992, and the Staff Report, dated August 6, 1992. The Staff Reports are incorporated herein by reference. It has independently reviewed and considered this resolution, the Analysis of Information Contained in EIR for Wal- Mart Project and Suggested Conditions of Approval, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and the Conditions of Approval for Site Development Permit Application No. 90-87 which is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 4. The Project is described in the EIR, including the DEIR at pp. 9-10, as modified by the FEIR at pp. 1-2. This description is incorporated herein by reference. As a combined result of the s: \u\docs\wa tmar t2. res Project, Wal-Mart will be entitled t© construct a 93,792 square foot, single story general retail discount store on a 14.8 acre lot with the future right to add an additional 30,000 square feet of retail space to the building. The Project will also include 740+ nine foot wide parking spaces. An additional one acre lot could be developed in the future for commercial uses, included general retail. 5. The EIR evaluated the impacts of the Project itself as well as its impacts in combination with impacts from past, present and probable future projects, including impacts from the eventual completion of the AIP both as presently approved and with possible future amendments, allowing for expanded commercial development. Those impacts, both individual and cumulative, along with recommended mitigation measures and suggested conditions of approval, are summarized in the Analysis of Information Contained in EIR for Wal-Mart Project and Suggested Conditions of Approval., which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full. 6. Measures designed to avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of the Project as identified in the EIR are set forth in the Conditions of Approval for Site Development Permit Application No. 90-77 which is attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full. 7. Geology. For the reasons stated in Exhibit A (at pp. 1- 2), adoption of condition 6 in Exhibit B will avoid or reduce to s: \u\docs\wa [ mar t2. res acceptable levels the geological impacts of the Project. Condition 6 requires Wal-Mart to construct the Project in accordance with the Site Plan submitted to the City Engineer on February 19, 1992. 8. Hydrology and drainage. For the reasons stated in Exhibit A (pp. 3-7), adoption of conditions 13-14 in Exhibit B are the only feasible mitigation measures available to avoid or reduce Project impacts on hydrology and drainage in the area and will avoid or reduce those impacts to acceptable levels. 9. Vegetation. For the reasons stated in Exhibit A (pp. 8- 9), the Project will not have significant impacts on vegetation. 10. Air quality. For the reasons stated in Exhibit A (pp. 10-15), the Project will not have a significant adverse effect on any State or Federal air quality standard, and is, therefore, presumed under CEQA Guideline 15064(i) to have no significant adverse impact on air quality. However, the City Council finds that the project in combination with past, present and probable future projects (See DEIR, pp. 12-14) may have a significant adverse impact on ozone formation in the Ukiah Valley. It finds that this impact is speculative and cannot feasibly be quantified with any degree of accuracy. For the reasons stated in Exhibit A (p. 11) and the August 6, 1992, Staff Report (pp. 6-8) ozone impacts cannot be studied and estimated within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social and technological factors. Using the URBEMIS-3 computer model, it is possible to generate s: \u\docs\wa [ mar t2. res some estimates of the emissions in tonS/day and tons/year of PM10, NOx, CO and TOG from the estimated traffic volumes to and from the Wal-Mart project and of the estimated traffic volumes associated with future projects. However, the URBEMIS-3 program is not regarded as accurate and these estimates are not necessarily meaningful, particularly where no current estimates exist for existing emissions of these pollutants in the Ukiah Valley. (See FEIR, p. 46.) The Mendocino County Air Pollution Control District (MCAPCD) has emissions estimates for the entire county, but not for the Ukiah Valley. To provide some estimate for the Ukiah Valley the FEIR estimated emissions based on the assumption that approximately half the county population resides in the Ukiah Valley. (FEIR, p. 36.) The_FEIR notes that these figures are unreliable, but they are the only figures available. These figures include estimates for all the. known precursors to ozone. (FEIR, p. 46.) Similar projections were performed for Wal-Mart based on the assumed 7946 total trips per day. (FEIR, p. 49.) According to Leonard Charles testimony on 8/13/92, using the 7946 figure assumes incorrectly that every trip is a new trip to the Ukiah Valley. No specific estimate has been made of how many of those trips will be new to the Ukiah Valley and, hence, represent new mobile sources of pollutants. The economic study done for the EIR suggests that 70 percent of Wal-Mart's sales will come from sales currently being made by existing Ukiah businesses. This estimate does not indicate how many more sales will come from businesses in the Ukiah Valley s: \u\docs\wa [ mart2, res but outside City limits. The economic study also indicates that some of these sales will come from tourist traffic on Highway 101 which would occur with or without Wal-Mart. An ecomomic study done by Wal-Mart suggests that 17 percent of its sales will come from existing businesses and a much larger percentage will come from Highway 101 travelers. Suffice it to say that a wide range of emission estimates are possible given the inherent uncertainty in estimating accurately how many new vehicle trips a commercial use like Wal-Mart will generate. Using the 7946 figure produces a very conservative figure which more than offsets any underestimates that might result from assuming a zero percentage of cold starts. Based on this data the FEIR concludes that Wal-Mart by itself adds insignificant additional amounts of NOx, SOx and TOG to existing emissions. Given the infeasibility of modeling ozone for the Ukiah Valley, no meaningful conclusion can be reached as to the effect of these additional emissions on existing air quality~ except to say that this represents a very small percentage increase, does not violate any exisiting air quality standard for non-stationary sources of air pollution, and would not significantly exceed even the significance thresholds triggering new source review for stationary sources of air pollution, which clearly do not apply to a project such as Wal-Mart. Similar estimates could have been run for the approximately 60,000 estimated daily trips generated by the balance of the Redwood Business Park and the other probable future projects. (DEIR, p. 59, Table 2, Table 4.) However, according to Leonard s: \u\docs\wa [mar t2. res Charles testimony on 8/14/92, those would simply extrapolate the already inaccurate emissions estimates for Wal-Mart based on the relative number of daily trips and would predictably produce numbers approximately eight times higher than the numbers already produced for the Wal-Mart project.. For example, according to the URBEMIS-3 program Wal-Mart generated traffic will produce 141.7 lbs/day of NOx. If the URBEMIS-3 program were run for cumulative traffic generated by all included projects, it would estimate emissions of NOx at approximately eight times that amount or 1133.6 lbs./day. The City Council finds that actually running the computer program would not provide additional useful information that would assist the City Council or the general public in evaluating the cumulative air quality impacts of this project or in formulating mitigation measures or making findings of overriding considerations. In concluding that more accurate assessments are not feasible, the City Council does not mean to understate the significance of these potentially significant adverse cumulative air quality impacts. The Ukiah Valley on four occassions in 1988 was at the limit of State and Federal air quality standards for ozone. (DEIR, p. 47.) Based on the DEIR estimate of peak hour automobile trip volumes produced by Wal-Mart, in combination with all probable future projects (Table 4, b/w p. 58 & 59), it is possible and perhaps likely that this volume of traffic could generate sufficient ozone precursors to cause the Valley to exceed State and $: \u\doc$\wa tmar t2. res Federal air quality standards for ozone. Accordingly, the City Council cannot presume under CEQA Guideline 15064(i) that the cumulative air quality impacts will be insignificant, and it assumes that those impacts are significant. For the reasons stated in Exhibit A (pp. 11-14) adoption of conditions 15-18 in Exhibit B will avoid or reduce to acceptable levels the Project's short term impacts on air quality during construction. Adoption of conditions 19-21 and 36 will minimize the Project's contribution to cumulative air quality (and traffic) impacts by providing practical opportunities and encouragement for employees and customers to travel to and from the site without using private automobiles. In addition, the City Council finds that the possibility of exceeding state and federal ozone pollution standards in the Ukiah Valley is a problem shared by all present and future projects causing direct or secondary emissions of ozone precursors and must be solved on an air basin-wide basis. For that reason, a considerable amount of necessary mitigation is infeasible for the City, because it lacks jurisdiction over many projects located outside city limits that contribute to the problem. (For example, Lovers' Lane specific plan, Vichy Springs subdivision, Vichy Springs rezone application, and Sanford Ranch Road project. DEIR, p. 14.) The City is currently developing a growth management plan and substantially revising its general plan. On July 1, 1992, the MCAPD began ozone monitoring for the Ukiah Valley. Since the City $: \u\doc$\wa [ mar t2. res Council will not hold hearings on the proposed growth management plan/general until mid-1993, this additional data may permit more accurate ozone modeling at that time. The City Council will devise mitigation measures as part of its growth management plan to substantially reduce these cumulative air quality impacts. (See Exhibit B, condition 34.) It is infeasible at this time to identify more precisely what those specific measures will include, but the City Council finds that the growth management plan provides the only viable and fair means to mitigate these impacts as to projects within the City's jurisdiction. The City -council finds that the combination of these individual and cumulative mitigation measures substantially reduces whatever significant cumulative air quality impacts may occur. However, to the extent that these impacts may not be sufficiently mitigated (some degree of uncertainty necessarily exists given the speculative~ and unquantified nature of the impacts), pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15093, the City Council makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations: STATEMENT OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The environmental risks are speculative and difficult to quantify. (See FEIR pp. 54-56.) Those risks include health risks (DEIR, p. 45) and potential damage to agriculture. (See, for example, Kings County Farm Bureau v. Hanford (1990) 270 Cal. Rptr. 650, 658 [ozone accounted for 98% of all damage to agricultural crops in the San Joaquin Valley].) No evidence has been presented to the City Council on the basis of which it can readily quantify $: \u\docs\wa [ mart2, res 9 these risks. Additionally, if the Ukiah Valley became a nonattainment area for ozone, the Mendocino County Air Pollution Control District would have to develop a plan to reduce emissions to acceptable levels. (FEIR, pp. 54-55.) Again, however, the costs associated with such a plan are speculative and cannot be reliably quantified. (FEIR, pp. 55-56.) The City Council finds that these risks are overriden by the following social and economic benefits of the Wal-Mart project: a. The construction of the Wal-Mart store will increase the assessed value of the project site by $7.5 Million, increasing the property tax revenue of the Ukiah Redevelopment Agency (RDA) by $70,000 per year. Future expansion of the store will increase these revenues even further. (DEIR, p. 112.) This will generate significant additional tax revenue to the RDA which must use those funds to implement the redevelopment plan, including rehabilitation of the downtown business district. 20% of those funds must be set aside for low and moderate income housing; b. Wal-Mart will generate additional sales tax of between $50,000 and $235,000 per year. (DEIR, p. 8.) In addition, the City will receive several thousand dollars per year in additional fees for water, sewer and electric services provided to the project and in business license fees. (DEIR, p. 112.) These additional revenues will be available to meet the needs of general city government at a time when the City anticiPates significant cuts in state funding; and c. Wal-Mart will generate additional employment within $: \u\doc s \wa { ma r t 2. res 10 the City, at least, in the long term. (DEIR, pp. 111-112.) Moreover, Wal-Mart will attract other businesses to the Redwood Business Park (RBP) that will together result in a major expansion of the Ukiah economy. The existing zoning would not produce this result. (DEIR, pp. 112-113.) Moreover, any short term loss of jobs resulting from the Wal-Mart project may be overstated in the EIR (See DEIR, p. 112 ["It is possible that the net short-term loss would be less given the potential for Wal-Mart capturing more leakage or traveller sales than assumed here . . .,,].) The additional development of RBP will quickly offset any short-term job losses that may result from the Wal-Mart store by itself. (DEIR, p. 113.). Unemployment in Ukiah is higher than the state average. Additional employment and expansion of the Ukiah economy will result in improved living conditions for Ukiah residents and reduced government costs for welfare benefits, unemployment insurance and social services. 11. Archeology. For the reasons stated in Exhibit A (p. 15), the Project will not have any significant adverse impact on archeological resources. However, adoption of condition 28 in Exhibit B will avoid or reduce to an acceptable level any conceivable impact the Project might have on archeological resources. 13. Traffic. For the reasons stated in Exhibit A (pp. 16-23) adoption of conditions 1-6 and 19-21 in Exhibit B will avoid or reduce to an acceptable level the individual impacts on traffic caused by the Project. Adoption of condition 29 in Exhibit B will s: \u\docs \wa [ m~a r t 2. r es 11 avoid or reduce to an acceptable level the combined impact of the Project, buildout of the AIP and the extension of Orchard Avenue to Marlene Street on the neighborhood north of the Project bounded by Waugh Lane, Talmage Road, Gobbi Street and Highway 101 ("the neighborhood"). The DEIR states that curbs, gutters and sidewalks should be considered where needed along local residential streets in the neighborhood to mitigate traffic safety impacts from the buildout of the AIP. (DEIR, p. 71.) Sidewalks are not feasible on these streets because the City owns insufficient rights of way to accomodate paved street widths meeting City standards and sidewalks on these streets. Moreover, if the traffic diversion measures included in condition 29 prove impractical or ineffective, the construction of improvements to Waugh Lane as required in condition 29 should reduce traffic safety and noise impacts within the neighborhood to an acceptable level. If future impacts should arise that have not been fully mitigated by these measures, which is highly speculative at this time, the City Council further finds that any such significant adverse impact is overridden for the following reasons: STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Cumulative traffic adversely affecting the safety and residential character of the neighborhood between Gobbi Street and Talmage Road (east of Waugh Lane) will result from increased traffic volumes on streets in this neighborhood, due to the Wal- Mart project, extension of orchard Street to Marlene Street, and build-out of the AIP, if traffic diversion measures prove s: \u\docs\wa [ mart 2. res 12 ineffective or impractical and proposed improvements to Waugh Lane fail to divert sufficient traffic from the neighborhood. The long-term economic benefit to the City of Ukiah and the ability of the City of Ukiah to obtain a higher level of retail sales and higher property taxes outweighs the concerns regarding the neighborhood impact, particularly given the speculative nature of these impacts. The benefits are set forth in more detail in the statement of overriding considerations for air quality which are incorporated herein by reference. 14. Visual quality. For the reasons stated in Exhibit A (pp. 24-26) conditions 7-10 in Exhibit B will avoid or reduce to an acceptable level the impacts of the Project on visual quality. 15. Noise. For the reasons stated in Exhibit A (p. 27) the Project will have no significant adverse long term noise impacts. For the reasons stated in Exhibit A (pp. 27-28) conditions 24-26 in Exhibit B will avoid or reduce to an acceptable level the short term noise impacts during construction of the Project. 16. Public Services. For the reasons stated in Exhibit A (pp. 29-34) public services are adequate to serve the Project. Adoption of conditions 10, 27, and 30-33 in Exhibit B will minimize the Project's future demand on water, energy, sewage treatment capacity and landfill space. 17. Population an4 Housing. For the reasons stated in Exhibit A (pp. 38-39) the Project will not have a significant adverse effect on population or housing. The City will mitigate the cumulative impacts from the Project and build-out of the AIP s: \u\doCs\wa [ mar t2. res 13 through the pending Growth Management-General Plan revision process that it is currently undertaking and through the Redevelopment Agency and tax increment and other funds set aside or available for low and moderate income housing. These are the only feasible means of meeting the need for increased housing created by the eventual buildout of the AIP. 18. Land use - General Plan. For the reasons stated in Exhibit A (p. 40-41) and the August 6, 1992, Staff Report (pp. 3- 6, 11-13) the Project will not conflict with any general plan policies, including policies promoting the downtown as a commercial center. Evidence submitted during the hearings established that Wal-Mart will compete with other general merchandising discount retailers, like K-Mart, not specialty retail, office and service businesses. Attracting these types of specialty businesses to the downtown has become the focus of the City's downtown revitalization efforts. For example, the Ukiah Redevelopment Agency has evidenced its support of the downtown as a specialty retail, restaurant and office area by adopting the downtown design review guidelines which emphasize those types of businesses. No evidence was presented showing that Wal-Mart would adversely impact businesses in the downtown area. 19. Land use - airport. For the reasons stated in Exhibit A (pp. 42-43) and the August 6, 1992, Staff Report (pp. 13-15) the Project will not have any significant adverse impact on the airport and the future operation of the airport,-and the airport will not cause significant adverse safety or noise impacts on the Project. s: \u\docs\wa t mart2, res 14 See also Findings Under Airport Land Use Planning Law which are incorporated by reference herein. 20. After thoroughly considering project alternatives, including the no-project alternative and the 15-acre site on South State Street between Jefferson Street and Fircrest Drive and for the reasons stated in Exhibit A (pp. 44-48) and the August 6, 1992, Staff Report (pp. 8-10), the City Council finds that none of the alternatives are feasible or will have fewer or less severe adverse environmental impacts than the proposed site for the Project. Moreover, the City can more effectively mitigate the potential adverse impacts at the proposed site than at any other location. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of August, 1992 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Malone, McMichael, Wattenberger and Mayor Schneiter Councilmember Shoemaker None Ca~h~ 'McK~; Ci~ erk Fred Sch'nelq~r, Mayor s: \u\docs\wa [ mart2, res 15 Exhibit A ANALYSIS OF INFORMATION CONTAINED IN EIR FOR WAL-MART PROJECT AND SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL S:\U\DOCS\WALMART.COV INDEX RE ANALYSIS GEOLOGY ....... HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE .... VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE .... AIR QUALITY ......... ARCHAEOLOGY ......... TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION . . · VISUAL QUALITY ...... NOISE ........ PUBLIC SERVICES ..... POLICE ...... FIRE ....... SEWAGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL . . WATER ....... SCHOOLS ...... SOLID WASTE ..... ENERGY USE ...... ECONOMICS ...... POPULATION AND HOUSING . . . LAND USE - GENERAL PLAN . . · LAND USE - AIRPORT .... PROJECT ALTERNATIVES .... Page 1 10 15 · · · · · · 24 27 · . 29 · . . 29 · . . 29 · . . 30 .... 31 · . . 31 · . . 32 · . . 32 42 44 S:\U\DOCS\WALMART.COV WAL-MART PROJECT IMPACTS RE GEOLOGY DEIR INFORMATION, PP. 25-26 Potential Impacts Although the DEIR stated that this area had been graded and filled, this information was found to be incorrect (FEIR, pp. 78-80, Item 1). There are no major geologic constraints or impacts associated with the Wal-Mart site and the project. Appropriate construction techniques should be implemented to insure that the store will not fail during an earthquake. Recommendations contained in the Twining Laboratories report should be implemented to insure that soils are adequately prepared to support improvements on the site. Cumulative Impacts Development of the remainder of the AIP may involve additional filling of the lower area in the southeastern portion. The fill must be properly engineered to insure building, road, and parking lot integrity. Recommended Mitigation Measures Concerning Wal-Mart Protect Implement all the recommendations included in the Twining Laboratories report (Appendix C to the DEIR) regarding site improvements. [Note that the report was amended February 19, 1992 to minimize site earthwork; the amendment is on file with the City of Ukiah.] Recommended Mitigations Concerninq AIP Future Development Future development in the AIP should include evaluations and assessments similar to those contained in the Twining report and the recommendations made conditions of approval. Ail mitigations shall be monitored by the Ukiah Department of Public Works and/or Building Department. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Recommendations in the Twining Laboratories report, as amended February 19, 1992, shall be incorporated into the site improvements and site preparation; these have been addressed in the site development plan presently under consideration. S:\U\DOCS\WALMART. SUM 2. Building plans and specifications shall implement construction techniques and materials to insure that present earthquake standards are met; this shall be made a condition concerning the project; these requirements have been incorporated into the site development plan presently under consideration. S:\U\DOCS\WALMART.SUM WAL-MART PROJECT IMPACTS RE HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE DEIR INFORMATION, Pp. 27-33 Potential ImDacts 1. Developing the site with buildings and parking area will increase the area of impervious surfaces on the site and will increase peak runoff flows during 10-year and 100-year storms. The drainage plan includes measures to insure there will be no on-site flooding during the 10-year storm, but there would be minor flooding during a 100-year storm due to Russian River flood stages. 2. Developing the site will have a minor impact on flooding east of the freeway; increased runoff from the site could slightly increase the extent and duration of flooding on the orchard to the east, but this would typically occur only in conjunction with river overbank flooding; project area flows would not trigger flooding, but could expand the area inundated. 3. Downstream sedimentation, could increase the frequency of shallow roadway flooding along Hastings Road east of the Russian River. 4. Site runoff 'will slightly increase the peak flow rates discharged to the Russian River during high river states, but this impact is very small given the size of the Russian River watershed, and is considered insignificant. 5. Construction could result in a moderate to significant increase in on-site erosion, which could result in a minor increase in transport of sediments to the Russian River. 6. The project could result in a minor increase in channel instability on the northernmost ditch east of Hastings Road (and east of Russian River); the existing instability in this ditch derives from the lowering of the russian River bed. Cumulative ImDacts 1. Development of the remainder of the AIP will greatly increase the area of impervious surfaces and consequently increase peak flows during 10-year and 100-year rainstorms by 2 to 4 times. Proposed drainage improvements (some of which are already in place) will alter the direction and path of surface runoff on the site. The extent of flooding on the freeway, or on on-ramps and off-ramps, will not be affected by either the Wal-Mart project or the AIP buildout. S:\U\DOCS\WALMART.SUM 2. Buildout of the AIP will have a minor to moderate, but not significant, impact on flooding east of Highway 101. During Russian River flooding, increased peak flows and runoff volumes could increase the extent and duration of flooding on orchards to the east; this would occur only in conjunction with overbank flooding. Given the large size of'the Russian Rover watershed, the percentage increase is not considered significant, and in a worst case analysis would equal only a .5% increase in flow. 3. Fill is in place in the area of the existing hayfield in the southeast portion of the AIP, which reduces the present surface detention of runoff during storms; this will contribute to reduction of the area of existing wetland, and may eliminate or reduce the riparian habitat and pond in the southerly area. Loss of wetland and riparian habitat is considered a significant impact. 4. Construction of the AIP would result in bared soils and potential for erosion and transport of sediments to the russian River. 5. Buildout may result in a moderate to significant increase in channel instability on orchard property to the east of the freeway. The present instability is due to the lowering of the Russian River bed, but the already unstable ditch could be further destabilized due to increased frequency and magnitude of AIP flows. Recommended Mitiqation Measures Concerninq Wal-Mart Pro~ect 1. Replace existing culvert on earthen driveway leading from Hastings Road, east of Russian River [this is on privately-owned land outside Ukiah City Limits]. 2. Replace existing 24" culvert under Hastings Road and east of Russian River with 36" culvert. 3. Implement on-site erosion control program during construction. 4. Implement energy dissipation measures at freeway ditch storm drains and surface conduit outlets to prevent channel bank and/or bed scour. 5. Share in funding and constructing ditch stabilization measures on orchards east of the site and east of the Russian River; rock check dams should be constructed to stabilize the channel bed and minimize undercutting of ditch banks, and ditch slopes could be graded to more stable angles. S:\U\DOCS\WALMART.SUM Ail mitigation measures shall be monitored by the Ukiah Department of Public Works. FEIR MODIFICATIONS: 1. Existing culvert (item 2 above) was determined to be 42" in size, rather than 24", so is adequate and does not require replacement (FEIR pp. 78-80, Item 2). 2. In 1986 AIP constructed drainage facilities now in place that diverted the airport runoff west of the AIP to the south; this took much of the pressure off the culvert under Highway 101 and the northern drainage ditch on the orchard property to the east; all things considered, the impact of Russian River flooding overwhelm the effect of the increase in runoff from the Wal-Mart project (FEIR, p. 289). 3. Straw bales can be used effectively to prevent off-site transport of eroded sediments during and after construction (FEIR, p. 245). 4. There are no potential flooding impacts from the 'Wal-Mart project for any adjoining properties to the west of Highway 101; the site specific increase in stormwater runoff is extremely small, i,e., insignificant, when evaluated aqainst the Russian River discharge for significant flooding event~ (FEIR, p. 95). 5. There are suggested measures for retention of wetlands [approximately 1,400 feet south of the Wal-Mart site] that will partially mitigate increases in peak flows from the site. Mitigations suggested [by the commentator] appear unwarranted for Wal-Mart, given its insignificant impacts on flooding. Infiltration trenches were suggested in the DEIR Hydrology Report, but were dropped from consideration in the text of the DEIR after review indicated such mitigation was not warranted given the soils on the site. No non-point stormwater discharge regulations are presently in place. Wal-Mart will diminish groundwater recharge, but the loss is minimal given the expanse of undeveloped land to the east of the freeway (FEIR, p. 289, et seq. ) . 6. On the wetlands issue, the response letter from the Mendocino County Fish & Game Advisory Commission (FEIR, p. 34) states that the Commission feels the Wal-Mart project is more acceptable for the site than another type of project would be; note also the letter from Department of Fish & Game (FEIR, p. 13) regarding the area containing the wetlands, as pertaining to AIP development. S:\U\DOCS\WALMART.SUM 7. Regarding erosion control for agricultural property east of the Russian River, an erosion control program would have to be submitted for review [presumably by the property owner] to the Regional Water Quality Control Board [the FEIR, at page 96, also states it would be submitted to the City; this does not appear correct, since the land is not within the City]. The problem already exists in the downstream drainage ditches on the property (FEIR, pp. 95-96). SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Findings: 1. The recommended mitigation measure Concerning replacement of a culvert on a privately-owned driveway outside the Ukiah City Limits (Recommended Mitigation 1 above) is not feasible, since the applicant has no reasonable ability to enter upon private land to put improvements in place. 2. The recommended mitigation measures concerning ditch stabilization measures on privately-owned agricultural property east of the Russian River and outside the Ukiah City Limits (Recommended Mitigation 5 above) are not the responsibility of the applicant and are not feasible, since the applicant has no reasonable ability to enter upon private land to put improvements in place. 3. No culvert replacement under Hastings Road is necessary, since the culvert is already of a more than sufficient size, which was determined upon additional investigation. Conditions of Approval: 1. The applicant should implement an on-site erosion control program, which shall consist of placing staked straw bales at inlet locations to contain sedimentation on-site; this shall be made a condition regarding the project. 2. A site-specific drainage system has been submitted as a part of the Sit'e Development Plan in accordance with City standards and in accordance with the recommendations contained in the FEIR (pp. 227-231) and has been approved by the City Engineer; implementation of that system shall be made a condition regarding the project. 3. Energy dissipation measures at surface conduit outlets shall be implemented to the approval of the City Engineer; implementation shall be made a condition concerning the project. S:\U\DOCS\WALMART.SUM 4. Mitigation measures shall be monitored by the Ukiah Department of Public Works pursuant to an adopted monitoring program. S:\U\DOCS\WALMART.SUM WAL-MART PROJECT IMPACTS RE VEGETATION DEIR INFORMATION, pp. 34-43, 134 Potential Impacts Construction of the Wal-Mart store will not result in any significant loss of plant or wildlife habitat. The site is currently a vacant grassy field. While there will be a reduction in habitat used for foraging by various birds and mammals, this loss is not substantial enough to be considered significant. Construction of Wal-Mart will eliminate about 15 acres of weedy grassland; this is an insignificant impact. Cumulative ImDacts 1. Development of the remainder of the AIP may involve additional filling of the lower-lying area in the southeastern portion east of Airport Park Boulevard. If continued, ongoing filling would eliminate remaining wetland area and the habitat for the identified Baker's meadowfoam plant; loss of the remaining wetland and the plant would be considered a significant adverse environmental impact under CEQA, since Baker's meadowfoam is listed as a rare plant by the State of California. 2. Development of the south end of the AIP could result in the loss of mature valley oaks; loss of these mature trees would be a major impact. 3. Future development of AIP should include measures to divert site runoff to remaining wetlands/ponds on the site; adequate mitigations to filter the runoff should be made to avoid possible damage to the wetland. Recommended Miti ation Measures Concernin Wal-Mart ~ No mitigations are recommended or required for the Wal-Mart site, as no significant biotic resources would be lost due to the development. Recommended Miti ations Concernin AIP Future Develo ment 1. A mitigation plan should be developed to preserve the wetland area and restore the wetland hydrology; uncontaminated drainage from adjacent lands may be required, which may entail a separate drainage collection system concerning adjacent properties in proximity to the area. These mitigations will require consultation with and agreement by the State Department of Fish & Game. S:\U\DOCS\WALMART.SUM 2. Development in areas adjacent to the wetlands area on Lot G-5 should not be allowed until an approved mitigation agreement has been entered into with the Department of Fish & Game. 3. Future development where there are existing valley oaks should require that they be maintained and that development be in harmony with their retention. 4. Ail future landscaping in the AIP should focus on species native to the Ukiah Valley which provide wildlife habitat. Ail mitigations shall be monitored by the Ukiah Department of Community Development. FEIR MODIFICATIONS: None SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: No mitigation measures are required concerning vegetation and wildlife regarding the Wal-Mart project; no significant environmental impacts are identified. The following condition~ is suggested, but not required concerning the Wal-Mart project: ' 1. Landscaping on the Wal-Mart site shall be implemented as agreed with the City Community Development Department in accordance with current City standards, to include some species native to.the Ukiah area. S:\U\DOCS\WALMART.SUM WAL-MART PROJECT IMPACTS RE AIR QUALITY DEIR INFORMATION, pp. 44-50; FEIR INFORMATION, Pp. 41-56 Discussion (from DEIR, pp. 46-47) In general the air quality within the Ukiah valley is good. The Mendocino County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) conducted a study of all air pollutants in 1988 and discovered potential problems/hazards associated with two pollutants -- ozone and small particulates. According to that study, the most severe and complex air quality problem is the relatively high level of ozone experienced especially during warm, meteorologically stable periods in the summer and fall. Ozone forms in the atmosphere through a complex series of photochemical reactions involving reactive organic compounds and nitrogen oxides. No single source accounts for most of those emissions. Ozone can cause eye irritation and impair respiratory functions. The 1988 study conducted by the APCD showed four occasions when local air quality was 9 ppm for ozone (the allowable State standard); these were four hourly episodes out of 8,000 measured, all occurring in the afternoon; two were in July and two in October. There were no exceedances of State standards, but air quality was at the limit on those four occasions. In comparing the anticipated emissions as a result of the Wal-Mart project With the emissions by total mobile sources in the Ukiah Valley, the Wal-Mart project will add a very insignificant amount of any of the precursors of ozone (about 0.07% of the NOX and 0.6% of the SOX). A quantitative analysis was prepared for projected traffic volumes on local streets concerning carbon monoxide, which is the pollutant typically used to measure impacts on air quality resulting from vehicles. The analysis showed that project traffic would not result in any exceedances of State or Federal standards for carbon monoxide at sensitive receptors located adjacent to those intersections. Air quality at additional sensitive receptors further removed from intersections can expect less severe impacts than the receptors that were measured. While project traffic will increase pollution of the air, the amount added will not result in local air quality exceeding adopted standards. Small particulates are respirable particulates which increase the risk of chronic respiratory disease, alter lung function in children, and, with sulfur dioxide, produce severe illness. These particulates are generated by construction activities, agriculture-related operation, wood stoves and fireplaces, and vehicular traffic. The Ukiah Valley has been a S:\U\DOCS\WALMART.SUM 10 "non-attainment area" for fine particulates since 1986. Ninety percent of the exceedances have occurred in the winter when woodburning devices are being used. Discussion from FEIR pp. 3-4 Precise calculation of ozone impacts cannot be determined without extensive meteorological baseline data; these data are not available. To generate these data would take many months and maybe years of work and hundreds of thousands to several million dollars. Development of such a data base is outside the scope of this EIR and if later deemed necessary should be conducted by the Mendocino County APCD in concert with the City, County, and other agencies. Estimates have been provided concerning emission of pollutants that play a part in ozone formation. There is no evidence that increases in emission of pollutants as a result of traffic increases, either concerning the Wal-Mart project or the . AIP buildout, or cumulative impacts, will result in exceedances of State air quality standards. Thus, cumulative air quality environmental impacts are not found to be significant. If the City should determine that this is a significant air quality impact, the City would be required to present corroboration for this determination. ADDITIONAL FEIR MODIFICATIONS AND COMMENTS: Additional studies and analYses were done at the request of the Mendocino County Air Pollution Control Officer and Citizens for Adequate Review, using parameters requested by them, but the results did not alter the conclusion that neither the Wal-Mart project nor the buildout of the AIP will have any significant effect on local air quality (see FEIR pp. 38-56 and 194-199). There is no reasonably available evidence that in any way indicates that traffic generated by the project will result in exceedances of State air quality standards. If the City determines that cumulative traffic would result in ozone standard exceedances, and determines further that this is a significant impact that must be addressed in a Statement of Overriding Consideration, evidence must be entered into the record to corroborate this finding. Potential Impacts of Wal-Mart Project 1. Construction activities~ would temporarily increase particulate concentrations near the project site. Equipment and vehicles generate dust during clearing, excavation, and grading. Construction vehicle traffic, on unpaved surfaces generates dust, as would wind blowing over exposed earth. Unless adequately controlled, dust could travel to neighboring businesses and S:\U\DOCS\WALMART:SUM 11 residences. The Wal-Mart project will not result in significant production of particulates after the construction stage is completed. 2. No other environmental impacts concerning air quality have been identified of any significance concerning the Wal-Mart project. Cumulative Impacts 1. The combined number of trips generated by Wal-Mart and buildout of the AIP will not produce pollutants that cause air quality impurities to exceed any established state or federal air quality standard. 2. To model and determine ozone formation and ~evels requires basic research costing hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars and which would require many months and perhaps years to complete; development of a plan to show how ozone levels will be decreased to below State standards, should they be exceeded in the future, would require a plan development by the local Air Pollution Control District. It cannot presently be predicted with any accuracy, because of the lack of any baseline data, whether buildout of all cumulative projects will generate sufficient new pollutants that would result in the formation of sufficient ozone so that the area would exceed State standards for that pollutant. This is an area-wide problem that would best be addressed at the time of General Plan Revision. Given the uncertainties regarding modelling of ozone formation, it is likely that an analysis of ozone formation will require an area-wide study involving the APCD, plus the Northern Sonoma County APCD and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (see the complete discussion contained in the DEIR and FEIR on the pages referred to above). The cost of such a study and plan development far exceeds the magnitude of any requirement that should be imposed in AIP or Wal-Mart concerning their developments. Recommended Mitiqation Measures Concerninq Wal-Mart Project. 1. Unpaved areas where construction is occurring shall be sprinkled with water at least twice a day. If dust is visible beyond property boundaries, applicants shall sprinkle more frequently or apply dust palliatives until dust is satisfactorily controlled. 2. Ail stockpiles of soil, sand, and other similar materials shall be covered with a tarpaulin or other effective cover except when in use. S:\U\DOCS\WALMART.SUM 12 3. Trucks hauling debris, soil, sand, or similar materials, shall be covered. 4. Replanting and paving shall be completed .as soon as possible following levelling and construction. 5. Because the project will not result in exceedances of carbon monoxide standards, which can be and have been measured, no mitigations are required for vehicle-generated emissions, and no significant environmental impacts will result. The foregoing mitigation conditions, if adopted, should be monitored by the Ukiah Department of Public Works and/or Building Department. It is~ not feasible to require or perform an ozone study concerning the project, because of the cost and length and time involved for such study, and because the results of such a study would be uncertain and inconclusive based on present methods; to generate this type of data requires extensive meteorological baseline data. Because vehicle emissions in the Ukiah Valley, together with any other existing emission sources, may in the future result in increased ozone formation (an affect that cannot now be determined with any certainty), the following measures are recommended to decrease vehicle emissions by reducing potential vehicle trips to the site: 6. Wal-Mart and the City shall work with the Mendocino Transit Authority to extend public transit services to the Wal-Mart site; bus service should be scheduled to provide frequent service to the site from all major population centers in the Ukiah area; a bus stop area should be provided near the entrance to the Wal-Mart store. 7. Bike lanes shall be extended to the site from the Hastings Road/State Street intersection, subject to feasibility as shall be determined by the City Engineer; following completion of widening and improvement of Talmage Road westerly from the site to State Street, bike lanes shall be provided along Talmage Road. Sidewalks shall be put in place along the northerly side of Hastings Road-Airport Road access to Commerce Boulevard to provide pedestrian access in conjunction with roadway improvements. Where possible and roadway and rights of way permit, trees should be planted along sidewalks to provide a shaded walkway. 8. Ail heating and cooling equipment shall comply with State laws regarding emissions. 9. Wal-Mart shall be encouraged to establish a carpooling incentive plan for their employees. S:\U\DOCS\WALMART:SUM 13 Recommended Miti ations'Concernin AIP Future ~ 1. All of the recommended mitigations 1 through 9 as specified above concerning the Wal-Mart project. 2. All mitigations shall be monitored by the Ukiah Department of Public Works and/or Building Department. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The recommended conditions 1 through 9 above. S:\U\DOCS\WALMART. SUM 14 WAL-MART PROJECT IMPACTS RE ARCHAEOLOGY DEIR INFORMATION, p. 51 Potential Impacts No archaeological or significant historic remains were found on the property during a field survey of the AIP, which included the Wal-Mart site. If archaeological or historic resources should be uncovered during site grading and preparation, work should be halted in the area until the remains can be assessed by a professional archaeologist. Recommended Mitiqation Measures Concerninq Wal-Mart Pro~ec~ None. SUGGESTED CONDITION OF APPROVAL: 1. If archaeological or historic resources are uncovered during site grading and preparation, work should be halted in the area of the find until the remains can be assessed by a professional archaeologist. S:\U\DOCS\WALMART.SUM 15 WAL-MART PROJECT IMPACTS RE TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION DEIR INFORMATION, PP.52-77, 138, 141, 144-145, APPENDIX H Discussion Roadway access to the Wal-Mart site is provided by the Highway 101 freeway, while local access is provided by Talmage Road and Hastings Road-Airport Road (to Commerce Drive). Access through nearby residential streets to the north is possible via Betty and Lorraine Streets and Waugh Lane, by way of Old Talmage Road. Based on traffic volume counts, the weekday PM peak traffic hour was found to occur between 4:30 and 5:30 P.M. Traffic impacts are generally assessed at roadway intersections, since it is here that congestion will first interrupt traffic flow along a roadway. Signalized intersection operation is graded based on a system called Level of Service (LOS) which ranges from Level A, uncongested flow, to Level F, indicating extreme congestion and delay. LOS C is the poorest level tolerated by the City of'Ukiah for signalized intersections. Unsignalized intersection operation is also graded using LOS A through F. Most study intersections were operating acceptably during the weekday PM peak traffic hour. Exceptions are Talmage Road at South State Street, which was borderline at LOS C/D, and Airport Park Boulevard at Talmage Road, which was at LOS D. Since the study, the traffic signal at Talmage Road/South State Street was changed to a 3-phase operation with left turn capabilities, which eliminated concerns regarding this intersection (DEIR, p. 58). As indicated in the Project Alternatives section of the EIR (DEIR, pp. 144) and the attached discussion concerning Project Alternatives, no other site within the City of Ukiah has an adequate site or traffic accommodation ability for the Wal-Mart store, and the Montgomery Ward site does not have such accommodation without the same mitigation measures concerning Talmage Road/State Street. Even deveopment on the site as "highway oriented commercial" under present AIP PD, without any amendment, would require similar mitigation measures to address traffic concerns. Potential Impacts of Wal-Mart Store The proposed Wal-Mart store is projected to generate a total of 9,260 daily two-way trips with 235 inbound and 220 outbound trips during the peak PM traffic hour (worst case scenario, based on "trip ends"). (As discussed in the Air Quality section, automobile emissions are not considered "significant', unless they meet or exceed 10,000 trips per day.) The total buildout of AIP 16 S:\U\DOCS\WALMART.SUM and Wal-Mart would generate an estimated 44,000 daily two-way trips, with 1,515 inbound and 1,950 outbound trips during the PM peak traffic hour. Estimated project traffic distribution patterns were distributed to the local roadway system, and'it was determined that the residential street network north of the site would be the chosen route for about 5% of the traffic, but the largest percentages of total project traffic were projected to arrive and depart by way of Highway 101/Talmage Road, about 45%, by way of South State Street/Talmage Road, about 15%, and by way of South State Street/Hastings Road, about 35%. Traffic volumes at Talmage Road/Airport Park Boulevard would exceed peak hour signal warrant criteria levels; signalization of this intersection will be required. The left turk lane on the westbound Talmage Road approach to Airport Park Boulevard would be marginally adequate for increased traffic demand; it should be lengthened. Traffic on Hastings Road-Airport Road would cause further deterioration of already degraded pavement; this should be improved. The absence of crossing gates and warning lights at the railroad crossing on Airport Road-Commerce Drive would create safety concerns; crossing gates and flashing warning lights should be installed. The EIR also expressed concern regarding a "90 degree curve" at Hastings Road-Airport Road connection; it was determined by the City Engineer that this curve is actually a much lesser curve and is adequate to accommodate the anticipated traffic. Other potentially significant impacts concerning traffic are identified in detail in the DEIR, at the pages indicated above. Cumulative impacts of the Wal-Mart project on the residential area to the north of Talmage Road are to a great extent the result of the extension of Orchard Avenue to Marlene Street, which is presently in progress; only 5% of traffic from the Wal-Mart site is anticipated to exit through this neighborhood. Increased traffic in this residential neighborhood will result in potentially significant adverse impacts. Airport Park Boulevard, along the frontage of the Wal-Mart site, should be improved and modified to alter present access to and exit from the site and provide adequate truck access. Mitigation Measures Reqardinq the Wal-Mart Project Proposed in the EIR - 1. South State Street/Talmage Road intersection would require a southbound left turn lane; this would require elimination of on-street parking along both sides of South State Street in proximity to the intersection. With the added turn lane the S:\U\DOCS\WALMART.SUM 17 intersection would operate acceptably at LOS B/C during the PM peak traffic hour. This intersection should have a 3-phase signal, rather than a 2-phase signal. 2. The Talmage Road/Airport Park Boulevard intersection should be signalized; the signalized intersection would operate at LOS A. 3. The Highway 101 southbound off-ramp to westbound Talmage Road should be realigned to connect to Talmage Road at a 90-degree angle, and should be stop sign controlled. With this mitigation the stop sign controlled right turn movement would operate acceptably at LOS B. 4. The westbound left turn lane at Talmage Road/Airport Park Boulevard intersection should be lengthened fram its existing 100-foot length to 220-240 feet to accommodate traffic generated by the Wal-Mart project. 5. The western portion of Commerce Drive in the vicinity of the railroad track, the segment of Airport Road between its intersections with Commerce Drive and Hastings Road, and the entire length of Hastings Road. should be repaved. 6. Automatic warning lights and crossing gates should be installed at the railroad crossing on Commerce Drive. 7. Realignment of the curve at Hastings Road-Airport Road should be considered to reduce the 90-degree curve; this should be done in conjunction with repaving Hastings Road-Airport Road. Airport Road should also be stop sign controlled on the southbound and northbound approaches to Commerce Drive. 8. Access to the Wal-Mart site from Airport Park Boulevard should be redesigned as follows: a) close all median openings except the ones serving the northerly and southerly Wal-Mart driveways, and channelize these openings to allow southbound left turn inbound movements only; provide left turn lanes on approaches to both median breaks; b) design the central driveway to accept right turn inbound and outbound movements only; c) channelize the southerly driveway at least 100 feet into the parking lot [this would require a major redesign of the Wal-Mart site plan]; d) eliminate outbound left turn lanes at all three driveways; e) sign the southerly driveway as the main access; f) widen the east side of Airport Park Boulevard just north of the northerly and southerly driveways and just north of Commerce Drive in order to facilitate U-turn movements. S:\U\DOCS\WALMART.SUM 18 9. Landscaped islands at the ends of the fifth and ninth parking aisles (counting from the south) should be angled to guide traffic through smooth transitions along the north-south parking aisle adjacent to the store frontage. 10. The landscaped islands at the ends of each east-west parking aisle should be substantially enlarged to provide enough buffer area to prevent cars backing out of parking spaces from interfering with flow in adjacent north-south parking aisles. 11. Access driveways along Airport Park boulevard should be minimized throughout the AIP; the Airport Park Boulevard/Commerce Drive intersection should be signalized when 'warranted. 12. The northerly driveway on Airport Park Boulevard to be used for access to Lot A1A should be used for right turns in and out, and for left turns in only, and should be blocked to left turn outbound movements; this would reduce conflicting traffic movements near the Airport Park Boulevard/Talmage Road intersection. No turns into or out of Lot A1A should be allowed along Talmage Road. A secondary access should be considered from Lot A1A into the Wal-Mart parking area to provide for emergency access and better traffic flow.on Lot A1A. Ail mitigations should be monitored by the Ukiah Department of Public Works. Additional mitigations are listed in the DEIR, at pp. 69-71 concerning AIP buildout, and should be implemented in connection with that buildout, if not required in connection with the Wal-Mart project. Modification of Mitiqation Measures by City Engineer 1. The South State Street/Talmage Road intersection has already been signalized with a 3-phase signal as recommended; prior to completion of the Wal-Mart store, a southbound left turn lane will be created by the City at the intersection by eliminating on-street parking in the area and painting the lane on the pavement; this eliminates recommended mitigation measure 1 above, as the improvements are not the responsibility of the applicant. 2. The recommended improvements to Talmage Road, as specified in mitigation measures 3 and 4 above, have been modified by the City Engineer to accomplish adequate mitigation concerning traffic flow. The southbound highway off-ramp to Talmage Road will be realigned and widened to provide a separate access lane onto Talmage Road, so traffic from the Talmage area will not have to merge with freeway off-ramp traffic. Talmage Road will be widened, and curbs, gutters and sidewalks installed along the north side, from the project frontage to the railroad tracks. 19 S:\U\DOCS\WALMART.SUM Interior street modifications will be made to Betty Street and Lorraine Street to minimize through traffic access through the residential neighborhood. Future improvements to Waugh Lane will be implemented by the City of Ukiah to improve that arterial access. The latter improvement .is not considered necessary regarding traffic impacts due to the Wal-Mart project (either by the City Engineer or by the EIR). The improvements to Talmage Road, as modified, will be required to be completed prior to opening of the Wal-Mart store. 3. Hastings Road-Airport Road improvements (mitigation measure 5 and 7), including widening and repaying, installation of sidewalks and a bicycle lane, will be required prior to opening of the Wal-Mart store; no roadway realignment is necessary in the area of the Hastings Road-Airport Road connection; roadway improvements will be completed to City standards, and put in place on City-owned property; a stop sign at the northbound approach to Commerce Drive will be installed. 4. The interior modifications specified in mitigation measures 8 through 12 above have been incorporated into the present site development plan, and meet the approval of the City Engineer; mitigation measures necessary would simply be 'the implementation of the site development plan design. 5. Signalization of Talmage Road/Airport Park Boulevard will be done prior to opening of the Wal-Mart store (mitigation measure 2) and application concerning warning lights and crossing gates will be installed as soon as funding is received from the Federal government; application for these funds will be processed by the applicant and the City (mitigation measure 6). SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Interior AIP site modifications to Airport Park Boulevard shall be implemented as specified in the site development plan submitted to the City of Ukiah on February 19, 1992, to the approval of the City Engineer and the City Department of Public Works (mitigation measures $ and 11). 2. Interior Wal-Mart site modifications regarding access driveways, parking areas, and landscaped islands shall be implemented as specified in the site development plan submitted to the City on February 19, 1992, to the approval of the City Engineer and the City Department of Public Works (mitigation measures 9 through 11). 3. Talmage Road widening and improvements, including widening the northerly portion, realignment and widening the Highway 101 southbound off-ramp to provide a separate lane for traffic exiting westerly onto Talmage Road, sidewalks, curbs and gutters S:\U\DOCS\WALMART. SUM 20 on the northerly side of Talmage Road, and paving, shall be designed and implemented by the applicant to the approval of the City Engineer, with all improvements to be completed prior to opening of the Wal-Mart store (mitigation measures 3 and 4). 4. An 8-phase traffic signal shall be installed at the Talmage Road/Airport Park Boulevard intersection to accommodate through traffic and left-turn movements, to be designed by the City in accordance with City specifications, prior to the opening of the Wal-Mart store (mitigation measure 2). 5. The Hastings Road-Airport Road connection from South State Street to Commerce Drive, and the westerly portion of Commerce Drive in the vicinity of the railroad tracks, shall be widened to 34 feet and repaved, with sidewalks, curbs and gutters to be installed, within available land owned by the City of Ukiah, to be designed by the applicant in accordance with City standards, to the approval of the City Engineer; a stop sign for northbound traffic shall be installed at the Commerce Drive/Airport Road intersection; the said improvements shall be completed prior to opening of the Wal-Mart store (mitigation measure 5). 6. Application for federal government funding concerning installation of automatic warning lights and crossing gates at the railroad crossing on Airport Road-Commerce Drive shall be made by the City of Ukiah immediately upon approval of the Wal-Mart project, and prior to issuance of a building permit for the Wal-Mart site; installation of the lights and gates shall be made as soon as practicable after obtaining such funding, but no later than eighteen months following the opening of the Wal-Mart store (mitigation measure 6). 7. The City shall implement creation of a southbound left-turn lane at the South State Street/Talmage Road intersection, to be completed prior to the opening of the Wal-Mart store (mitigation measure 1). 8. The cost allocation regarding each of the conditions of approval shall be as follows: a. The applicants shall be solely responsible for the cost of interior site modifications (Items 1 and 2 above). b. The applicants shall be responsible for 50% of the cost of Talmage road widening and improvements, as specified in item 3 above; the City of Ukiah shall contribute the remaining 50% of the cost. S:\U\DOCS\WALMART.SUM 21 c. The cost of design and installation of the traffic signal at Talmage Road/Airport Park Boulevard intersection, Item 4 above, shall be paid 50% by the applicants, and the remaining 50% shall be contributed by the City of Ukiah, consistent with a previously negotiated Developer Agreement related to the AIP PD. d. The Hastings Road-Airport Road improvements, Item 5 above, shall be paid 85% by the applicants, and the remaining 15% shall be contributed by the City of Ukiah; excepted from these cost allocations are sidewalk improvements paid for along frontage owned by a third party. e. Federal funding for up to 90% of the cost of automatic warnings lights and crossing gates to be installed at the Commerce Drive railroad crossing is assumed to be available upon filing and processing applications to CalTrans and the Public Utilities Commission, and appropriate applications shall be filed as soon as possible. The applicants shall be responsible for all costs of procurement and installation not covered by available federal or state government funding. f. The implementation of a southbound left turn lane at the Talmage Road/South State Street intersection, involving only pavement striping and curb painting will be paid for by the City of Ukiah. ' g. The City Engineer, upon computing the cost of the various improvements specified above, and the respective contribution amount by the City and the applicants, respectively, may allocate the cost-share of the City to specific improvement or improvements. The foregoing represent mitigations of all significant impacts regarding traffic and circulation identified in the EIR, except for the impact of additional traffic in the neighboring residential area to the north of Talmage Road. The additional traffic that will be generated concerning the Wal-Mart project will not significantly contribute to the neighborhood impact, since only about 5% of the traffic is anticipated to travel to or through that neighborhood. The cumulative impact is greater, since an extension of Orchard Street to Marlene Street is presently under construction. The City Council can and should make additional findings concerning that impact. If no mitigating conditions are to be performed concerning that impact, the Council should make a Statement of Overriding Considerations, as follows: Cumulative traffic will adversely affect the residential character of the neighborhood between Gobbi Street and Talmage Road (east of Waugh Lane); increased traffic volumes will be S:\U\DOCS\WALMART.SUM 22 experienced on streets in this neighborhood, due to the Wal-Mart project and due to the extension of Orchard Street to Marlene Street, with the latter creating the greatest impact. The long-term economic benefit to the City cf Ukiah and the ability of the City of Ukiah to obtain a higher level of retail sales and higher property taxes outweighs the concerns regarding the neighborhood impact. The City of Ukiah should in the future take the necessary steps to widen and improve Waugh Lane as an arterial street from Gobbi Street to Talmage Road, and shall explore ways of reducing the ability of through traffic to travel along Betty Street and Lorraine Street. S:\U\DOCS\WALMART. SUM 23 WAL-MART PROJECT IMPACTS RE VISUAL QUALITY DEIR INFORMATION, p. 78-83 Potential Impacts The Wal-Mart site is located on Lot A1 of Redwood business Park, contained in the AIP, and in all probability will be the largest and most recognizable building in the AIP. The location will make the building highly visible from the area north of Talmage Road, from Talmage Road, and from Highway 101 south of the Talmage overcrossing. The building will be one-story and box-like, which is typical of department stores, with a facade of block and stucco, similar to other large stores in Ukiah recently constructed near the freeway. Special attention should be given to screening the building facade to minimize vis6al impacts. Potential Impacts of AIP Buildout Views from Highway 101 and Talmage road would significantly change with future buildings and parking lots replacing open space, especially when traveling on Highway 101 and from Talmage Road and southerly onto Highway 101. Existing views of vacant fields, oaks, a pear orchard, and a vineyard will be replaced by views of a collection of buildings, streets, signs, and parking lots; night-time views will also be altered with new views of lights and lighted signs. It is very important that particular attention be paid to the design of future buildings, site layout, color schemes, and future landscaping. In resolution no. 91-4 the visual impacts of specific building projects are to be addressed when site development permits are considered, and design guidelines are provided and a design master plan is required. Recommended Mitigation Measures Concerning Wal-Mart Projec~ 1. The building exterior should be designed to provide a more aesthetic appearance. 2. Perimeter landscaping should use fast-growing species, while addressing practical concerns, such as water conservation, efforts to replace non-natives with native species of varying heights and canopies. Fifteen-gallon specimens should be planted along the Talmage Road and Highway 101 frontages, to include valley oak, black oak, madrone, California bay, toyon, redbud, manzanita, big leaf maple, and coffeeberry. There should be a 10- to 20-foot landscaping buffer adjacent to the top of the west- and north-facing walls. S:\U\DOCS\WALMART.SUM 24 3. Lighting should included shielded, non-glare types of lights to minimize impacts to nighttime views; sign lighting should be kept to a minimum. A lighting plan should be reviewed by the City to insure that project lights do not affect airport operations. Recommended Mitigation Measures Concerninq AIP Cumulative Impacts Resolution 91-4, under Section C, identifies in very general terms design guidelines to be used when approving site development permits within the AIP. These include landscaping and open space, orientation and location of buildings, building exteriors and signage. That resolution specifies that a "Master Plan of appropriate plant materials, an integrated system of colors and building materials, and a program of uniform graphics for locational and informational signs shall be developed and approved prior to initial construction.,, This design master plan has not been completed. The City should require completion of the design master, plan. Ail recommended mitigations shall be monitored by the Ukiah Community Development Department. Additional Information Wal-Mart has modified its exterior building design to provide for exterior pilasters and tile installation to break up the "box-like" appearance of the building, and provide an exterior that is more aesthetically pleasing; this design is incorporated into the Site development plan presented for approval. The Wal-Mart landscaping included in the site development plan includes a "greenbelt" adjoining the freeway, landscaping at the west- and north-facing walls, landscaping along the perimeter of the site, and in the parking area. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The building design incorporated in the site development plan, including pilasters and tiles to break up the box-like appearance, shall be implemented during construction. 2. The lighting plan, incorporated in the site development plan, including shielding and non-glare units, shall be implemented during construction. 3. Exterior building signs shall include "Wal-Mart" and an identifying sign regarding the auto service area, but shall not include "we sell for less" or "satisfaction guaranteed". S:\U\DOCS\WALMART.SUM 25 4. Landscaping, as identified in the site development plan, shall be put in place to provide visual "break-up" along the west- and north-facing walls of the building, to provide a "greenbelt" along Highway 101, and to provide perimeter and parking lot landscaping; the landscaping shall include native species, with the plantings to be as approved by the Ukiah Community Development Department. The Ukiah Community Development Department shall monitor the installation of landscaping and plantings. The remaining mitigations shall be monitored by the Ukiah Department of Public Works and/or Building Department. S:\U\DOCS\WALMART.SUM 26 WAL-MART PROJECT IMPACTS RE NOISE DEIR INFORMATION, P. 84-86 Existing (ambient) noise was measured at the intersection of Talmage Road and Airport Park Boulevard to determine existing noise levels at the site. Based on these measurements and projections using traffic data generated in the EIR, future noise levels in the AIP area were modelled. A description of the methodology and modelling results is included in Appendix I of the DEIR. Noise in the area is dominated by that generated by traffic on Highway 101. Other noise sources include vehicular traffic on other local streets and periodic noise from aircraft. The existing noise levels indicate a day/night noise average of 61 decibels. This is an acceptable level for commercial and industrial development, as indicated in the City's General Plan and the City's Noise Ordinance. Assessment of airplane noise requires a detailed analysis generally conducted as part of the General Plan or preparation of an Airport Master Plan; the noise analysis did not include a long-term detailed assessment of aircraft noise. Potential Impacts of Wal-Mart Protect Based on peak hour traffic projections for the Wal-Mart store, future noise levels will be 62 dBA, or a 1 dBA increase; this increase will not 'be heard by the human ear. Typically a 3 dBA increase is required to be noticeable. It is noted that there are no adopted local or State guidelines on acceptable interior noise levels for commercial and industrial buildings, although there are regulations for motels, hotels, and residences, which are not supposed to have interior noise levels exceeding 45 dBA. The noise environment as generated by traffic is suitable for retail development without the need for any noise mitigation. Project construction will generate significant amounts of noise over a several month period. The only sensitive receptors that will be affected by this construction noise are the occupants of residences located north of Talmage Road. Cumulative Impacts of AIP Buildout Buildout of AIP will generate a future traffic noise level estimated at 65 dBA at the measured intersection (Talmage Road and Airport Park Boulevard) due to increased traffic volume. Commercial and industrial development are allowed in areas with 65 dBA without the need for noise mitigation. There are few residences in the area surrounding the AIP site. The main residential area affected will be residences immediately fronting S:\U\DOCS\WALMART.SUM 27 the site north of Talmage Road. Future construction noise will affect existing businesses located in the AIP and on other properties west of the AIP. The City could require noise attenuation construction of commercial stores on the AIP, to include wood framing with double paned or thick glass windows. Any motel or hotel constructed on the AIP will have to comply with the California Noise Insulation Standards. ~The City should include measurements of airfield noise and develop policies regarding noise and land use compatibility adjacent to the airport as part of its General Plan Revision of the Noise Element to mitigate cumulative traffic noise. Recommended Mitiqation Measures Concerninq Wal-Mart Project No mitigation is necessary concerning traffic noise. There are no specific guidelines regulating interior noise environments for commercial or indUstrial buildings as regards airplane noise, so no mitigation is required. To mitigate construction noise for the project area: 1. Construction hours shall be limited to 7:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. on weekdays and 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. on Saturdays. No construction work shall occur on Sundays or holidays. 2. Construction equipment shall be properly muffled and maintained. 3. Stationary equipment, such as generators, compressors, and concrete pumpers, shall be placed to avoid noise impacts on residential areas to the north of Talmage Road; shielding shall be used if necessary. 4. The City could consider not extending Orchard Avenue to the south, but this extension is currently under construction. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Construction hours shall be limited to 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. 2. Construction equipment shall be properly muffled and maintained. 3. Stationary equipment, such as generators, compressors, and concrete pumpers, shall be placed to avoid noise impacts on residential areas to the north of Talmage Road; shielding shall be used if necessary. S:\U\DOCS\WALMART.SUM 28 WAL-MART PROJECT IMPACTS RE PUBLIC SERVICES DEIR INFORMATION, Pp. 87-104 POLICE Potential Police Department Impacts of Wal-Mart Project Construction of the Wal-Mart store will slightly increase calls for assistance; large stores result in shoplifters, bad check writers, and other petty crimes; the City Police Department does not believe this will have any major impact on the Department. The project will generate increased traffic, with increased chance for accidents requiring emergency response; the Department has reviewed the site plan and found that it adequately addresses the issues of adequate access for emergency vehicles and surveillance. To minimize impacts, the traffic and circulations recommendations should be implemented, and night lighting should be sufficient to provide adequate security; lighting plan should be submitted to Police Department for approval. Cumulative Police Department Impact~ Building of the AIP will add to the Police Department case load. The Department reports a gradual increase in crime in the City, which mirrors the gradual increase in population. The addition of new businesses and more people can be expected to further increase the amount of crime with the resulting need to hire additional police officers. To minimize impacts, recommended traffic and circulation measures should be implemented and future plans should be submitted to Police Department to review for access and lighting. Police Department should monitor number of calls for assistance and hire additional police officers as required (not required as part of present project). When there is development in the southerly portion of AIP south of "X" street, a southern access should be provided; this could be an emergency access only. FIRE Potential Fire Department Impacts of Wal-Mart Pro~ect The same comments pertain to fire response as are listed above concerning the Ukiah Police Department; there is potentially a slight increase in calls for fire, emergency and ambulance response. The Fire Department does not believe the increase will be major or that the project will significantly affect the Department. The Fire Department has reviewed the development plans for the Wal-Mart store and determined that their requirements regarding sprinklers, access and construction have S:\U\DOCS\WALMART.SUM 29 been adequately addressed in the current development plans; the provision of automatic sprinklers in the store significantly decreases the chance of a major fire. Cumulative Fire Department Impacts The Fire Department has the same concerns as are listed above concerning the Police Department. There is adequate fireflow in the area and buildout of the industrial park will not significantly affect the Department. New businesses constructed in the AIP will increase the number of safety inspections the Department must conduct. New residential development would significantly affect increases in calls for emergency services; as population increases Fire Department staffing must increase to maintain service levels. SEWAGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAl, The project site is within the service area of the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District (UVSD), which is owned and operated by the City of Ukiah (see DEIR, pp. 92-93 for complete discussion). Anticipated advanced wastewater treatment and expansion plans will be completed by March, .1994. The UVSD has the present capacity to handle the anticipated wastewater from the Wal-Mart store. Potential Impacts of the Wal-Mart Pro~ect re Sewaqe The Wal-Mart store will generate about 7,800 gallons per day of wastewater, based on the typical standard of commercial development; the UVSD has ample unused capacity to treat and dispose of wastewater generated by the project. A major trunk collector crosses the eastern part of the AIP, which has ample capacity to transport wastewater generated on the site. The store will generate an estimated $16,500 in hookup fees payable to the District. Construction of the Wal-Mart store on a site that could currently be developed with restaurants, service stations, and motels reduces the amount of wastewater generated for that portion of the AIP. Cumulative Impacts re Sewaqe The projects being assessed in the EIR include numerous other developments within the Ukiah Valley; the existing facility has unused capacity to accommodate all of the additional wastewater from all projects currently being considered in the District. S:\U\DOCS\WALMART.SUM 30 WATER Domestic water for the site is provided by the City of Ukiah; the City water system, including its new treatment facility, has a pumping capacity of about 9 million gallons per day (mgd). The current peak summer day demand is 5.5-6.0 mgd. There is existing storage capacity of 2.6 mg with long-range plans to expand this storage. The City's water rights and permits are secure and adequate for the needs of its present and future customers at least through the year 2000. Removal of agriculture on the site some years back reduced the amount of water consumption on the site. Potential Impacts of Wal-Mart Pro~ect on Water The Wal-Mart store will generate a peak summer demand for 30,000 gpd. The City has ample capacity to meet this increased demand, which is the equivalent of about 0.43% of the current pumping capacity. There is an existing 12-inch water main i Airport Park Boulevard; this main is large enough to provide water and required fireflows to the Wal-Mart store, as well as the buildout of the remainder of the AIP PD. Cumulative Impacts on Water For all of the projects being assessed for cumulative impacts, the City can meet the peak day demand without adding pumping capacity. SCHOOLS Public education for the project area is provided by the Ukiah Unified School District. See DEIR pp. 96-99 for complete discussion. Potential Impacts of Wal-Mart Project on Schools Based on State estimates, a community shopping center generates 0.46 new households per 1000 square feet of buildings; on this basis the project would generate 60 new households in the Ukiah area. It is likely that the project will in fact generate considerably fewer new households and, consequently, students; it is unlikely the store will result in a major in-migration of new workers. The project will generate a maximum $33,800 i developer mitigation fees. Given the additional capacity that will be available once elementary schools are changed to a year-round schedule, and the fact that the District will have necessary funds to construct two new schools without relying on developer S:\U\DOCS\WALMART.SUM 31 mitigation fees, it appears there will be adequate school classroom space to house any new students generated by the project. The Wal-Mart project will not, therefore, significantly affect the School District, and no mitigations beyond paying the developer mitigation fee are required. Cumulative Impacts on Schools Considering all of the several planned projects in the area (including, by and large, housing projects), it is likely that about 3,200 new households can be expected, which would generate about 1,549 K-8 students and 619 high school students. If the two proposed schools are constructed, there would still be a need for one additional school to house elementary students generated by these projects. However, these estimates are based on "forecasting" so far in the future that clear results and impacts cannot be accurately determined. SOLID WASTE Solid waste in the Ukiah area is disposed of in the City's Municipal Landfill owned and operated by the City of Ukiah. The City, along with the County of Mendocino, and the Cities of Willits and Fort Bragg, have formed the Mendocino Solid Waste Authority (MSWA) to determine future options for solid waste disposal within the county. Preparation of an Integrated Waste Management Plan will be completed within several months. Potential Impacts of the Wal-Mart Pro~ect on Solid Waste Wal-Mart will generate considerable amounts of solid waste; there is currently adequate capacity in the landfill to safely dispose of this waste; the store-s generation of solid waste will result in the existing facility being filled to capacity slightly sooner than would otherwise be the case. To decrease the amount of solid waste generated by Wal-Mart (and other development in the AIP), all businesses, including Wal-Mart should be required to institute recycling programs. ENERGY USE The Wall-Mart site, and development in the remainder of the Airport Industrial Park, will require electric and gas supply. Electric service is provided by the City of Ukiah, and natural gas is provided by Pacific Gas and Electric Company. The underground electrical and gas infrastructure has been installed from Talmage Road, down Airport Park Boulevard, and is available to the Wal-Mart site. S:\U\DOCS\WALMART.SUM 32 Present State Building Code requirements require that all new buildings must be designed to confirm to the energy efficiency standards contained in the Code; these standards establish energy efficiency levels for the insulation values for the building envelope, lighting, heating, and ventilation. Potential Impacts of Wal-Mart Project on Enerqy Construction and operation of the Wal-Mart store will require the ongoing expenditure of energy and non-renewable resources; the store design will not include the use of solar energy or other conservation designs or devices, other than those required by the State Building Code. The City Electrical Department advises that existing electric facilities are adequate to provide service; and P. G. & E. advises that there will be gas service available for the project. Cumulative Impacts on Enerqy See the DEIR, pp. 102-103 for complete discussion. Both the City Electrical Department and P. G. & E. are confident that there are adequate electric facilities and gas service to serve the entire AIP, as well as other developments considered in the EIR. Use of energy for these purposes will require expenditure of considerable amounts of energy and the use of nonrenewable resources. New impervious surfaces on the site will result in increases in average site temperature, altering the microclimate of the site and increasing cooling requirements of surrounding buildings. Future building projects within the AIP should address efforts to preserve solar access and reduce heating and cooling costs with building orientation; design approaches are described in "Planning Solar Neighborhoods,,, developed by the California Energy Commission; examples: deciduous tree plantings to maximize shading of pavement and buildings, and inclusion of passive and active solar design elements. SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: [Traffic and circulation conditions are addressed in the traffic and circulation portion of this summary.] 1. Night lighting should be sufficient to provide adequate security; the lighting plan should be reviewed by the Police Department. The condition should be monitored by the Ukiah Police Department. S:\U\DOCS\WALMART.SUM 33 2. The building shall include a sprinkler system as required by the Fire Department; hydrant construction, building access, and building construction are subject to the requirements and approval of the Fire Department. The condition should be monitored by the Ukiah Fire Department. 3. Ail development should be required to include water conservation fixtures, such as low-flush toilets, low-flow urinals, and flow restrictors on all faucets. Sewage collectors for the.Wal-Mart Store shall be sized and constructed per UVSD requirements. The conditions should be monitored by the Ukiah Department of Public Works. 4. Ail landscaping should focus on using low water demand species; irrigation should be of a type to conserve water. (Other water conservation conditions are included in condition 3 above. ) The condition should be-monitored by the Ukiah Community Development Department. 5. A recycling program shall be put in place whereby all packing materials are recycled. In addition, although not a condition of approval, glass, aluminum and newspapers should be collected and recycled, along with clean waste paper and tin. The condition should be monitored by the Ukiah Public Works Department. 6. The energy efficiency standards contained in the California State Building Code, Title 24 of the Code of Regulations, should be enforced through the building permit process of the City. The condition should be monitored by the Ukiah Building Department. S:\U\DOCS\WALMART.SUM 34 o . WAL-MART PROJECT IMPACTS RE ECONOMICS DEIR INFORMATION, PP.105-121, 139, APPENDIX J Discussion Buildout of the AIP PD is projected to these jobs and business opportunities will result in a ~ajor expansion of the Ukiah economy. Development of the AIP will be the most significant development affecting the Ukiah economy over the next decade. Economic effects are not considered environmental impacts. A discussion of long-term economic impacts cannot be as precise as the analysis of other impacts, primarily because the economy is sensitive to influences and variables which cannot be accurately predicted. This is one of the reasons that CEQA does not require an analysis of economic impacts in an EIR. Also, changes and dislocations occurring in the economy are considered a natural process within a capitalist society. Economic changes are not defined as "environmental', impacts unless those economic impacts directly or indirectly result in physical changes in the environment, which is not the case concerning this project. The EIR makes no attempt to judge whether or not any economic impacts identified are significant. Potential Impacts of Wal-Mart Store The economic consultant undertook a survey of residents and businesses within Ukiah, and found that 58% of Ukiah householders envision a Wal-Mart store as providing lower prices, and even more (82%) welcome Wal-Mart for its ability to increase the selection of goods. A separate survey of Ukiah businesses showed that the business community has a relatively positive opinion of the possible impact of Wal-Mart. It was estimated that Wal-Mart would capture approximately $2.0-4.0 million of sales "leakage" from Ukiah presently going to other areas. If an equal amount of leakage is assumed for areas outside the City limits, then leakage capture for the entire Ukiah market area could reach $4.0-8.0 million per year. Wal-Mart will have sales approximating $23.5 million per year, based on the average per square foot sales. Sales to customers presently shopping outside the Ukiah area could comprise as much as 18-36% of the Wal-Mart sales~ But the majority of the sales volume will come from capture of some fraction of the normal growth of retail spending in Ukiah, capture of tourist or long-distance traveller sales, and capture of existing sales from Ukiah area businesses. Loss of business by present retailers is a short-term effect and Wal-Mart's ability to attract other new businesses will over the long term expand the local economy. 35 S:\U\DOCS\WALMART.SUM There were questions about whether the Wal-Mart and AIP would become a "regional shopping center" during the scoping sessions conducted prior to the reparation of the EIR, attracting shoppers from a large area to Ukiah. It is noted that Ukiah already is a shopping focus for a larger area; over 50% of retail sales in the City are made to people living outside Ukiah (DEIR, p. ilS). Main users of the Wal-Mart store would be shoppers from the Ukiah Valley and Willits area, but it is possible that shoppers from the north end of Clear Lake and from Fort Bragg or other coastal communities would be attracted to a Ukiah Wal-Mart (DEIR, p. 119) . Concerns have also been expressed that the Wal-Mart store would further contribute to loss of business to the "downtown core" in the older section of Ukiah. The Ukiah Downtown Revitalization Master Plan, developed for the City of Ukiah and the Ukiah Redevelopment Agency listed as an overall goal "to enhance the downtown's role as a business, professional, government, and .specialty retail center for the City. There is no present expressed goal to make downtown a "shopping center". The Wal-Mart store will increase the property value of the site by $7.5 million, which will increase property tax revenues received by the City Redevelopment Agency; future expansion of the store would correspondingly increase property tax revenues. The City receives 1% of sales tax collected, and for an expected $23.5 million in annual sales, this would generate $235,000 per year from sales tax. In addition, the City will receive several thousand dollars per year in water, sewer and electric charges, business license fees, etc. City costs for the project will be minimal; the Wal-Mart store will require very little i terms of additional public services. All on-site service extensions and improvements will be financed by Wal-Mart. The City may incur costs regarding roadway improvements (discussed in Traffic and Circulation section). Cumulative Impacts Based on an expected fifteen-year buildout of the AIP, there will be a need for an additional 2,898 homes over the next fifteen years to accommodate the workers filling these new jobs (see Population and Housing section for further discussion). The City should insure that adequate land is designated for residential development when revising its General Plan. Building of the AIP will occur whether the proposed project is approved or not, and even if the Wal-Mart site is developed with other uses, the overall employment and population projections remain relatively the same. S:\U\DOCS\WALMART.SUM 36 No additional mitigations beyond those described in other sections are recommended concerning cumulative impacts. The City should address long-term impacts resulting from AIP buildout during its General Plan revision. Su~qested Mitigations to Minimize 'Impact of Wal-Mart on Local Business 1. Form a task force to mobilize the business community to adapt to the new merchandising environment. 2. Develop strategies to modify business practices both before and after the opening of the Wal-Mart store, including but not limited to: a) Emphasize personal relationships with customers; b) Conduct cooperative market research to identify and quantify customer's unmet needs, including the use of consumer surveys, panels and focus groups; c) Develop customer lists to keep in touch with high frequency buyers and record individual buyers' special needs; d) Expand merchandise lines to include high end merchandise not stocked by Wal-Mart; e) Offer repair and other services not offered by Wal-Mart; f) Change business hours to meet customers' needs; g) Increase print media, TV and radio advertising; h) Provide staff training and re-training to improve standards of courtesy and service; i) Conduct cooperative purchasing to obtain quantity discounts; j) Organize special "weeks" and "days" to showcase local businesses. 3. Specific measures that could reinvigorate economic development of the downtown area include 1) develop senior citizen housing near the downtown; 2) encourage light manufacturing and professional offices in vacant and obsolescent sites; 3) reorganize the retail component to concentrate on specialized niche markets; and 4) encourage small businesses reliant on the Fax/modem technologies. 4. Local retailers should broaden or change the mix of products for sale so as not to compete directly with Wal-Mart. Consumer need not satisfied by a Wal-Mart include furniture, sporting goods, toys,' educational and recreational materials. 5. Other suggested mitigations are contained in other sections of the EIR. None of the above mitigations are concerned with or related to environmental impacts, and none of them relate to the Wal-Mart project. S:\U\DOCS\WALMART.SUM 37 WAL-MART PROJECT IMPACTS RE POPULATION AND HOUSING DEIR INFORMATION, pp. 122-124, 141-142 Discussion 5~he 1990 City of Ukiah population was e]..,'~>ut ].4,800 people, up from 12,035 in 1980; this equates to a 2% growth per year over that decade. The County as a whole has grown from 66,738 people in 1980 to 79,700 people in 1990, or a 1.8% growth per year. The current estimated population of Ukiah is 15,027 people; there are an estimated 5666 residences. Ukiah is experiencing, and is likely to experience in the future, a migration from urban to rural areas; cities such as Ukiah will appear increasingly attractive, particularly to those whose roots are in rural America. Relatively cheap land and home prices in the Ukiah area are likely to attract people working in the Santa Rosa area. Potential Impacts The Wal-Mart store will result in a short-term net loss of about 59 jobs in Ukiah. As a result, construction of the store, over at least the first 5 years of operation, should not result in any measurable increase in Ukiah's population or a corresponding need for additional housing. Cumulative Impacts Based on an expected 15-year building period, buildout of the AIP will result in 4,155 new jobs, but buildout will possibly displace 495 existing retailing jobs in the downtown and other locations during that period, so the total new jobs created will be 3,660. Based on the current Ukiah average of 1.27 workers per household, there will be a need for an additional 2,898 homes over the next 15 years to accommodate the workers filling these new jobs. The currently proposed residential projects assessed in the EIR for cumulative impacts will generate about 1,300 to 1,500 new homes. At least an additional 1,400 homes will be required to house workers generated by the AIP buildout. However, the currently proposed projects should provide the required housing for a number of years. Overall, buildout will generate an additional 7,810 people, which represents a 31% increase in Ukiah Valley population of about 25,000 people over fifteen years, or about a 2% annual increase from 1992 to 2006. S:\U\DOCS\WALMART.SUM 38 The City should assure that adequate land is designated for residential development when revising its General Plan; otherwise, residential development is likely to occur in unincorporated portions of the Ukiah Valley, and it would be better planning to include urban levels of residential development within the City's jurisdiction. It should be noted that this buildout will occur whether the proposed Wal-Mart project is approved or not. While the Wal-Mart site might be developed with other uses, the overall employment and population projections will remain relatively the same. The long-term impacts on public services, streets, recreation, etc. resulting from buildout of the AIP should be addressed in the General Plan Revision. It is noted that the EIR is not specifically directed to assess the impacts from AIP buildout, except as part of the cumulative impact analysis, since the AIP is an already approved Planned Development. ~itiqation Measures No additional mitigations beyond those described in other sections of the EIR are recommended. The long-term impacts resulting from AIP buildout .should be addressed by the City during its General Plan revision. S:\U\DOCS\WALMART.SUM 39 WAL-MART PROJECT IMPACTS RE LAND USE - GENERAL PLAN DEIR INFORMATION, pp. 125-131 AGRI CULTURE The entire AIP area was farmed until the late 1970s, but except for a small pear orchard and a small vineyard in the southerly portion of the AIP, vineyards and orchards were removed during the 1970s and early 1980s. Construction of the Wal-Mart store will not displace any agricultural operations, and construction of the remainder of the AIP will not result in displacement of existing agricultural operations, except for the small vineyard and orchard. The hydrology section of the EIR includes an assessment of impacts to drainage. Other than drainage impacts that are discussed in the hydrology section, development of the Wal-Mart site, or the remainder of the AIP, will not result in any significant impacts on off-site agricultural operations, except for the possible long-term growth-inducing impacts. The site contains agricultural soils, but the City's past approval of the AIP PD indicates a determination that commercial and industrial uses on this particular site were more valuable than continued agricultural uses. CONCLUSION: No 'mitigation measures are necessary for the Wal-Mart project concerning agricultural issues. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY AND COMMUNITY IMPACTS The goals and policies of the existing, adopted General Plan tend to be relatively general in nature and provide little specific guidance regarding development within the City. The project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the site, and this designation was applied to determine consistency with other Plan goals and policies. Previous approvals of shopping centers along Highway 101 have already effectively diminished the chance for the "downtown core" of businesses being the town's business center. Development of commercial uses, as well as industrial land uses, in the AIP will result in new business and employment opportunities for local residents. Increased business and employment opportunities will draw new residents to the area, reinforcing a general pattern of growth in the Ukiah Valley area; addition of new people to the area will generate the need for new housing and increase the demand for public services. In general, the Ukiah Valley will grow and become a busier, more urban area. S: \U\DOCS\WALMART.SUM 40 To minimize potential inconsistencies with General Plan goals and policies, the recommendations set forth in the Visual Quality Section should be implemented; no additional mitigations beyond those described in other sections are suggested. S:\U\DOCS\WALMART.SUM 41 WAL-MART PROJECT IMPACTS RE LAND USE - AIRPORT DEIR INFORMATION, PP. 18, 21, 125-131; P & D AVIATION REPORT DATED JULY 1, 1992, SUBMITTED WITH STAFF REPORT Discussion The Wal-Mart site is east of the' runway of the Ukiah Municipal Airport. The State Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics (CalTrans), in a letter dated September 9, 1991, indicated that the site was "within an area where departing and landing aircraft are performing critical maneuvers at low altitudes", so that the EIR discussion concluded that "construction of the store at the proposed location would result in placing a large number of people in a hazardous situation", in that if a plane were to crash into the store it c~uld result in a large number of casualties. In an additional letter dated February 19, 1992, CalTrans stated that two alternative site locations should 'be considered instead of the present Wal-Mart site, those being the Montgomery Ward shopping center, and an area in AIP south of Commerce Drive. Letters from Rudolph Light concurred with the CalTrans evaluation. Because of this information, the EIR concluded that "the Wal-Mart store will be located in an area that the State Division of Aeronautics has defined as a hazardous zone; if the project were approved, large numbers of people will be placed in a position of hazard. The EIR concluded that this was a significant adverse environmental impact that could not be mitigated, stating (at DEIR page 140) that "the one identified significant impact [concerning the Wal-Mart Store] is the construction of the store within a critical portion of the flight pattern for the Ukiah Municipal Airport . . ." and stating that, if the City decided to approve the project despite this impact, the City "will be required to issue a Statement of Overriding Considerations" that explains why the Wal-Mart Store is being approved despite this unavoidable adverse significant impact. Letters from pilots actually using the airport included in the FEIR indicate that the site is not an area in which overflights occur. (All of the letters above referred to are included in the FEIR, at pages 15, 102, 129, 132, 133, and 136.) A report prepared at the request of Wal-Mart by P & D Aviation was presented to City Staff on or about July 1, 1992, which is a detailed study of airport use and flight patterns, and identifies the actual traffic pattern of planes using the airport. This study conclusively demonstrates that the present Wal-Mart site is not within the 'flight pattern of planes landing at and departing from the Ukiah Municipal Airport. CalTrans was asked to review the report and their position previously taken, and it has S:\U\DOCS\WALMART.SUM 42 provided a recent response dated July 29, 1992 that reflects reconsideration of their position; it has been determined by CalTrans that there are no significant noise or safety concerns regarding the Wal-Mart site and its proximity to the Ukiah Municipal Airport. Its response concludes: "The Department no longer objects to the Wal-Mart development as presentcd." There is currently no Airport Ma'ster Plan or Airport Land Use Plan for the Ukiah Municipal Airport. (See separate Findings Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21670, incorporated herein by reference.) Under the existing City Ordinance recently adopted, which conforms to FAA regulations, building elevations will be limited to heights at the Wal-Mart site not to exceed 50 feet; the Wal-Mart store is well within that height. Areas of the AIP adjacent to the railroad tracks are limited to a lesser building height of 30-40 feet. The entire area of the AIP PD is outside of the clear zone of the airport's runway, and the P & D Aviation report reflects that it is not within the airport traffic pattern (or the "buffer zone", an area in which overflights might occur, west of the airport). Potential Impacts of the Wal-Mart Project on the Airport Because of the information received after preparation of the EIR, the potential impacts identified have been modified (corrected) to those involving building height limitations. The discussion regarding location of the project site within the traffic pattern zone is no longer supported by the evidence, and the potential impacts are modified or eliminated. SUGGESTED CONDITION OF APPROVAL: 1. The building height of improvements on the Wal-Mart site shall be confined to a height less than fifty feet. S:\U\DOCS\WALMART.SUM 43 o . WAL-MART PROJECT - PROJECT ALTERNATIVES DEIR INFORMATION, pp. 143-148 Discussion CEQA requires that an EIR assess a "no project" alternative, as well as a reasonable range of alt'ernatives to the project or to the location of the project, concentrating on alternatives which eliminate or reduce the significant adverse impacts identified for the project as proposed. The EIR assesses five alternatives, which include 1) no project; 2) alternatives sites; 3) an alternative site for the Wal-Mart on the AIP PD property; 4) reduced store size for Wal-Mart; and 5) alternative land use mix for the AIP PD. Alternatives 1) and 5) apply to the AIP PD amendment; alternatives 1) through 4) apply to the proposed Wal-Mart project. No Project If the proposed amendment to the AIP PD is denied, the Wal-Mart store site development permit could not be approved. From a more general perspective, if Wal-Mart did not build a store on the site, the site would remain a vacant field for the present. However, the site would remain available for future development for a motel, restaurant, and/or service station under the present highway-oriented commercial use designation. Fifteen acres of highway commercial development would have similar impacts to those for the Wal-Mart store (DEIR, p. 147). The major difference would be that estimated traffic would be reduced from 9,260 daily trips to 6,700 daily trips. In other sections, the EIR has compared the different level of impacts that would occur from buildout of the AIP under the existing permitted principal uses (commercial retail is a conditional use Dow) and under the proposed amendment to the planned development to allow commercial retail uses on the Wal-Mart site. Differences in impact are minor or insignificant, except possibly regarding economic impacts. The park cannot be relocated or reduced in size, or have existing allowed uses changed. Alternative Locations Six possible alternative locations for a Wal-Mart store were identified. Five of the sites were eliminated because of size, location, or inability to significantly diminish significant impacts. The sites considered and eliminated are: S:\U\DOCS\WALMART.SUM 44 1) A 0.5 acre site at the southeast corner of Perkins and South State Street (the' site of the old Rexall Drug Store); the site is far too small for a project like the Wal-Mart store; 2) A site of ebout 4 acres located at the south end of Porzio Lane; this site has a narrow~ unsafe access, no secondary access, and it is too small; 3) An ll-acre site across Ford Road from the Raley's Store; this site is large enough for a scaled-down retail store; however, traffic from this site would use North State Street and Highway 101 in an area where intersections are already overcrowded during the afternoon peak hour; congestion is expected to become worse if the Lovers Lane project to the north is approved by the County; 4) A 6-acre site immediately north of Mervyn's between Orchard Street and Highway 101; the site is too small; traffic would affect already congested streets due to the proximity to Mervyn's Penney's, and the adjacent shopping center; 5) An approximate 10-acre site that is the old train yard between the railroad and Leslie Street, south of Perkins Street; the site is not large enough and oddly shaped; traffic would use Perkins, which is already severely congested during the afternoon peak hour. Environmental concerns exist for all of the suggested alternative sites which are similar to those expressed concerning the proposed project site, and the site would still be available for "highway oriented,, commercial activities if the project was relocated (DEIR, p. 147). The remaining alternative site considered, in addition to the five listed and rejected as above, is a 15-acre site on South State Street between Jefferson Street and Fircrest Drive. This site contains a Montgomery Ward distribution outlet, a Thrifty,s Store, the Bi-Lo Market, and vacant retail space. The site is large enough for the Wal-Mart store, plus it has other positive attributes described below. The EIR determined that this site was the most feasible alternative site, and it is assessed in the EIR as the "alternative location" for the Wal-Mart store. To develop a Wal-mart store on this location, existing businesses would have to be removed (and possibly relocated). Existing stores would be demolished, and a new Wal-Mart constructed on the site. Further analysis is contained in the DEIR, pp. 144-148. S:\U\DOCS\WALMART.SUM 45 Ad__~ditional Information Com iled b Plannin Staff re Alternate Sit____ge The present businesses located on the Montgomery Ward site do not intend to abandon or relocate their present business operations. Montgomery Ward has occupied the site since 1967, when it entered into a 60-year lease with options to renew for additional terms; the contact person at Montgomery Ward indicated it has no intention or desire to vacate, and intend to continue the present business operation. The Bi-Low Market has a lease through the year 2002, and intends to continue the grocery business at the site. Thrifty Drug is maintaining its location in the shopping center, although the facility located in another shopping center will cease being a Thrifty and will have another identity; the preset Thrifty lease extends to 1999. The only vacant portion of the property at the southwest corner is not sufficient to accommodate any large retail enterprise. Access to the Montgomery Ward site from the freeway would be by way of Talmage Road to South State Street or by the Boonville Road freeway exit to South state Street. All of the recommended improvements to Talmage Road would still be necessary. South State Street is a two-lane roadway from Beacon Lane to the freeway on-ramp at Boonville Road. Extreme traffic congestion on South State Street would result if this site were used for the Wal-Mart store, even if the property use could be obtained, and the impacts concerning Talmage Road traffic would be largely identical. As identified in the P & D Aviation report, the site is also within the "buffer zone" (the area in which overflights might occur) of the Ukiah Municipal Airport, and therefore a less desireable site for the development than the proposed site within the AIP. · The EIR stated that the property owner of the Montgomery Ward center would be willing to sell it. However, the owner would only have the ability to sell the property subject to the existing leasehold interests, and none of those lessees indicate any willingness to give up their leases. Wal-Mart has no eminent domain powers which would allow a taking concerning those leasehold interests. The continuing uses of the property, and the potential time involved before the site would be available, leaving all other considerations aside, make the site unfeasible as an alternative site. In addition, it appears many of the same environmental concerns exist concerning traffic and other issues, which may not be mitigatable. A further reason why the Montgomery Ward site is not feasible is the fact that it lies outside the Ukiah City Limits, and outside the jurisdiction of the City; County approvals would be necessary concerning the site which the City could not 46 S:\U\DOCS\WALMART.SUM control. Street improvements which will be made as conditions of the project as proposed on the present site would not occur, and the City would likely have to bear the cost of these to accommodate the traffic generated. In addition, the revenues from the project would flow to the County, and not to the City, if this alternative site were used.. Alternate Site Within the AIP As an additional alternative the EIR discusses moving the Wal-Mart store to a location south of Commerce Drive in the AIP. The principal reason for this suggestion in the EIR was to move the store from a location within the flight pattern zone of the airport. As more fully discussed in the Airport section of this analysis, it has been determined that the store is not within the flight pattern zone of the airport. As stated in the EIR, all other identified environmental impacts would remain essentially the same, and thus moving the project to a more southerly site would have no advantage and would not be environmentally superior. Alternate "Land Use Mix" Within AIP PD The EIR contains a discussion regarding redesignating the Wal-Mart site, along with the rest of the AIP north of Commerce Drive, for office, industrial, and light commercial uses. This is not an alternative available for the responsible agency, here the City Council. There is already an approved Planned Development for the AIP which specifies that this area is to'be utilized for "commercial" uses, with the principal approved use to be "highway oriented commercial,, and a conditional use to include retail stores. There is no ability for the City Council to convert this site to industrial zoning, or any other use not already allowed and adopted. Commercial uses in the portion of the AIP south of Commerce Drive remains conditional. The record contains no reliable evidence that the Wal-Mart store will cause the balance of the AIP to shift from an emphasis on light industrial uses to general retail commercial uses. The EIR also suggests that a portion of the AIP should be utilized for residential uses; this notion appears to be totally unacceptable and not environmentally sound because of the proximity to the Ukiah Municipal Airport, both for potential safety reasons and for unacceptable noise levels due to airport noise and traffic noise. Conclusion It appears that no other site within the Ukiah City Limits is available or environmentally superior to the project site for the Wal-Mart store. It is likewise clear that for many reasons the 47 S:\U\DOCS\WALMART. SUM Montgomery Ward site is not a feasible alternative site for the Wal-Mart store, among them the following: the site is not now available to the applicant, and will not be available for any other development until a period exceeding the year 2027, due to existing leasehold interests of tenants on the property; approving the Wal-Mart store on the.site would create similar and probably greater traffic congestion problems; and the site is outside the Ukiah City Limits and outside the jurisdiction of the City of Ukiah. S:\U\DOCS\WALMART.SUM 48 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 RESOLUTION NO. 93-20 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ESTABLISHING MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT AND WAL-MART STORE SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ukiah conducted a public hearing regarding the Airport Industrial Park Planned Development Amendment (Application No. 90-77) and Wal-Mart Stores Site Development Permit (Application No. 90-87), and on August 14, 1992, adopted an ordinance and resolution approving both projects; and WHEREAS, the City Council certified the EIR prepared for these projects and adopted, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, a resolution making the required findings; and WHEREAS, CEQA requires a mitigation monitoring program be adopted for each project which includes mitigation measures in its approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Ukiah hereby establishes the mitigation monitoring program for the Airport Industrial Park Planned Development Amendment (Application No. 90-77) and Wal~art Stores Site Development Permit (Application No. 90-87) as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of August , 1992, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Malone, McMichael, Wattenbunger, and Mayor Schneiter Shoemaker, NOES: None ABSENT: None. ATTESt:: EXHIBIT MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT AND WAL-MART STORE SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT A To facilitate and enforce ~he conditions of approval constituting mitigations of these projects to eliminate or reduce environmental impacts to an insignificant level, the following constitutes this mitigation reporting and monitoring program: 1. Signalization. The city Engineer shall review and approve all engineering drawings for the signalization at Talmage Road and Airport Park Boulevard, and inspect all field work required for installation; final inspection and approval by the city Engineer of the installation and operation of the signals shall be accomplished prior to occupancy of the Wal-Mart store by employees or patrons; following installation, the signals shall be maintainedby the city of Ukiah. 2a. Widening of Talmaqe Road. The city Engineer shall review and approve all engineering drawings required for this improvement and inspect all subsequent work performed; final inspection, approval and completion for public use shall be accomplished prior to occupancy of the Wal-Mart store. 2b. Talmage Road Exit Ramp Realignment. The City Engineer shall ascertain that all necessary applications and plans have been submitted to CalTrans within three months of the effective date of the Site Development Permit. Thereafter, the city Engineer shall monitor the CalTrans permit approval process, and shall assure that the realignment project is completed within six (6) months of the appropriate CalTrans approvals. Failure to comply with the prescribed application procedures shall result in the Building Official withholding issuance of the Final Building Permit until such time as the applications and plans are submitted to CalTrans. Further, the City Engineer shall monitor the newly Created access ramp to the Talmage Road "T" intersection, and shall require the installation of a traffic signal as soon as signal warrant criteria are exceeded. 3. Hastinqs Road - Airport Road Construction. The City Engineer shall review and approve all engineering and Plans required for this improvement and inspect all subsequent field work required for completion. Final inspection, approval, and completion for public use shall be accomplished prior to occupancy of the Wal-Mart store. 4. Railroad Crossinq Gates. The City Engineer shall ascertain that all necessary applications have been submitted to CalTrans and the Public Utilities Commission prior to occupancy of the Wal-Mart store. Thereafter the City Engineer shall monitor the application and approval and shall assure that the process is completed within one year following issuance of the building permit for the Wal-Mart store, and shall further assure that the crossing gates are installed no later than eighteen (18) months following occupancy of the Wal-Mart building, or at such time as all required permits and approvals are issued, whichever occurs last. To assure compliance with this condition, building square footage in the Airport Industrial Park shall not exceed 250,000 square feet of commercial office space or 500,000 square feet of industrial space, or a combined total of 325,000 square feeT of buildings before installation of the crossing gates; permits which exceed the aforementioned totals shall not be issued until such time as the crossing gates are installed. 5. Specified Improvements. The specified improvements in Paragraphs 1-4 shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City standards and the requirements of the City Engineer, which may include but shall not be limited to sufficient bonds and insurance to protect the City's interests, procurement of all required permits, including encroachment permits for work within the public right of way, and compliance with all applicable laws. Allocations may be made as between the specified improvements by the City Engineer so as to provide the same total cost contribution by the city and the applicants if such allocations are considered appropriate by the City Engineer. 6. Revised site Plan. The revised site plan'submitted by Wal- Mart to the City of Ukiah on February 19, 1992, which mitigates internal traffic circulation impacts, shall constitute the official plan to be implemented. The Director of Community Development shall review all building and site plans as part of the building permit process to ascertain that plans submitted are pursuant to and in conformance, with said site plan. Thereafter the City building Division shall assure that actual site development and construction are consistent with approved plans. Final sign-off on the building permit shall be done only after it has been determined by the City Building Division and the City Engineer that all aspects of~ the approved plans, internal circulation mitigation requirements, and off-site improvement requirements have been completed as specified in the project approval. 7. Revised Buildinq Exterior. The Director of Community Development shall ensure that the Redevelopment Agency Architect reviews and approves revisions to the Wal-Mart building design such that the structure provides a more aesthetic appearance and does not appear box-like. Further, the Community Development Director, in concert with the Building official, shall not issue a Building Permit until the revised building design has been formally approved by the Redevelopment Agency Architect. Sa. Revised Landscape Plan And Native Species. The Director of Community Development shall review and issue the final landscaping plan which shall reflect the revised Landscape Plan submitted to the City of Ukiah on 2/19/92 including fast growing native plant species like valley oak, black oak, madrone, California bay, toy°n, redbud, manzanita, big leaf maple, and coffeeberry (Condition # 23). The plan shall place landscape berms along the street frontage of Airport Park Blvd., place trees, shrubs, and groundcover around the entire site perimeter, place landscaping along and adjacent to the structure's north- and west facing walls, and place numerous large evergreen trees along the east facing boundary adjacent to Highway 101, among other landscape refinements. 8b. Revised Landscape Plan and Parking Lot Shade Trees. The Director of Community Development shall review and approve the revised Landscape Plan which shall provide a ratio of one (1) shade tree per four (4) parking spaces, using fifteen (15) gallon trees as the minimum size. Further, the revised Landscape Plan shall include planter islands which are designed to protect the trees from being damaged by vehicles using the parking lot. A Building Permit shall not be issued until the revised Landscape Plan reflects these minimum standards. Once the Plan is approved by the Community Development Director, the Building official shall inspect the parking.lot during construction and shall ensure that the above cited shade tree and planter island criteria are met. The Building official shall not sign the Final Building Permit until such time as compliance is achieved. 9. signaqe. The Director of Community Development shall ensure that the plans approved for the structure's building permit do not include signs which advertise the store, other than'the name "Wal- Mart" at the west facing entryway and "Auto Center" (e.g., "Satisfaction Guaranteed", and "We Sell for Less") . The Building Official shall not issue the building permit until the Director of Community Development has approved the placement of signs on the plans. The Building Official shall ensure that the building conforms to the sign requirements on the plans. The Director of Community Development shall ensure that no signs are added that conflict with Condition 9. 10. Lightinq Plan. The Director of Community Development and City Manager shall approve prior to building permit issuance a lighting plan which includes shielded, non-glare types of lights and minimal sign lighting in order not to affect night views and airport operations. The plan shall ~lso take landscaping into consideration such that the lights do not diminish the aesthetic quality of the landscaping element. The building permit shall not be issued unless such a plan is approved. ll. Building Heiqht. The Director of Community Development shall verify the building height will not exceed either the FAA's 7:1 plane guidelines or. the AIR PD's limit of 50 feet, whichever is less, with review of the building permit and the permit shall not be issued unless it meets this standard. 12. Grading. The Building Official shall ensure all grading is performed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code Chapter 70, and inspect the work for compliance. 13. Erosion Control Plan. The Director of Community Development and the City Engineer shall review and approve the on-site erosion control program for activities during the construction phase, to ensure that staked straw bales are placed at inlet locations such that sedimentation is contained on-site. The program shall be approved prior to issuance of building permit, and the City Engineer shall conduct inspections to ensure compliance. 14. Dissipation Structures. The City Engineer shall review and approve plans, conduct on-site inspection, and complete final · acceptance of applicant's installation of dissipation structures at adjacent freeway ditCh storm drain and conduit outlets (e.g., concrete outfall aprons, or riprap revetments) to prevent channel bank and bed scour. Construction to be complete prior to occupancy of Wal-Mart store. 15. sprinkled Construction Site. The Building Official shall ensure the site is sprinkled with water twice a day during grading and construction, or as wind conditions warrant, to avoid dust impacts to passersby and nearby residents. 16. Soil Covered. The Building official 'shall ensure the applicant has all stockpiles of wind blown material (sand, topsoil, etc.) covered when not being used. Daily inspections shall be made. ~7. Covered Trucks. The City Engineer shall ensure trucks hauling debris, soil, sand, or other wind blown materials are covered. Daily inspections shall be made. ~8. Replantinqs. The Director of Community Development and the city Engineer shall inspect and approve replantings and repaving of site surfaces as soon as possible. All such surfaces shall be completed prior to occupancy of the Wal-Mart store. ~9. Public Transit. The Director of Community Development shall ensure that the applicant and the City submit a formal request to the Mendocino Transit Authority (MTA), no later than 30 days after city Council approval of the Site Development Permit, which recommends that MTA extend public transit to the site. Further, within 90 days of the cited approval, the Director of Community Development shall ensure that the City'Council is apprised of MTA's official response to the transit extension request. 20. Bike Lanes. The city Engineer shall approve plans'prepared by the applicant to extend a 'bike lane to the site from the Hastings Road/State Street intersection. Following completion of widening and improvement of Talmage Road westerly from the site to State Street, bike lanes shall be provided along Talmage Road..Sidewalks shall be put in plaCe along the northerly side of Hastings Road- Airport Road access to Commerce boulevard to provide pedestrian access in conjunction with roadway improvements. Where possible, and roadway and rights of way allow, trees should be planted along sidewalks to provide a shaded walkway, said improvements shall be completed by the time of occupancy of the Wal-Mart store. The city Engineer shall inspect these improvements and notify the Building official when they are satisfactorily completed. The Building official shall not approve the building for occupancy until so notified. 21. Carpoolinq. The Director of Community Development shall ascertain that Wal-Mart develops a carpooling program within a reasonable period of time after the store becomes operational. 22. Street Restriping... The City Engineer shall include in the budget for 1993-94 a capital improvement project to redstripe relevant portions of South State Street, just north and south of Talmage Road, and providing a left turn pocket on southbound South State Street at Talmage Road. Restriping shall occur by December 1993. 23. Native Plants. See Paragraph No. 8. 24. Hours of Construction. The Director of Community Development and Police Department shall ensure construction is limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The Director of Community Development may initiate revocation proceedings' on the Site Development Permit for persistent violations. 25.-26. Noise. The Police Department shall ensure Construction equipment shall be properly muffled and maintained, and stationary equipment like generators, compressors, and concrete pumpers are placed or shielded so as to avoid excessive noise to nearby residents. Periodic inspection shall be made. 27. Recycling. The Director of Public Works shall approve the Wal-Mart plan to institute a recycling program and monitor the program to ensure it complies with Condition No. 27. All packing materials shall be recycled, and containers shall be placed on-site for the collection of glass, aluminum, newspaper, clean waste paper, and tin produced on-site. The program shall be instituted with the occupancy of the Wal-Mart store. Further, Wal-Mart shall keep the Director of Community Development informed of the development of the "Green Store" program and shall consider Ukiah as a possible pilot store for the program if it is adopted. 28. Archaeological Resources. If archaeological or historic resources are uncovered during site grading and preparation, work will be halted in the area of the find until the remains can be assessed by a professional archaeologist. Director of Community Development shall ensure that an adequate plan is developed to protect or preserve said resources based on the recommendations of the professional archaeologist. ~ 29. Traffic Diversions. The City Engineer shall monitor and periodically quantify new traffic traveling through the neighborhood north of the Wal-Mart site by immediately installing and periodically evaluating traffic counters at entrance points to this neighborhood. Thereafter, if the City Engineer determines that traffic passing through the neighborhood has crated significant safety issues or substantially altered its quiet character, the City Engineer shall cause traffic diversion measures to be installed by the City in an efficient, expedient, and aesthetic manner on Lorraine, Marlene, and Betty Streets. The City Engineer shall also be responsible for ensuring that all necessary roadway improvements to Betty Street at Talmage Road, and to Talmage Frontage Road at Betty Street are implemented during the widening of Talmage Road. - After a period of twelve (12) months following the installation of 8 the traffic diversiOn measures, the City Engineer shall review the traffic loads on the residential neighborhood north of Wal-Mart to determine whether these measures have effectively preserved the quiet residential character of the neighborhood without imposing an undue burden on its residents If the city Engineer determines · that these measures are not a practical solution to the traffic impacts on the neighborhood, the City Engineer shall, pursuant to Ukiah City Code Section 9543, prepare for City Council consideration a resolution establishing an off-site capital improvement fee for the Airport Industrial Park to: fund the costs of improving Waugh Lane to act as a collector street; and/or fund the costs of providing curbs, gutters, and sidewalks on Betty and Lorraine Street. The Wal-Mart site shall be included within the area subject to the fee, and the Community Development Director shall ensure that an agreement is signed by Wal-Mart, as a condition of the Site Development Permit approval, which guarantees their eventual and proportional participation. The Building Official shall not issue a Building Permit until such an agreement is signed by Wal-Mart and recorded by the City. 30. Fire Sprinklers. The Fire Marshal shall review and approve plans for a sprinkler system; hydrant construct, building access, and building construction. All plans shall be approved prior to issuance of the building permit and installation shall occur prior to occupancy of the Wal-Mart store. 31.-32. Water Savings. The Director of Public Works shall ensure all development includes water conservation fixtures, such as low- flush toilets, low-flow urinals, and flow restricters on all faucets. Sewage collectors for the Wal-Mart store shall be sized and constructed per Ukiah Valley Sanitation District requirements. Plans shall be approved prior to issuance of the building permit and inspection made by the Ukiah Department of Public Works. 33. Energy Efficiency. The Building Official shall ensure the energy efficiency standards contained in the California State Building Code, Title 24 of the Code of Regulations, are enforced. The building permit shall comply with these regulations. 34. Cumulative Air Quality Assessment. The City shall notify the consultant for the growth management/general plan as soon as possible to provide an estimate of the costs necessary to conduct the necessary air quality studies to assess the air quality impacts on existing conditions in the Ukiah Valley of the future growth contemplated by the plan. The City and consultant shalI refine the scope of the study based on the funds available and the data reasonably available from the MCAPCD and other sources. If necessary to fund the study, the City Council shall seek grants or contributions from appropriate sources and/or adopt development fees. The consultant shall retain the necessary experts and present the report in ~ufficient time to cause no delay to the current schedule for adopting the growth management/general plan revisions. 35. Business Seminars. The Community Development Director shall ensure that Wal-Mart conduct at least two (2) seminars for local businesses describing its business practices, marketing techniques, and other matters of interest. Further, the Community Development Director shall ensure that these seminars are sufficiently noticed within the Ukiah business community, and that they are conducted prior to issuance of Wal-Mart's Final Building Per~it. 36. Shuttle Service. The Community Development Director shall organize and conduct all. necessary meetings between Wal-Mart, Mendocino Transit Authority,. the city, and other merchants to explore the feasibility of operating a ~itney or shuttle service from established retail shopping areas to Wal-Mart. The dialogue on this subject between the cited parties shall commence as soon as 10 practicable, but no later than issuance of a Final Building Permit. 37. The attached checkliSt shall be completed by the City Engineer to identify required on-site and off-site mitigation measures, monitoring responsibility regarding these matters, ~monitoring schedules, plan check requirements, and implementation verification, and shall become a permanent part of the file concerning the project, available for public review and inspection. 2: PLAN\MITIG REV8/27/92 MU 11 euo- 0r'' ~ 0 ~ ' --:~ z~ ~E= Oo o ~ ~ Om ~ ~ -H ~ -H ~ -H ~ -~ .-,~ -H ~ -~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o 0 ~ 0 -~ ~ ~ ,, , David J. Rapport Lester J. Marston Scott Johnson Law Offices Of RAPPORT AND MARSTON An Association of Sole Practitioners 200 W. Henry Street P.O. Box 488 Ukiah, California 95482 (707) 462-6846 FAX 462-4235 MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and Council ~e~~ FROM: David Rapport, City Attorney~ DATE: May 6, 1997 SUBJECT: Response to submissions by Redwood Business Park re: AIP Capital Improvement Fee, Agenda item 8c Kenneth B. Finney, representing Redwood Business Park ("RBP"), submitted a letter dated May 1, 1997, together with a Memorandum to Gary Akerstrom from Gary K. Black of Barton-Aschman, traffic consultants, an excerpt from the Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan Report, dated July 1996, a letter to Gary Akerstrom from Lee Kraemer, dated April 30, 1997, containing an opinion of property value on 1195 South State Street, and a letter dated May 1 1997, from RBP to Colleen Henderson. ' This memorandum provides a partial response to these submissions and/or identifies who will respond at the hearing to a particular issued raised by RBP. 1. Information in the record supports the estimate of $197,000 to acquire the property at 1195 South State Street. RBP argues that the estimate for acquiring this property is too high, because (1) it considers the cost of acquiring all of the property rather than only the amount needed to make the proposed intersection improvements, and (2) it doesn't reflect the market value of the property. For the following reasons, in my opinion the $197,000 figure is a reasonable estimate of acquisition cost, despite RBP's arguments and the appraisal by Lee Kraemer. a. It was reasonable to consider the cost of acquiring the whole property. s:\u\memos97\rbp.rpl May 7, 1997 Memorandum to Council Subject: Reply to Redwood Business Park May 6, 1997 Page 2 According to Rick Kennedy, if only the 16' X 257' easement ("Easement") is acquired, the existing house must be demolished, because practically it cannot be moved to another location on the property. If the house is demolished, under the proposed A* zoning overlay for the property, no new residential or commercial structure can be built on the property. (See attached chart from Mendocino County Airport Land Use Plan, included as Exhibit A.) Lee Kraemer estimates that the residual parcel (the amount remaining after taking the Easement) will have a $20,000 to $30,000 market value, if the house is demolished. However, it is highly speculative whether the City could find a buyer for the property given the proposed limitations on its use. The speculative nature of the residual value of the property could result in a court disregarding that value in computing severance damages, if the City condemned only the Easement. The City is required to pay not only for the amount of land taken but also for severance damages to any property remaining ("the residual parcel"), resulting from both the take and the project. (See Civil Code §1263 420 copy attached as Exhibit B.) ' ' For these reasons, it is prudent to include the value of the whole property in determining acquisition cost. If the City is able to reduce acquisition cost because of the value of the residual parcel, that savings to the Project will either off-set other actual project costs that exceed estimates or be returned to the property owners under Government Code §66001. b. The engineering report doesn't overstate the cost of acquiring the whole property. Lee Kraemer recognizes that the current owner purchased the property 9 months ago for $145,000. He purchased the property with full knowledge of the Airport Land Use Plan and the proposed A* zoning. (See attached correspondence from planning department included as Exhibit C.) Kraemer justifies this purchase price by saying that the purchaser could have believed that he would receive income from the property by renting the housing over a 10 year period. (Kraemer letter, p. 2.) Based on his assumption that the house will probably be demolished in much less than five years (because of taking the Easement), Kraemer concludes that the property is actually worth between $85 000 and $90 000 (Kraemer letter, p. 3.) ' ' · This reduction is not justified for two reasons: (1) The owner knew about the project before he purchased the property (statement of Candace Horsley); and (2) in appraising the property s:\u\memos97\rbp.rpl May 7, 1997 Memorandum to Council Subject: Reply to Redwood Business Park May 6, 1997 Page 3 the City cannot rely upon a reduction in market value resulting from the project for which the property is being taken. (Civil Code §1263.330, copy attached as Exhibit D; People v. Arthofer (1966) 245 Cal. App. 2d 454, 54 Cal. Rptr. 878, 885.) Given the preliminary nature of these project cost estimates, it is reasonable to assume that the City will have to pay, at least, what the owner paid only 9 months ago. Moreover, Lee Kraemer'failed to consider compensation to the owner for improvements he has made to the property. According to Rick Kennedy, the owner has constructed a pole barn-like structure on the property and has made improvements to the shop building and the house. These improvements could easily add $5 000 to the value of the property. ' In addition, the acquisition cost estimate must include relocation costs, which the City will be required to pay. (See attached memo to Rick Kennedy re: relocation benefits included as Exhibit E.) Since both a residential and business use is currently being made of the property, it is possible that the City could be required to pay as much as $30,000 in relocation benefits.1 If a 10% contingency is added to these costs, they total $198,000, which is approximately what the engineering report estimates for acquisition cost. In my opinion, this estimate is reasonable. 2. The City has not artificially or unfairly segmented off-site improvements required for the AIP. i For the residential use, the City could be required to pay $2,000 or more in actual moving expenses, $1,000 or more in personal property losses resulting from the move, and $1,000 to compensate the tenant for finding replacement housing. In addition, the City would be required to pay $5250 to compensate the tenant for housing costs and utilities at a new location. The business owner could claim up to $20 000 under Government Code §7262(b). ' s:\u\memos97\rbp.rpl May 7, 1997 Memorandum to Council Subject: Reply to Redwood Business Park May 6, 1997 Page 4 RBP claims that only the RBP has been required to pay for previous off-site improvements~ which benefit the entire AIP, including properties south of RBP. For this reason, it argues that the current proposed fees should be equitably adjusted so that all properties bear an equal liability for all of the off-site improvements. This characterization of past improvements is incomplete and is not relevant to the current fees. In fact, the previous off-site improvements were required as conditions of approval for the Site Development Permit for the Wal- Mart Store. (See recitals to Project Agreement, attached as Exhibit F.) Previously, in the conditions of approval for Phase I of the final subdivision map for the RBP, each parcel within the RBP was required to contribute 50% toward the cost of constructing the signals at Talmage and Airport Park Blvd, or $1700 per lot. (Id.) These conditions and the RBP's contribution toward their cost were also the subject of a negotiated agreement between the City and RBP under which the City paid 50% of the cost of installing traffic signals at Talmage and Airport Park Blvd., 15% of the Hastings/Airport Road project and 50% of the Talmage Road widening project. According to Rick Kennedy, the total City contribution to these improvements exceeded $180,000. (See also Exhibit F.) These conditions of approval were specifically found to mitigate the impacts of the Wal-Mart Store, not the build-out of the AIP. See excerpt from EIR findings for Wal-Mart EIR, finding No. 13, attached as Exhibit G. See also letter to Akerstrom from City Engineer, Bill Beard, allocating costs for a number of off- site improvements, some split between RBP and City and some attributed to whole AIP. Attached as Exhibit H. RBP never challenged these conditions of approval or the agreement as not fairly apportioning the cost of these improvements to the RBP. In my opinion, these final unchallenged conditions of approval and the Project Agreement finally resolve any issues concerning RBP's contribution to these off-site improvements. An equitable adjustment of the type advocated by RBP is simply an effort to get back some of the money the RBP already agreed to pay for these improvements. ~ Signalization of Talmage and Airport Park Blvd., Talmage south-bound off-ramp, Talmage Road widening and improvement of Airport Road and Hastings. s:\u\memos97\rbp.rpl May 7, 1997 Memorandum to Council Subject: Reply to Redwood Business Park May 6, 1997 Page 5 In my opinion, the current capital improvement fees should be equitably apportioned without reference to the prior off-site capital improvements. 3. The City's method of allocating costs to individual parcels is not flawed. RBP contends that the City was required to use actual building footprint rather than developable acreage as the basis for allocating the cost of the off-site improvements to individual parcels based on traffic impacts. Rick Kennedy will explain that the City used actual building footprints to estimate the traffic impact of individual projects, when those footprints were known, as in the case of Friedman Brothers, Staples, Lazy Boy and the Brewery. Where no specific project is currently proposed for a parcel, the City used the same building coverage assumptions that were used in the Subsequent EIR. RBP has never questioned the coverage assumptions in the final subsequent EIR, because those coverages were proposed by RBP. Under the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code §66000 et seq.), the City is required to establish a reasonable relationship between "the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.,, (Government Code §66001(b) .) This requirement has been interpreted as embodying the "rough proportionality,, standard established in the Dolan v. City of Tiqard (1994) 512 U.S. , 114 S. Ct. 2309 ("Dolan"). (Ehrlich v~ City of Culver (1996) 1-~Cal. 4th 854.) - Under that standard the City must engage in" . . . some sort of individualized determination that the required dedication is related both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development.,, (.Id. at 873, quoting Dolan.) No "precise mathematical calculation is required.,, (Dolan at 2322.) However, the City must nevertheless "make some effort to quantify its findings in support of the dedication,, beyond mere conclusory statements that it will mitigate or offset some anticipated burden created by the project.,, (Ehrlich at 854, quoting Dolan.) The analysis in the engineering report satisfies this standard. In establishing fees in anticipation of development, the City can, for reasons of convenience, estimate traffic impacts based on probable parcel development. These are not mere conclusory statements. The City can assume that a purchaser of a s:\u\memos97\rbp.rpl May 7, 1997 Memorandum to Council Subject: Reply to Redwood Business Park May 6, 1997 Page 6 parcel in a commercial development like the AIP will make the highest and best use of the parcel under the applicable zoning. The assumed lot coverages are reasonable in my opinion. 4. The City has made an adjustment to account for the present value of money. RBP contends that the City is required to recognize that fees paid to fund future capital improvements have a present value. Rick Kennedy will explain that since he doesn't know when any parcel will pay the fees, he accounted for the present value of money by reducing his assumed inflation in construction costs to 4% rather than using 5%. 5. 32% for administrative costs is reasonable. RBP maintains that the City has not justified 32% of construction costs as a reasonable amount to allow for project administration. It argues that this percentage is clearly excessive as applied to real property acquisition. The attached letter from Boyle Engineering explains the basis for using 32%, which was recommended to the City by Boyle Engineering, the City's consultant in preparing the engineering report. (See Exhibit I, attached.) As to property acquisition, administrative costs will depend on the steps required to acquire the real property. The City will be required to obtain an appraisal of the property from a certified appraiser. Based on recent appraisals obtained by the City for similar properties for the road project at Brush and'State Streets, $3,000 is a reasonable estimate of appraisal cost. The City will, then, attempt to negotiate a purchase price. If that is unsuccessful, the City must acquire the property through condemnation, a legal process that could consume $20,000 or more in attorney's fees, if the case requires a trial. A property owner is entitled to a jury trial on compensation in a condemnation action. In addition, the City will incur litigation expenses and expert witness fees. In addition, the City will incur substantial costs in administrating the provision of relocation benefits to the property. When the specific administration costs are added to the general costs of administration spread over all project costs, including property acquisition, they support the 32% allowance. s:\u\memos97\rbp.rpl May 7, 1997 Memorandum to Council Subject: Reply to Redwood Business Park May 6, 1997 Page 7 6. The proposed off-site improvements are necessary to mitigate impacts from the build-out of the AIP. As Rick Kennedy will explain, the staff has actually proposed fewer off-site improvements than were recommended in the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the build-out of the AIP. W-Trans, the City's traffic consultant, responds in the letter attached as Exhibit j, to Barton-Aschman,s use of the Traffix software. The use of the Traffix software apparently accounts for Barton-Aschuman's conclusion that no intersection will be degraded below LOS D, while W-Trans concludes that the affected intersections will require the proposed improvements as a result of project traffic. In summary, W-Trans explains the differences between its conclusions and Barton-Aschman, s by noting that Barton-Aschman used "default values" in the Traffix software, whereas W-Trans used values derived from actual field observations. In addition, W- Trans evaluated the individual turning movements and traffic stacking within each intersection. Based on those observations and realistic traffic light timing changes, it continues to believe that the recommended improvements are necessary to avoid unacceptable operating conditions in the intersections. DJR:can s:\u\memos97\rbp.rpl May 7, 1997 L. and Use and Environment...$sues / ChaDter 7 Runway Protection Zone or w~hin Building Resmc'don Line Approac,fl/Del3an~re Z.~ne ancl Adjacent to Runway Extended Approac.~lDepar~re Zone Common Traffic Pattern Other Airport Environs :,. . . ::....:::. · : · .: :-. '::,: ~1 ones wffh location ~et · ~: J ~ aeronautical func-- · .':..:[ - _. ""! ' Objects exceeding . ! FAR Part~ height ' '! limits : t * Hazarcls to flight" · Sc.~ools, clay care centers, libraries · Hospitals, nursing homes · Highly noise-sensitive uses (e.g. amphi- theaters) · Storage of highly tam- mai=lo materials" · Ha.zarCs to flight8 · High risk 0 10 · Higll no,se levels All Remaining Recluired · Sul:mantial risk - aircraft 10 acres 60 30% Commonly betow 400 ft. AGL Required or wi~in 1,000 ft. of runway · Substarrdal noise · Significant risk - aircraft corn. 2 acres 60 30% monfy below 800 ft. AGL * Significant noise Recommended · Limited risk - aircraft at or 15 units 150 15% below 1,000 ft. AGL per acre Recommended · Frequent noise intrusion · Negligee risk No No No · Poterrdal for annoyance from Limit Emit Requirement overflights :;:0therDevel°pme~::' :' i; .!::.Normally:,A_cc~,epta '' ~a' !?ii!!:i ble~:!; :! ::!!::i: ... sas Not:No JiY-;:;::': Conditions .. ~ · Dedication of aviga- * Aircraft tieclown apron · Heavy poles, signs, lion easement e--~-L-L-L-L-L-L-L-L~te structures maximum distance from extended runway centerline · Dedication of aviga- tion easement ~catJon of over- flight easement for resiclential uses e-~-~'~ee~ notice required for residential clevei- oDment · Schools · Hospitals, nursing homess · Hazarcls to flights · Pastures, field crops, vineyams · Automobile parking ~ Zone A· Single-story offices · Single-family homes on an existing lot · Low-intensity retail, of- rice, etc. · Low-intensity manufac- tunng · Foocl processing · Uses in Zone 8 · Parks, playgrounds · Two-story motels · Residential sul:x:livsions · Intensive retail uses · Intensive manufacturing or foocl processing uses · Multi-family resiclential · Ali excel3t ones hazard- .us to flight large trees, etc. · Residential sut:x:livi- si.ns · Intensive retail uses · Intensive manufac. tudng or food pro- cessing uses · Multiple story offices · Hotels and motels · Muiti-familiy residen- tial · Large sl3opping mails · Theaters, audit, d- ums · Large sports stadiums · Hi-dso office build- ings · Hazarcts to flighte Table 7A Current Compatibility Criteria Mendocino County ALUC 7-12 § 1263.420 § 1263.420. D~n~ge to remainder; sever~ce; construction and us~ of project Damage ~o the remainder is the damage, if any, caused to the re- mainder by either or both of the following: (a) The severance of the remainder from the part taken. (b) The construction and use of the project for which the prop- erty is taken in the manner proposed by the plaintiff whether or not the damage is caused by a portion of the project located on the part taken. (Added by Stats.197§, c. 1275, 1~. 3452, § 2, operative July 1, 1976.) Law Revision Commission Comment 1975 Addition Section 1263.420 continues prior law as to the damage to the remainder compensable in an eminent domain proceeding. See former Section 1248(2). Section 1263.420 does not abrogate any court-developed rules relating to the compensability of specific elemenLs of.damage, nor does it impair the ability of the courts to continue to develop the law in this area. See Eachus v. Los Angeles Consol. Elee. Ry., 103 Cal. 614, 37 P. 750 (1894) (damage that causes "mere inconvenience,, not compensable); City of Berkeley v. Von Adelung, 214 Cal.App.2d 791, 29 Cal. Rptr. 802 (1963) ("general" damage not compensable); People v. Volun- teers of America, 21 Cal.App.3d 111, 98 Cal.Rptr. 423 (1971) (test of compensability is whether the condemnee is obligated to bear more than his "proper share" of the burden of the public improvement). Prior law was not clear whether damage to the remainder caused by the construction and use of the project were recovera- ble if the damage-causing portion of the project was not located on the property from which the remainder was severed. Com- pare People v. ~ymons, 54 Cal.2d 855, 357 P.2d 451, 9 Cal.Rptr. 363 (1960), with People v. Ramos, 1 Cal.3d 261, 460 P.2d 992, 81 Cal.Rptr. 792 (1969), and People v. Volunteers of America, 21 Cal.App.3d 111, 98 Cal.Rptr. 423 (1971). Subdivision (b) abro- gates the rule in Symons by allowing recovery for damages to the remainder caused by the project regardless of the precise lo- cation of the damage-causing portion of the project if the dam- ages are otherwise compensable. It should be noted that the cost to cure may be a proper measure of severance damages in appropriate cases. See discus- sion in Condemnation Practice in California, Matteoni, Sever- ance Damages § 5.11 (Cal.Oont.Ed.Bar 1973). 77 July 22, 1996 Mr. Mark Lanz % Diane RuckerfKen Carroll 350 E. Gobbi St. Uldah, CA. 95482 Mr. Bob Sawers City of'Ukiah Planning Dept. 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah CA. 95492 Re.. 1195 S. State $~ Ukiak C~ Dear Mr. Sawers, I recently met with individuals fi.om the City plarming Depazxment regarding the above mentioned property. After, speaking with staff personal, it was generally agreed that the mbjeet property would meet all the criteria for me to purchase and operate my businera 'T'unber Lake Tree Service" at this loetaion. Presently I rent office and warehouse space in the Redwood Industrial Park outside the City Limits. It would be financially beneficial for me to own my own eo~ t~ility within the City limits. I am aware that the property is zoned commercial and is located and desig.ated in the Airport Mas:er Plan. Also that the rear of the property has a building height restriction. I am in escrow to purchase this property subject to approvals ofsovemment entitiea for my intended use as a location for my business "Timber Lake Tree Service" which is primarily a service business with equipment storage areas and office space. I would greatly appreciate your earliest response as time is of the essence in my purchase agreement. If you would call me and leave a message on my pi:tone recorder, I would be happy to pick up your w~ten response so as to save mailing time. (463- 0903) Regards, Mark Lam: I~H. C_,PG ~ OF ~PGS 300 UJ(IAH, CA 95482-5400 · AI:IMIN. 702/463.6L~00 · PLtSUC S/~F:ETY 463.624Z/6~74 Mr. Mark Lanz Timber Lake Tree Service c/o Diane Rucker/Ken Carroll 350 East Gobbi Street Uklah, CA 95482 July 25, 19g$ RE: 1195 South State Street · Dear Mr. Lanz: Thank you for your recent letter requesting zoning information for the above referenced property. You have also asked for Information concerning the Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan, and how this policy document affects the subject parcel. As you know, the property Is situated within the Runway Protection Zone, as defined in the Master Plan. You have indicated that 77tuber Lake Tree ,Service would use the property for equipment storage and office space. You have indicated further that it was your understanding, based on our previous conversation, that the City Planning Department "generafly agreed" that this use would be acceptable in terms of the zoning requirements and the provisions of the Airport Master Plan. It is my recollection that Planning staff did not make a determination regarding zoning and Airport Master Plan compliance during our recent conversation, but rather requested a letter describing the prol~osed use. A detailed letter would provide the information we need to determine il' a Site Development Permit, Use Permit, or any discretionary review would be required, and whether or not the use would comply with the Runway Protection Zone density and intensity criteria contained in the Airport Master Plan. Unfortunately, your letter did not provided the information we need to make a formal determination regarding zoning compliance, potential discretionary review, and consistency with the Airport Master Plan. To make a de[erminafion, we need the following information: e What is the exact proposed use of the site, including the disposition of the existing singie family residence, and accessory structure(s). Would the office use be conducted in the single family residence? Is it anticipated that customers would access the slte? How many employees do you have? How many people would be on the property at any one time? 1 Do you contemplate constructing any new buildings? EXH.~ PO_~ OF _ /'o PGS _ "We ,a~'e Here 'to Serve" . Would your employees park on the site and take Irucks out dudng working hours? . Any ather information concerning the intensily and density o1 the proposed use. Once we have Ihe above information, we will immediately provide a written correspondence detailing the zoning and Airport Master Plan compliance information ybu need. In the meantima, ~f you have any questions, ~ease contact me at the above number. Sincerely. ~,x, XTor Planner Page EX:H, ~PG ~ OF ~ July 30, Mr. Mark Lar, z 350 E. Gobbi Ukiah, Ca. 95482 Mr. Charley Stump, Senior Planner City of UIdah Planning Dept, Ukiak, Ca. 954822 Re: 1105 S. Sta~e S Dear Mr. Stump, In response to your k?ttet ofluly 25, 1996, the following is in answer to your questions regard, in~ the above referenced propgrty: 1. Timber Lake Tree Service is almost entirely dons by telephone custom~- contact, ft is not anticipated that customers would be accessing the site. The employees arrive at work in the morning and take a company vehicle to the job site. The existing single family residence would be used as office space or rental, and the accessory metal buildings would be used in maintenance and storage of my equipment. 2. [ currently have four employees who arrive, park their cars, and go to the job site. I do not anticipate more than two to five persons on the property at a given time. 3. I am contemplating removing one of the rectal buildings and adding some ~rtabl¢ carport- like structures for stor~e of my equipment. 4. My employees would ba parking their vehicles on the site and taking company vehicles out during work hours. 1 l;~el that my intended use of this property is well within the oity pJanning guidclines under the existing commercial zoning and the airport master plan. ! fi~el that my business is probably one of the best uses this property could be used for, and is as light of use of the land as you will find. Again, time is of'essence in my attempt to purchas~ the propety. ! would greatly appreciate your most timely response. Regards, Mark Lanz Timber La~e Tree Se.wice ,300 UKIAH, CA 95482-5400 · FAX I 707/4&a.&]04 , Mr. Mark Lanz 'lTmber Lake Tree Service · c/o Diane Rucker/Ken Carroll 350 East Gobbi Street Ukiah, CA 95482 July 31, 1996 RE: t195 South Slate Street Dear Mr. Lanz.: thank you for responding to my request for additional informal/on about your intended use of Ihe above referenced property. As you know, I needed the supplemental information in order to determine if your proposed use is consistent with the provisions of the Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan, and whether or not a discrelionary planning permil would be required. You have indicated that Timber Lake Tree Service would use the property primarily for equipment slorage and the parking of company trucks and employee automobiles. You have indicated further that you do not anticipate more than two to f'rve persons on the site at any one time, and that because of the nature of the business, no employees would normally be working on the site, It is our determination that these components of the proposed use are consistent with the density and intensity of use provisions cantained in Ihe Airport Master Plan. You have indicated further that it is your intention to remove the old metal buildings and add some portable carport-like structures for storaae of equipment. It is our understanding that [hese structures woutd not exceed thirteen (13) fe~t in height, and would have a roof, bu[ no walls. Il is our determination that the removal of existing buildings, and the placement of the portable carport-like structures would be consistent with the applicable provisions of the Ukiah Municipal Airport Ma,~ter Plan. However, the placement and construction of these "structures" may require the secudng of a building permit(s). Please contact the City Eluiiding Oivision for further information (462-6200). Finally, your correspondence indicates that the existing single family residence would either be used as a residenliat rental or an office to serve your propose use. Continuing to use the residence as a single family dwelling would be consistent with the Airport Master Plan, but converting ii to an office use, with employees, would be inconsistent with the purpose, intent, and land use compatibility criteria in the plan. However, if the primary use of the structure remains a single family residence, and it happens to contain an incidental "home" office, then it would be consistent with the Plan. 'We Are Here TO Serve" In term~ of compliance with the "C-~I" (Light Commercial) zoning district, the project, as it has been described in your correspondences, al~l~ears consistent, and would not need a discretionary l~lanning permit. " Please be advised that if your plans for the site change, or if the business expands or is altered in the future, it may violate the provisions of the Ukiah Municipal Ai~ort Master Plan anti "C-1" zoning district. Accordingly, we advise you to contact us prior to increasing the inlensity or density of use l~eyond what has been represented in your recent lellers. I hope that this c~rrespondence provides you with the information you have requested. I1~ you have any questions, or need additional information, please contact me at the above number. Sinc,er~ly,, Sen a"r Planner EXH.~PG Page ~ OF ._.~.~ PGS Title tria/ court committed reversible error by requiring szate's appraiser to consider ef- fect of change of zoning upon rear pot- Zion of tract and to assume that tl,e ef- fect upou tile strip along tile l,ighway would be tile same. People ex tel. De- partment of Public Works v. Investors Diversified Services, Inc. (1968) 68 Cal. Rptr. 663, 262 C.A.2d ,~7. Where jury by irs award in eminent do- main action rejected OWners' contention tha£ higllest and best use of subject prop- erry was for industrial purposes and eon- demnor's contention that its highest and best use was for horticultural purposes and awarded compensation substantially in excess of ~'alue which OWners' experts placed on property for residential put- poses, any error in admirtng, over objec- tions, teztimony of condemnor,s expert as r OrS T § 1263.330 to value which he had placed on neighbor. ing horticultural proper~y in earlier con- detonation action by same condemnor was not prejudicial to owners. South San Francisco Unified School Dist. v. Scopesi (1961) 9 Ca/.Rptr. 459, 187 C.A.2d 45. In eminent doma/n action, awarding compensation for property taken, current- ly used for horticultural purposes, on ha- als of irs fair market value for residential purposes, was not improper, particularly in View of highly speculative character of evidence on which to base an industrial use finding. Id. 'Phat COurt allowed greater marker value than testified to by some of witnesses was not ground for reversal. City of Stockton v. Ellingwood (1929) 275 p. 228, 96 C.A. 708. § 1263.330. ~usions from fair market value The fair market value of the property taken shah not include any increase or decrease in the value of the property that is attributable to any of the following: (a) The project for which the property is taken. (b) "The eminent domain proceeding in which the property is (c) Any preliminary actions of the plaintiff relating to the tak- lng of the property. (Added by State.1975, c. 1275, p. 3451, § 2, operative July 1, 1976.) Law Re~,ision Commission Comment 1975 Addition Section 1263.330 is an adjustment to the basic definition of fair market value in Section 1263.320 and requires that the com- pensation for property taken by eminent domain be determined as if there had been no enhancement or diminution in the value of property due to the imminence of the eminent domain pro- ceeding or the Project for which the property is taken. For lated provisions of state and federal law that apply to offers re- for voluntary acquisition of prope~y, see ~overnment Code Section 7267.2 and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Ac- quisition Policies Act of 1970, 42 U.S.C. § 4651(3) (1971) (ex- cluding from consideration the effect of the "public improve- ment" for which the property is acquired). Prior case law held that, in general, increases in the value of the property caused by the project may not be included in the compensation. See, e.g., County of San Luis Obispo v. Bailey, 4 Cal.3d 518, 483 P.2d 27, 93 Cal.Rptr. 8~i9 (1971). The effect of Section 1263.330(a) is to codify this rule. It should be noted 61 David J. Rapport Lester J. Marston Scott Johnson Law Offices Of RAPPORT AND MARSTON An Association of Sole Practitioners 200 W. Henry Street P.O. Box 488 Ukiah, California 95482 (707) 462-6846 FAX 462-4235 MEMORANDUM TO: Rick Kennedy FROM: David Rapport DATE: May 1, 1997 SUBJECT: Cost estimate for land and structure acquisition AIP Impact Fee , Attached is the most recent deed for A------~-No. 3-230-03 through------- which Mark G. Lanz acquired title to the property on August 7, 1996, from the Eriksens. The Documentary Transfer Tax was $159.50. The County rate is $1.10/$1000. I believe that results in a sales price of $145,000. In addition, because the property is currently occupied by both residents and a business, the City will incur relocation expenses, when it acquires the property. (Government Code §§7260, 7262.) Allowable relocation expenses include (1) actual moving expenses; (2) actual direct losses of tangible personal property as a result of moving or discontinuing a business; (3) actual expenses of searching for a replacement business not to exceed $1,000; (4) actual expenses necessary to reestablish a business at its new site not to exceed $10 000 (Gov Code §7262(a).) , · · Alternatively, a business owner may elect in lieu of the above payments to receive an amount equal to the average annual net earnings of the business, not less than $1,000 nor more than $20,000; provided, the City is satisfied that the business cannot be relocated without substantial loss of patronage and does not have at least one other location engaged in a similar business which is not being acquired. (Gov. Code §7262(b) .) If the residence has been occupied for at least 90 days prior to acquisition, the City will also be required to pay the occupant a lump sum up to $5250 to enable the person to lease or rent a comparable replacement dwelling for a period not to exceed 42 months, including compensation for utilities. (Gov. Code §7264.) s:\,u\memos97\kennedy.eva May 6, 1997 EXH. ,C__PG 1 OF ,~, PGS Memorandum to Kennedy Subject: Evaluating cost of May 1, 1997 acquiring real property Page 2 If comparable replacement housing is not available within a reasonable time, the City can exceed the maximum amounts authorized by Government Code §2 7263 and 7364 (Gov Code 27264.5.) · · Ail of this information should be considered in estimating the cost of acquiring AP. No. 3-230-03. I hope this information is helpful. s:\u\memos97\kennedy,eva May 6, 1997 AGP~E~L~'--~T IMPLantING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL This Agreement is made and entered in Ukiah, California, on -~'-/~.~-:/'.<'-'~ /~ , 1993, between Red'~ood Business Park of Ukiah ("Redwood,,), a California limited partnership, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. ("Wal-Mart,,), a Delaware Corporation authorized to conduct business in California, and the City of Ukiah ("City',), a general law municipal corporation. RECITALS: 1. On April 20, 1988, the City in Resolution No. 88-4, approved the Final Map for Phase I of the Redwood Business Park including the condition that Redwood contribute to the Talmage Park Boulevard Signalization Fund in the amount of ~d/Airport , ,575.00 (50% of $183,150.00). 2. At that time the City also computing that each parcel within the 89.appr°ved a formula for Subdivision,,) should contribute $1,707.004 acre subdivision ("the per acre toward the cost of installing traffic, signals at the intersection of Talmage Road and Airport Park Blvd. ("the Signalization Fee"). 3. Under condition 1 of the Site Development Permit Ho. 90- 87 issued to Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. ("the Permit,,), which is incorporated herein by reference, Wal-Mart is required to install a traffic signal at the intersection of Talmage Road and Airport Park Blvd. ('"the Signalization Project,,) prior to the opening of the Wal-Mart Store located at lot A1 in the Subdivision. 4. Under condition 2.a. of the Permit, Wal-Mart is required to design and widen Talmage Road on the north side between the existing south bound highway off-ramp and the railroad tracks ("Talmage Road Widening Project,,). 5. aUrae '' 'o~n_2_._b of the Permit, Wal-Mart is required ~ =~ access approach to Talmage Road on the existing east exit ramp from Highway 101, subject to the approve! of California Department of Transportation ("CalTrans,,) and he City Engineer ("~almage Road Off-Ramp Reco~nstruction Project,,).t 6. Unde~ con~i%ion 3 of the Permit~ Wal-Mart is required to widen and repave the western portion of Airport Road between its intersection with Commerce Drive and Hastings Avenue, and the entire length of Hastings Avenue between the railroad tracks and South State Street ( astlngs/Alrport Roads Widening Project,,). "$ ° 7. The parties have agreed that City shall construct the Signalization Project and that Wal-Mart and Redwood shall construct the Talmage Road Widening Project, Talmage Road Off-Ramp Reconstruction Project and the Hastings/Airport Roads Widenin~ Project as further provided herein, and depending on the actual ~ FPG_ i._OF ~ PG$ cost of those projects the City may contribute toward the cost of designing the Talmage Road, Talmage Road Off-Ramp and/or Hastings Road projects in accordance with a formula as further provided herein. AGREE~: In consideration of the above-recited facts and the terms and conditions further stated herein the parties agree as follows. 1. Signalization Project (Condition 1). 1.1 City shall design and construct the traffic signals to comply with condition 1 of the Permit. 1.2 The Signalization Project is estimated to cost $183,150, including engineering costs. 1.3 Upon completion of the Signalization Project, the City shall furnish Redwood and Wal-Mart with an accounting which shall itemize the actual costs of construction, including engineering costs. The statement of actual costs shall be used in computing the settlement payment pursuant to paragraph 6. · 1.4 The City shall collect the Signalization Fee for Lot B2 of Redwood Business Park prior to issuing the building permit for any improvements on that Lot. City shall pay said fee to Redwood as soon as it is collected. The City shall not impose the Signalization Fee on any other parcels in the Redwood Business Park Subdivision. 2. Talmage Road Widening Project (Condition 2.a). 2.1 Redwood and Wal-Mart shall design, construct the Talmage Road Widening Project to comply with condition 2.a of the Permit. 2.2 The Project is estimated to cost between $165,000 and $186,900, including engineering costs. 2.b). · Talmage Road Off-Ramp. :Reconstru?tio.n- Project (Condition 3.1 Redwood and Wal-Mart shall design, and construct the Talmage Road Off-Ramp Reconstruction Project to comply with condition 2.b. of the Permit. 3.2 The Project is estimated to cost $150 000 including engineering costs. , , · Hastings/Airport Roads Widening Project (Condition 3). EXH. ~ PG 2. OF c~ PGS 4.1 Redwood and Wal-Mart shall design, construct and engineer the Hastings/Airport Roads Widening Project to comply with condition 3 of the Permit. 4.2 The Project is estiI~ated to cost $240,000, including engineering costs. 5. Conditions ApPlicable to Agreement. Paragraphs 2-4 of this Redwood and Wal-Mart shall construct the projects described in paragraphs 2-4 of this Agreement ("the with the following conditions: Projects,,) in accordance .. 5.1 North Counties Engineering Co. ("North Counties,,) shall prepare plans and specifications for the Projects which mus~ be reviewed and approved in writing by City and BSW Civil Engineers prior to contracting for any work on the the a roved plans ~ .... :~ _. Projects. Any changes in PP ~ an~ =~=u~ca~lons must be approved in writing by the City Engineer, or by CalTrans as to the Off-Ramp Reconstruction Project. The engineers for the respective parties are as follows: Wal-Mart Engineer: Redwood Engineer- City Engineer: Stuart Nyander BSW Civil Engineers 1400 South Boston Ave., Suite 300 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74119 Gary L. Akerstrom North Counties 425 Talmage Road Ukiah, California 95482 William R. Beard Ukiah Civic Center 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, California 95482 The parties authorize these engineers engineering decisions to make on their behalf all Agreement. required in the performance of this 5.3 Wal-Mart will act as contract administrator and contract for all work performed for the Projects which must be constructed in compliance with the approved plans and specifications. Redwood will review Wal-Mart,s bidding solicitation process, and Redwood will be provided with the bid results prior to awarding contracts for the Project. 5.3.1 All work performed on the Projects inspected and approved by the City Engineer prior to must be payment therefor. Wal-Mart shall present to the City Engineer for approval -- 3. EXit PG_ OF ~ PG$ requests for partial payment or fin Agreement shall charge an,, A~__ al payment. No part to ' · ~ : ~ner . Y thls services e~fo-~ :_ part,, to ~ P_ - ~,,.== An connection ,.~= -~ . ~n~s Agreement for -~un aGminis=ering the contracts rot any or- the Projects identified in this Agreement, including, but not limited to, inspection fees, supervision, bidding and processing pa~ents. Wal-Mart shall assure ~at the City,s inspector and the City Engineer have an adequate opportunity to inspect all work. 5.3.2 Prior to any settlement pa~ent pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement, Wal-Mart shall provide .City and Redwood with a separate accounting for each Project which shall include copies of all contracts, and an itemization of all receipts and expenditures, indicatin' the supplied and the da~- -=- g . payee, ~e material or Work ~= u= pa~en~, which must and City, such approval not to b be approved ~y Redwood ~r~ed. accounting shall provide %~nre~so~ably wit~eld. The e in comDutin~ ~ __~._ _ ne ac~al const~ction ' : ~"= ~=~emen~ Pa~ent under paragraph costs 6. 5.3.3 With the exception of work to be perfo~ed on the Caltrans right-of-way the parties have dete~ined that the Projects will not constitute public Works within Labor Code section 1720 and are . the meaning of ~revailing wage laws of ~ ~-~ n~t. therefore, subject to the ~ete:ination is made ~"= ou~e or. California. If .... ~ the pro~ec- ...... a SU~e~ent . ~ ~ =re sunjec= to the law, any resulting cost increases sha~! be subject to the settlement fO~ula in paragraph 6; provided,-, however, ~e City shall have no obligation to pay any amounts that exceed the amounts in approved municipal budgets without first obtaining the approval of the City Council. 5.3.4 Wal-Mart sh 11 enter written contracts ~he. Performance of all con~rac~s sha~ ~ ~_~ ~~on work on th: ~--~--= must be prope;fv~~ ~ ~ c0~petitive bid basis ~ ~~%%~s.. The ~ ~s~u Dy the State ~ ~-~: ~ '. ~_uuncractors a settlement pa~ent under paragraph 6 of this Agreement the City ~ ==:~:ornla. In computing shall not be responsible for any construction of other costs that exceed the original contract amounts, unless the City has reviewed and approved properly executed change orders authorizing an increase in the original contract amount. Under no circumstances shall the settlement pa~ent calculatio~ include any amounts claimed by 'con~ractofs for del~y damages ~r o~her claims based on the acts or omissions of Wal-Mart or its officers, agents, contractors, or employees, in preparing plans and specifications for or administering the contracts. 5.3.5 Wal-Mart shall not pe~it any work to proceed on the Projects without first securing all required Pe~its, including, but not limited to, encroachment permits. 5.3.6 Upon substantial completion of each Project and approval of the City Engineer, Wal-Mart shall record a Notice ~. ~PG 4. OF~PGS of Completion and provide City and R - · by. City, frcm each cont ..- ed~_ood with releases, materials to the Projecr~Ct°..r_~.n° .p. er~or~ed work on or sauP~or~'ve~ received all Day-an-= +~ .'.L ~.nalca~lng that the o ~ ~ 7j led = ~ ..... ~ w ' . . c nt~ac~o contract and makes no furt~n-lc_n, 1.t 1s legally entitled u ' %- has ro ~== claim t n~e_ the P cure from each contracto, ..... her.efor_. Wal-Mart shall . ~ = w~r also ranty nond for not less than 25% of the contract amount, Including approved change orders, which the City may enforce, covering the work performed by that contractor for a period of one year from the date Notice of Completion is recorded. 6. Settlement payment. Upon completion of all Projects identified in paragraphs 1-4 the parties shall make a settlement payment computed as follows: (.15 X H/A' + .5 X T~) _ .5 X S~ = Sp, Example, where H/A = $240,000 T = 165,000 S = 183,000 $36,000 (.15 X $240,000) + $82,500 (.5 X $165,000) _ $91,500 (.5 X $183,000) = $27,000 (settlement payment) If SP is a o ' ' ' payment to Re%dn~%osde a~n,d~ .W~a3__,Ma=t to rei.mburse those parties engineering p Sltl? nTber, the City should make a settlement Projects, including the Talmage Road Off-Ramp Reconstruction Project. · = *"~=eu in connection with the design of tf~er If SP is a negative number, Wal-Mart and Redwood shall make the appropriate payment to City. 7. Miscellaneous. 7.1 All notices required or permitted under this Agreement shall be personally delivered or mailed by first class .' Where H/.A means the act.ual cost °f~the--Hastings/Airport Road Projects ' · ~ Where T means the actual cost of the Talmage Widening Project Project Where S means the actual cost of the Signalization Where SP means the Settlement Payment re.ail to .the pa. rtles, engineers. Maile given an~ recelve~ 48 ho,,~ ...... d notices shall be deezed Un' . - '~'~ ~Ee~ · ted States ma~! with-r~--~ '. Y have been deposited in the ~ ~- pos=age and address affixed thereto. 7.2 Each person signing the Agreement warrants and represents that he or she is authorized to sign this Agreement on behalf of the party he or she represents and that this Agreement is binding on that party and its SUccessors and assigns. 7.3 Paragraph headings are included for ~e convenience of the parties and do not alter ~e meaning of this Agreement as set forth in the text. The parties agree ~at this Agreement was not prepared solely or 'primarily by any one party and that ambiguities will not be construed in favor of any party or against any party to this Agreement. 7.4 Wal-Mart and Redwood may enter one or more separate Agreements providing for the allocation between them and the payment of the costs of the projects identified in this Agreement. 7.5 The parties shall file any legal action concerning this Agreement in the court in Mendocino County with jurisdiction over the subject matter and each party consents to suit in such courts. 7.6 This Agreement may be executed in one or more duplicate originals each bearing the original signatures of the parties and when so executed each such duplicate shall be admissible in any judicial or administrative proceeding as proof of the terms of this Agreement. WHEREFORE, the parties have entered this Agreement on the date first written above. · · · REDWOOD BUSINESS PARK OF UKIAH /. .. .. · . Its:__ / ~.' ... =_~/_. CITY OF .~IAH , 2/ ' '.- Zts. / CORPORATE STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF BENTON ) SS ACKNOWLEDGMENT me a notary public in and for the county and state aforesaid, came Hichael R. Nelson, Assistant Vice President of Real Estate, of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., a corporation, who is personally known to me to be the person who executed as such officer the within instrument of writing on behalf of such corporation, and such person duly acknowledged the execution of the same to be the act and deed of said corporation. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my notary seal the day and year last above written. ( SEAL ) Dorothy L. Jet, sen '-~%~ Notary Public Residing in Benton County XH. 7 ,= PGS · Certificate of Acknowledgement State of CALIFORNIA) County of MENDOCINO) On February 23, 1993, before me, the undersigned City Clerk for the City of Ukiah, personally appeared as Fred Schneiter, known to me as the Mayor of the City of Ukiah, and the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that the City of Ukiah executed the same. Witness my hand and official seal. City Cle~ ~r the City of Ukiah EXH. ~-- PO ~ OF ~ PGS 15-18 in Exhibit B will avoid or reduce to acceptable levels the Project,s short term impacts on air quality during construction. Adoption of conditions 19-21 will minimize the Project,s contribution to cumulative air quality (and traffic) impacts by providing practical opportunities for employees and customers travel to and from the site without using private automobiles, to 11. Archeology. For the reasons stated in Exhibit A 15), the Project will not have any significant adverse impact on archeological resources. ~owever, adoption of condition 28 in Exhibit B will avoid or reduce to an acceptable level any conceivable impact the Project might have on archeological resources. 13. Traffic. For the reasons stated in Exhibit A (pp. 16-23) adoption of conditions 1-6 and 19-21 in Exhibit B will avoid or reduce to an acceptable level the individual impacts on traffic caused by the Project. Adoption of condition 29 in Exhibit B will avoid or reduce to an acceptable level the combined impact of the Project, buildout of the AI~ and the extension of Orchard Avenue to Marlene Street on the neighborhood north of the Project bounded by Waugh Lane, Talmage Road, Gobbi Street and Highway 101 ("the neighborhood,,). The DEIR states that curbs, gutters and sidewalks should be considered where needed along local residential streets in the neighborhood to mitigate traffic (DEIR, p. 71. ) ; safety impacts from the buildout of the AIP. Sidewalks are not feasible on these streets S:\UlDOCS\w~.F-N 5 because the City owns insufficient rights of way to accomodate paved street widths meeting City standards and sidewalks on these streets. Moreover, if the traffic diversion measures included in condition 29 prove impractical or ineffective, the construCtion of improvements to Waugh Lane as required in condition 29 should reduce traffic safety_and noise impacts Within the neighborhood to an acceptable level. If future impacts should arise that have not been fully mitigated by these measures, Which is highly speculative at this time, the City Council further finds that any such significant adverse impact is overridden for the following reasons: S:\U~Docs\w~.FN 6 '"" 300 S~VE'., UKIAH, CA 95482 January 21, 1993 · AOMIN. 707/463-6200 · PUBUC 5AFSIY 463-6242/6274 · FAX # 707/4636204 · Myrna Olgesby " RAWLES, HINKLE, CARTER, BEHNKE, & OLGESBY 169 Mason Street Ukiah, California 95482 Gary Ackerstrom NORTH COUNTIES ENGINEERING COMPANY 425 Talmage Road Ukiah, California 95482 RE- TRAFFIC MITIGATIONS - AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK AND WAL-MART SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 90-87 Dear Ms. Olgesby and Mr. Ackerstrom. Under the provisions contained in the Conditions of Approval for Site Development No. 90-87, I have reviewed, studied, evaluated and determined the traffic mitigations necessary to satisfy the inten~ of City Council approval. A copy of said Conditions of Approval are attached for convenient reference. ~ONDITION I Improvement plan and specifications for the installation of a traffic signal system at the intersection of Talmage Road and Airport Park Boulevard are being completed by City Staff in preparation for soliciting bids for construction. Cost estimate for this construction is as follows- Applicants 50% City of Ukiah 50% C_ONDITION 2.a. TOTAL $91,500 $183,000 Improvement plan for the widening of Talmage Road from U.S. 101 south bound off-ramp to the Railroad tracks is being completed by North Counties Engineering. Cos[ estimate for this construction is as follows- Applicants 50% Ci5y of Ukiah 50% $93,450 TOTAL $186,900 CONDITION 2.b. Concept drawings for modifications to the U.S. 101 south bound off- ramp intersec~ion~with Talmage Road have been prepared by North Counties Engin%e_ing and submitted to C- Encroactunent Pe_mit ~roceo~ = ..... =ltrans throu h eliminate the existi~w~=~9zs conaition with reasonabl= ~-~~? not recezved any contact from Caltrans or North Counties -~= w~umaem. At this time I have Engineering regarding this latest submittal Cost estimate for this construction is as follows- ' Wal-Mart 100% $56,300 At such time as traffic signals are necessary at the intersection of the modified off-ramp with Talmage Road, a benefit area will be established to provide funds for the installation of the signal system. The estimated cost to install the signal system is $50 000 and estimated to be required by 1998. , The benefit area assumed is Wal-Mart, balance of Airport Industrial Park. Redwood Business Park and the Condition 29 the estimated benefit co Using areas determined for st and cost per acre would be- BENEFIT AREA- Wal-Mart Redwood Business Park Balance of Airport Industrial Park 13.44 acres 73.91 acres _31.31 acres -- ALLOCATION OF INCREASED TRAFFIC TO BENEFIT AREA. 118.66 acres VEHICLES PER Wal-Mart P~EAK HOUR 70 Redwood Business Park 205 Balance of Airport Industrial Park ~ 280 ESTIMATED BENEFIT COST AND COST PER ACRE. Wal-Mart $50,000 X 25.00% = Redwood Business Park $50,000 x 73.21% = Balance of Airport Industrial Park % OF INCREASE 20.00- 73.21 1.79 100 ~ = $930.06/acre 13.44 acre = $495.26/acre acre $50,000 x 1.79% = S895 = $28.59\acre 31.31 acre _CONDITION 3 Improvement plans for the widening of Hassings Avenue from South State Stree~- to the Railroad tracks at Commerce Drive have been prepared by Norsh Counties Engineering and approved by the City. Cost estimate for this construction is as follows- Applicants 85% City of Ukiah 15% TOTi~L CONDITION 4 -- $204,000 _ 36e 000 $240,000 The Commerce Drive Railroad crossing was not Utilities Commission list of ..... ~ . . on the Publi considered for a,~ .... a_ _ ~u~ngs, ana therefore. ~,]~ .... c uauy or URiah th= -~o-~-- :- ~ ~ues. At the re est Following the next Commission meeting, a new list will be available = ~ =u u= lnc±u~e~ on that list by mid to late February, 1993. Once included on the list, this crossing will be eligible for Federal Funding by a request of the City through Caltrans. Estimated cost of this construction is as follows- *ApPlicants 10% $21,400 Federal 90% ~192t600 TOTAL $214,000 Applicants responsible for 100% ($214 000) if Federal Funding not available. , CONDITION 5 Relates to the implementation and final accomplishment of Conditions 1 through 4 above. _CONDITION 6 obliga5ions to Relates to the final revised development proposal for improvements to Airport Park Boulevard fronting Wal-Mart site. Improvement plans have been prepared by North Counties Engineering and approved by the City. CONDITION 20 Bike lanes are included in the approved improvement plans for Hastings Road from South State Str ~o.mmerce Drive. Bike 1 e~ ~ ...... ee~ to its intersecti n urlve are to be installe~n - ~ut~nl.s Intersection alon C°" "~ by the City En~-~ by the applicants to stand~-~- ~ omme~= ~ ~==-. =~ ue~e~mined Based on the planned traffic lanes for 5he Talmage Road widening, no parking either side, two standard widSh travel lanes each direction and a continuous left lane in the center, there will not be adequate width available to establish bike lanes a!onq Talmage Road. The absence of bike lanes will not preclude bicycles from traveling Talmage Road. - C_ONDITION 22 This mitigation has been accomplished by the City through modifications to the traffic signal system at South State Street and Talmage Road. The signal s ste South State Street tr ~ __ Y_ re.presently provides sou C_ONDITION 29 aff~ =n unobstructed left turn move~n~und __ Upon reviewing the cost factors and practical effectiveness of improving Betty Street and Lorraine Street, I have concluded that the widening and construction curb, gutter, sidewalk, drainage facilities and the removal of ' ~andscaping to accom li __ mauor quantities of ' · . P sh thuse ' exlstln excessive costs and ~ ....... improvements would r . 'g en~u~=~e lncrease~ ~-~==:- - . esult in speeds This increase of traffic and traffic speed would result in · ~ ===~=ac'urave£ing at higher a higher safety risk to the neighborhood. I believe the logical solution, if determined necessary after Wal- Mart opens and an generated, would be actual evaluation of the additional traffic the improvement of Waugh Lane by widening the southerly 1000 feet of to achieve its planned width to accommodate these increases of traffic. The widening of Waugh Lane would consist of acquisition of right- Of-way for the easterly half of the street and construction of curb, gutter, sidewalk for that half of the street, including a box culvert at Doolyn Creek. It should be noted that the need to widen this section of Waugh Lane was accelerated by an estimazed five (5) to eight (8) years due to Airport Industrial Park and proposed Wal- Mart development. Allocation of responsibility for estimated increased traffic which will use Waugh Lane is as follows and is based on values taken from the approved Environmental Impact Report. It is assume that adequate traffic diversions can be utilized within the Lorraine Street, Betty Street neighborhood to encourage tha~ estimated increase of traffic to use Waugh Lane. PGS I" P~egloJ0 I:% 0 0 .~.ue9 .qoneM ~ leeJl$ elelS qlnoS T 0 ~ P~eq~J0 o O .a.u e~ ~~0 <] ~ O F'_/__~ t The estimated cost of the Waugh Lane improvements and al!ocauion ~o benefit areas is es~ima~ed as follows. Waugh Lane Improvements Right-of-Way Box Culver~ Street Improvements $262,250 139,700 _109,440 BENEFIT AREAS- Waugh Lane parcels (fronting east side of Waugh Lane) City parcel at Talmage Road Wal-Mart site Redwood Business Park Balance of Airport Industrial Park 3.07/acre 0.17/acre 13.44/acre 73.91/acre 3--1.31/acre $511,390 121.90/acre, * Areas taken as ne~ parcel areas. ALLOCATION OF INCREASED TRAFFIC TO BENEFIT AREA- Waugh Lane Parcels City Parcel Wal-Mart Redwood Business Park Balance of Airport Industrial Park VEHICLES PER PERCENTAGE OF _ PEAK HOUR_ __ INCREASE -- 183 10 30 150 34.33 1.88 5.63 28.14 16___~0 30.02 533 100 * Existing traffic added projected traffic increases. For those parcels fronting Waugh Lane, including the City-owned parcel, existing traffic has been combined with the projecsed traffic. This allocation, therefore, reduces the overall cos5 allocation for Wal-Mart, Redwood Business Park and ~he balance of Airport Industrial Park by assigning it to other benefit areas. Waugh Lane Parcels $262,250 City Parcel $262,2.=0 '" 34 ':' " -..3% = $__90~030.42 = 3.07 acr--e $29,32~=. 87/acre x 1.88% = $4,930.30_ = $29,001.76/acre 0.17 acre Wal-Mart $262,250 x 5.63% = $--14,764.68_ = $1,098.56/acre 13.44 acre Redwood Business Park $262,250 x 28.14% Balance of Airport $262,250 = $__73,797.15 = $998.47/acre 73.91 ac-re Industrial Park x 30.02% = ~_78,727.45 = 31.31 ac--re $2,514.45/acre ESTIMATED BOX CULVERT BENEFIT COST AND COST PER ACRE- Waugh Lane Parcels $139,700 City Parcel $139,700 Wal-Mart $139,700 x Redwood Business Park $139,700 x 34.33% = $-47,959.01 3.07 acr--e = $15,621.83/acre x 1.88% = ~2,626.36 = $15,449.18/acre 0.17 acre 5.63% = ~7,865.11_ = $585.20/acre 13.44 acre x 28.14% = _$39,311.58 = 73.91 ac-re $531.88/acre Balance of Airport Industrial Park $139,700 x 30.02% = _$41,937.94 = $1,339.44/acre 31.31 ac-re ESTIMATED Waugh Lane Parcels $109,440 x STREET IMPROVEMENT BENEFIT COST AND COST PER ACRE- City Parcel $109,440 34.33% = $--37,570.75 3.07 acr-e = $12,.238.03/acre Balance of Airport $109,440 x 1.88% = ~2,057.47 = $12,102.78/acre 0.17 acre Wal-Mart $109,440 x 5.63% = $-6,161.47 = $458.44/acre Redwood Business Park 13.44 acre $109,440 x 28.14% = ~_30r 796. 42_ = $416.67/acre 73.91 acre Industrial Park x 30.02% = ~32f 853. 8_9 = $1,049.31/acre 31.31 acre _/~ PG$ 0 0 c~ EXH. ~ PG OF PG$ -- ~ONCLUSION The estimated construction - costs for these mit~ ' considered "rough estimates,, at ~- -. . -gatlons must be ~A,~ ~lme, since no engineerin, design work has been performed for much is normally anticipated that =~..-~ . of the proposed work. I~ than estimated costs made at this time or estimates based upon ~u=~ construction costs will be les~ complete design plans and specifications. The areas used for ultimate benefit (when and/or if determined necessary) may vary from those used in the foregoing analysis; however, it is anticipated~Shat any changes would be minor. Sincerely, City Engineer cc- Charles L. Rough, Jr., City Manager Michael F. Harris, Director of Community Development Robert Sawyer, Principal Planner David Rapport, City Attorney BRB-kk R- i\ENG LWALMART. 2 b-'v,H. ~0/._....~0 OF I0 PGE Suite 750 1~? Gtony Circle · ffanta Rose, CA 95401.9522 70;' / $?~. 2a?o Rick Kcrmcd7, PE, Director of Public Works/City F-agiaeer CITY OF UKIAH 300 S~m/nary Avcnu~ Uldah, CA 95482 May 6, 1997 Budget Level Cost F.,sfimate$ AlP Traffic Related Mhtgatl_9_n De~r Riclc As you requested yesterday, we have reviewed our budget level cost estimates and related preliminary sket, ch~ prcparcct ia May, 1996, for certain Off-sim roadway and traffic control improvements related to potcrlfial 'fiaurc dcvclopmerlt within thc Airport/adusirial Park (ALP). More specifically, we have zeviewed tie e$Smated fee for KNO~G rohtrd scrvicc~ for each of the five potgritia[ projects w~ irlv~figat~d. Estima~ servi~/ncludcd in this 1/ne it~a include: ' Pre-design and Design Phase Services (.~urv~/ing, r~$earch, prdiminary d, sign report, final d~tgn ang~ee, rlng and #p~atfication~, preparation ~md r~productton of contract bid document,); Assistance During Bid Phase (prepare..for and conduct a pre-hid co~t'erance and rexpond to ql~e, stlons fi. om prospective bidders); Cona~uetton Phase Services (prepare for and conduct pre. c~mtruction conference, provide on-;tte ira'pectlo~ matarial, testing and contract administration),. · Project Close-out ~natize profect accounting &tail, andpr~are recorddrawing~) In developing our es'dmates for thcsc five sma/[ projects, we based the estimated profcr~ional s~es costs as a l:ercentage of the total construction cost (CC) tot sirailar small projects. Rick Kennedy, PE Page 2 May 6, ! 997 For budget-level e.',~ating, we u~¢d :he following perrrmmg~ ofto~ ~timamd co~tru~don cost: Bid Ph~e Services: 2% Construction Pha.~e Services: -- Pr~-Comtracti~ Conference -- Onsit~ Im~on -- Conu'acc Adm~n;~ation Proj¢c~ Close-out Services: ~ TOT.~.. 32 % Boyle Engineedng Corporation SC-~99-191',.i Ot¢J C~/~6/1~97 14:53 787-5 955~ P~ May 6, 1,997 300 Saninn~ Avenue Ukiah, CA 95,t82 Afrport/~dw~;od Businff~ e~k Trxflic Annfysi~ Dear Rick, As requited, wu Imve reviewed amnn~es math on our repork ~rparl/bd'a,e~ ~tats: Perk ,4na~j~j., datedAprfl ~7, 1997. The ~~.rtmadein a~dated May i, 1997 to Mr. Gary L. Aker~orn. ~om ash/r,, al~ of eerto~-Aschmn Ass~atu. Zne. l~ollow~ ne our responsce to nc~ts and recomnu:ndatlons of'that memoraadum reduced .;low wes based on thc results of'~'~c~~~~ at South Slate Street. Tl-d~ b, The ~am~-Aschman ftn~r~.q ttsed n **ritz turn ~ (,eec ~ ~ mow during opposins l~ turn movnr,~t) and an ~n~reet Inne nnignmmt f~ the neflhbou~ approach on Airport Park Boule~ st Tnlttu~ Road. Them is currmt, ly no risht turn overlap at the ~ ~owev~, our m~tigated At ~ int~~n ofU.$, 1o~ Sn O~akna~ Rind, thc aaaen.asc, hnan~ assmn~ ~ default cdticat g~p (t~m gap ,~md by a vetdcJe to tmn into thc u'af~ stream fi~2zn a aide atrcct), Our MSumptior~ included n longer critical gnp'wlxiei~ 'was bnstd on thc rcatdtl of our field mens~,a'unmts. 83 . . , ...... r' {~d ~da~w{~ ~[~ ' . ~ol~d ~ tt~ m~m~ion, m m m ~u~ wm~ w~dd su~ n~ ~ ~ ~. At the Talrnqc P~ad/Sm~ ,qram Street htme~on, queues of 29 to ~0 vd~ides woukl ~ in the non,bound and soutbbotmd lanet ]3ased on our rcvJcw of the analysis submi~ by Bmou-Am~mma A~~k ~ ~ not recotmnn~ am/ w~ ~ ~~ i~ ~ ~d ~ ~~ mJ~ t~B w~ m~ ~ ~ly ~lo but n~ ~~ co~idored ~~t~le op~8 ~~ ~ m ~~ ~ ~ b~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ e5,"86:'1997 · ,]4 Mr. luck K~r~. Pegc :3 Mey ~, I997 D or better clo~s not. scem reasonable con~idcr~g thc condifianz v~ have ~ obscrvcd in d~e iidd and the f~ct dug trzffic t:ato ~nd out of th~ project azee could Jncrczem by a recta' of 4.5 ,,,dt, b buildout oft~c project. call mc ifyou lave ~ questions m~lins the~ issues. Steve Wd.~a'ga', P.E. AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. 9a DATE: May 7, 1997 REPORT SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND ACTION CONCERNING THE CLOSURE OF MARLENE STREET AT ORCHARD AVENUE SUMMARY: At the regular City Council meeting of February 5, 1997 the Council adopted a resolution establishing the opening of Marlene Street at Orchard Avenue as one-way for eastbound traffic. Staff was further directed to report back to the Council on May 7, 1997 with traffic count data relating to the one-way opening at Marlene Street. ACTIONS TAKEN- On February 6, 1997 the Public Works Street Maintenance crew removed one-half of the temporary barricade at the east end of Marlene Street at South Orchard Avenue to allow one-way traffic to exit Marlene Street eastbound. Appropriate signage was installed which clearly indicated that the opening to Marlene Street at Orchard Avenue was one-way for eastbound only. Continued on Page 2 RECOMMENDED ACTION' Adopt Resolution Establishing the Opening of Marlene Street at Orchard Avenue as One-way for Eastbound Traffic ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Adopt Resolution Establishing the Opening of Marlene Street at Orchard Avenue as One-way for Eastbound Traffic on a Temporary Basis and direct staff to return with traffic count analysis; 2. Open Marlene Street at Orchard Avenue to both directions of traffic and direct staff to close the south end of Lorraine Street or to prohibit through movements across Talmage Road to and from Airport Park Boulevard. Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Acct. No.: Appropriation Requested: N/A (if budgeted) Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Rick Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer /~ Prepared by: Rick Seanor, Deputy Director of Public Works.~J ~---- Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager Rick Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Attachments: 1. Resolution Establishing the Opening of Marlene Street at Orchard Avenue as One-way for Eastbound Traffic 2. Resolution Establishing the Opening of Marlene Street at Orchard Avenue as One-way for Eastbound Traffic on a Temporary Basis 3. Resolution No. 97-51 4. Location Map 5. Letter from Arleen Shippey supporting one-way street 6. Letter from(,~uis & Agnes Gomes opposing the opening of Marlene St. APPROVED! ~----~ ]:Z~ .~-,, I0_~' ,~:^~,~..~. Candace~H~rsle~, (~it~'i~anager Page 2 Discussion and Action Concerning the Closure of Marlene Street at Orchard Avenue May 7, 1997 TRAFFIC INFORMATION. Staff requested traffic counts from the Mendocino County Department of Public Works. Counts have been delayed because of counter equipment breakdowns. All traffic count data is expected to be complete by May 14, 1997 in time for staff to prepare its report for the next City Council meeting. To date, staff has only received a traffic count on Waugh Lane just north of Cooper Lane. COMMUNITY RESPONSE. Since the Council actions, several residents have spoken to staff concerning drivers disobeying the one-way opening and driving from Orchard Avenue westbound onto Marlene Street around the barricade. Public Safety staff is of the opinion that there will always be a certain percentage of motor vehicle operators who will from time to time disobey traffic laws. On May 1, 1997, during three 2 hour time periods, physical counts were taken of the number of vehicles utilizing or attempting to utilize the intersection of Marlene Street at Orchard Avenue and the number of incidents where the drivers went the wrong way. The vehicle counts during the indicated time period of observation are as follows: .Time Period # of vehicles at intersection # of vehicles .disobeying the one-way 7:30 A.M. to 9:30 A.M. 56 3 Percent disobeyinn_ .the one-way 11:30 A.M. to 1:30 P.M. 86 9 10 4:30 P.M. to 6:30 P.M. 122 Total # of Vehicles: 264 12 24 10 RECOMMENDATIONS: From a traffic circulation perspective, the complete or partial opening of Marlene Street at Orchard Avenue is superior to a full closure at this intersection. A full closure at Marlene Street and Orchard Avenue requires the residents west of Orchard Avenue to utilize Waugh Lane as a route to Gobbi Street. The intersection of Waugh Lane and Gobbi Street is partially controlled for the south leg of Waugh. The delay to vehicles stopped at this leg waiting to make a left turn during peak periods can be considerable. Because of its proximity to the intersection of Leslie Street and Gobbi Street, approximately 350 linear feet, an all way stop (3 ways) at Waugh and Gobbi Street is not desirable because stopped vehicles on Gobbi Street during peak hours will block the Leslie intersection. The four way stop intersection of Gobbi Street and Orchard Avenue is by far the superior and preferred intersection. Page 3 Discussion and Action Concerning the Closure of Marlene Street at Orchard Avenue May 7, 1997 Although the traffic counts have not been completed for the partial closure, staff is recommending that the opening of Marlene Street at Orchard Avenue remain open to eastbound traffic only. Staff does not believe that the partial opening has caused the return of traffic volumes previously experienced with the full opening of Marlene Street. Staff also believes that the traffic humps discourage the use of Lorraine Street as a through route to the Airport Industrial Park despite the fact that residents are reporting some vehicles are "gutter running" around the humps. Improvements can be incorporated to reduce "gutter running" such as the installation of pipe bollards. The adoption of the resolution labeled Attachment 1 will establish the opening of Marlene Street at Orchard Avenue as one-way for eastbound traffic. Should the Council elect to continue this item until the traffic counts are complete, staff requests that the Council adopt the attached resolution labeled as Attachment 2 which would continue the one-way opening at Marlene Street until the day following the City Council meeting of May 21, 1997. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION: Should the City Council prefer to open the entrance to Marlene Street at Orchard Avenue to both directions of traffic in response to a perceived safety hazard resulting from the disobedience of traffic control devices by some vehicle operators, staff is recommending that either the southerly terminus of Lorraine Street at Old Talmage Road be completely closed to traffic or the through north/south movements across Talmage Road to and from Airport Park Boulevard be eliminated. 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 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ESTABLISHING THE OPENING OF MARLENE STREET AT ORCHARD AVENUE AS ONE-WAY FOR EASTBOUND TRAFFIC WHEREAS, the City Council may by resolution designate one-way streets pursuant to Article 6, Chapter 1, Division 8, of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the extension of orchard Avenue to Marlene Street creates a continuous vehicular route from Gobbi Street to Talmage Road via Lorraine Street, a residential street; and WHEREAS, WaloMart generated traffic has impacted Lorraine Street as evidenced by traffic counts, visual inspections, and public testimony from the residents; and WHEREAS, the City is obligated to provide means to divert the additional traffic from the Lorraine Street and Marlene Street residential neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reviewed the merits of a either a full closure or partial closure of the opening to Marlene Street at Orchard Avenue including a review of needed traffic circulation for the entire residential neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer recommends the superior alternative which is the partial closure of the Marlene Street opening at Orchard Avenue to westbound traffic. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Ukiah City Council that the opening of Marlene Street at Orchard Avenue be established as one-way for eastbound traffic. /// /// 1 5 ? 9 10 11 12 13 PASSED AND ADOPTED this following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Colleen B. Henderson City Clerk B:I~RES! :KK MARLENE.4 day of ,1997, by the Sheridan Malone Mayor 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ~9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH CONTINUING THE CLOSURE OF MARLENE STREET TO WESTBOUND TRAFFIC AT ITS OPENING WITH ORCHARD AVENUE WHEREAS, the City Council may by resolution designate one-way streets pursuant to Article 6, Chapter 1, Division 8, of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 97-51 on February 5, 1997, establishing Marlene Street as a one-way street eastbound between Lorraine Street and Orchard Avenue; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has initiated, but has not completed, traffic counts in the neighborhood to determine the impact of the one-way street on traffic flow patterns; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer will have complete traffic counts within the next three weeks. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Ukiah City Council that the opening of Marlene Street at Orchard Avenue is closed to westbound traffic until May 22, 1997. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of May, 1997, by the following roll call vote. AYES: NOES' ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Sheridan Malone, Mayor Colleen B. Henderson, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 97-51 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ESTABLISHING MARLENE STREET AS A ONE-WAY STREET EASTBOUND BETWEEN LORRAINE STREET AND ORCHARD AVENUE WHEREAS, the City Council may by resolution designate one-way 5 streets pursuant to Article 6, Chapter 1, Division 8, of the Municipal Code; and 6 WHEREAS, the City Engineer received a petition requesting a 7 one-way street, eastbound, on Marlene Street between Lorraine Street and Orchard Avenue; and 8 WHEREAS, the City Engineer recommends that the said section of 9 Marlene Street be designated as a one-way street. 10 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Ukiah City Council that a one-way street, eastbound, on Marlene Street between Lorraine 11 Street and Orchard Avenue be established for a three-month period from date of adoption. The City Engineer is hereby directed to 12 place and maintain appropriate and necessary signs designating the one-way street and shall remove said one-way signs on May 7, 1997, 13 and shall reinstall the full barricade on that date. 14 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of February, 1997, by the following roll call vote. 15 AYES: Councilmembers Chavez, Ashiku, and Kelly. 16 NOES- Councilmembers Mastin and Mayor Malone. ABSENT: None. 17 ABSTAIN: None. 18 19 20 21 ATTEST: Co];leen B. Henderson, City Clerk 24 26 27 28 SUN rOUSE Gr~ACE t IUDSOt(I MUS. LIN HOUSE r. LDMK. Vt ANCt~ DEl. nEY M. tt.P. r' I'[ACIt V. DEPT. _ '"< =_nay lOMAS ST.[ RUPE rALMAGE r--- ttASTINGS'! AV. ~'"" 7'-°"c' II1' ~Il U $.rza. r,t.u~ s~. ~.~__~_s cj.' & D.M.I~ L sn CrT. C.S.A.A. I CTI;1. YOSEMITE EL [I.10 ST. OAK MANOR ~ on. S'I'. '< 0 DEBO MANOn OAKS MOB. ESTS. 0 ~ Do, :lan CALDWE _FLINT. fl RD. $1. UKIAH conp. m YAFID COMMERCE DR. ~ LIMIT U.S.G.S. .. ,, .~. ,~.:,~.,~.,~::~:~ . - ! i997 Arleen Shippey 43 Lorraine Street Ukiah, california 95482 r,i~Y - 1 1997 CITY OF UKI^H ~ "~/'¢'¢Y CITY OF UKIAH DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS Ukiah, Ca. 95482 March 22, 1997 Rick Kennedy Director of Public Works City EnMineer De~r Mr. Kennedy, We were very disappointed at the decision of the City Council an Feb. 5, to remove the barricade on Marlene St. and make it a one-way street. First of all, the Council had voted at two previous meetings to keep the barricade for 6 months. So we feel that promise wasn't kept. The residents tha~t didn't want the barricade had the opportunity at that time to e×press thelr oolnlons to why they didn't want the barricade. Instead they were allowed to submit another petition in Nov. 1996, which made it necessary to have the F~b. 1997 meeting. We know that the vote on Feb. was the newly elected Council, they 1Enored the many res'ldents of this area who got up and spoke in favor of the barricade. ~e barricade was working.. Didn't any of the new Council members read any of the letters that were mailed to City Hall? They voted to only please those residents that wanted Marlene St. opened for their convenience. No one seems to care about safety. Our traffic has increased, and the speed humps don't help as cars Just soeed in between humps, or Mo around them. Some of our neighbors have had near collisions because cars are ~oing wrong way on Marlene St. Cars are Eoing wrong way every day, not Just once in awhile. So when Council voted for a one-way they created a terrible hazard. The police have been down, but how can they be here 24 hrs. a day? The safety on South Lorraine and Orchard Ave. was the only thing that should have been con- sidered, not convenience. We have many chlldren living in this area esoecially on Orchard Ave. We hope in the future the Council will choose safety over convenience, or will it take someone badly hurt or perhaps killed to make them change their minds? Enclosed is a copy of a newspaper article. B9rrlers are working in the Bay Area. cc: Candace HOrsley City Manager Sheridan Malone Mayor Ukiah residents since 1952, H.e'ghb , orhood Win , V'c, tory on Traff, c ,any:Avenue: :, C.~ty e,,r,e,,c~ 11 tbarr,i6rs, to make road ~ Ip !.n, 'Mis, SiOn.~is?ict!~uieter, Safer '~ '~g ~" ." .... ~' ' , ~1, , ': By Dan i..~vy [ :: : ~- ~- .... ! ...... ] I" .. ?~::."_?.P_?:'"ndLru~.k"r"c'ng ,~F_TJI'./V~..~---~ Iii .e a~ ~ t~ veh~cl~ ,er da P"T'~I-NI'"-~Yt71/,,~! I I:: . . , y.,n,,- ~ ~.7. ' { toun. dh, g n,,mhe, for II, e little' ~)'/ /A~//7//'~/~ I I~' ".Ted"Y, c.,m roi,n, over Tiff,. 'l nY. An elderly neighbor an, bios up the atrt~et wllh her roeer ' rm- slx monks Young women walk In pairs, push. lng strollers with sleeping Infants. The only ear, visible are the ones belonging to Tiffany Avenue residents. I . In. r.re ne,ghborhood v,e,ory ' . ~:./ o.o.~,;o:~'" over fast-paced commuter culture, Street." said the ~etltlon.: which the San Franebco Department of Parking and Traffic last week was also prlnled ln Chinese. ,,Make erected II steel barriers at Tiffany Tiffany Avenue a nice neighbor. and 20th Street,shafting down the hood once again.':" ' . two-block.long street to ali but res. The problem was Indeed bad IdenL~ and their cars for the next enough to warrant the highly un.' six months, usual city action. R~nd said be can "F,s touche meier," said a de- lighted Lydia Laguardla, 03, stop. f ping'to talk'the'other day after freaking bec shopping rounds on , nearby Ml~ton Street. "it's much j better. There used to be a lot of noise, a lot of trash. During the night, Irt;cks would come and shake my house."' ' , Tiffany neighbors fonght for the street closure for nearly two years, combining perseverance and teamwork Io address an alarming sense that traffic bad gotlen way out of hand. i "It was more dangerous here than on Minion Street," smd Xavl- !er Garza, ~5, standing outside bls i small, pale-colored stucco house in ; the middle of tine block. "Cars : were speeding through here. it remember only one other Instance In bis ~O-year career In whl, neighbors succeeded in closing a street to traffic -- and that was 15 years ago. ' ' I" ' ' ' ~ ' ' ~ After the traffic survey re. vealed the extent of the problem. the next hurdle was dealing with city bureaucracy. Several alterna- tives to shutting the street :were considered. : "We talked about tho one-way possibility, but in many cases that tends to Increase the rates of speed," Rand said. Instead, the traffic department pt, t up steel barriers on one end of the"street and movable wooden sawhorses on the other, so thai neighbors with cars can still move in and out at Duncan Street.' j was crazy. Late at night, it was a hazard."' ' , A concern by the fire depart- Ma~'k Rand, a city origin'esr, meat that trucks wouid not beable said runny comnmters heading for to get through in emergencies was the ~blgh'way nsed Tiffany as a solved by placing two collapsible shortcut when six-lane San Jose harriers in the middle of the eel. Avenue was congested, t , umn row. . . NoI~e and pollution were l~su- ' i.Tbe barriers will be up for six es, but the safety of Tiffany's chll. dren was the prhnary concern of i neighborhood rosidents, itomes on the street do not have large back yards. For years, parents have been wary of i letting their kids . play outside because of the traffic i problem. , ! Also troubiesome were 18- wheel trucks that delivered to I Safeway's back entrance on Tiffs. }ny and 20th Street and young poo. i pie cruising the street on weekend nights.. .~ ,~ . The 'relief effort got unc~er way {when residents, led by Nancy ~Tucker,'requested a traffic survey ' to deterndne the number of ears passingdhrough. The traffic de- partment reqnlres a petition show. lng that 50 percent of households, i plus one, snpport such a move..~ ' Eighty percent of Tiffany's I}7 households signed the petition. "Take back possession of our months, when the traffic depart. ment is scheduled to re-evaluate the situation. The city may turn the street Into a cul-de-sac or put up another kind of barrier.' But · speeding cars and big rigs appear to be gone for good. :"We do recognize Tiffany as primarily a residential street," city engineer Tom Folks said. "We feel strongly It should retain local traf. fic for the most part." For neighbors, that Is cause for gloating. ' "Nice street, ch?" said Don Car. roll, 04, walking down the middle of Tiffany's new asphalt prome- nade the other day. · The closure apparently won't deter some drivers. One white van, falling to heed the "Street Closed" signs, roared down from Duncan Street, encountered, the steel pillars, and simply drove onto the sidewalk and around the barriers. Arleen Shippey 43 Lorraine Street Ukiah, California 95482 FROM THE DESK OF PETE PASSOF... 155 DEBORAH COURT · UKIAH, CA 95482 ° 707462-8588 ° FAX 707 468-8117 DATE: May 2, 1997 TO: Ukiah City Council ~/~¥ (J 5 1997 FROM: Pete Passof RE: Opening of Marlene at Orchard Avenue Your agenda announcement was hand delivered to my residence at 2:00 pm. Because I am leaving town tomorrow morning and will not be at your May 7 or May 14 meetings. I am hopeful that this letter will become a part of the record. As I stated to you when this item was last discussed, I think any plan to close Marlene would be a huge mistake from a public safety standpoint. It would isolate s~eral single family residences and high density complexes to only a single access point...Orchard and Gobbi. It's inconceivable that any current planning and traffic analysis would allow a dead end street where there are so many residents at risk. As a resident of the area I have enjoyed gaining access to Gobbi via Marlene without having to wait long periods of time. While I would have preferred to keep the traffic flow as it was prior to the barricade, I am sympathetic to those who have suffered the increase traffic from the Business Park. I think the compromise made was a wise move and it has helped correct the situation. Please accept the recommendation from your City Manager and the City Engineer. There's an easy way to stop those who choose to disobey the one-way signs. You cite their illegal activity and fine them just as you do parking violators and those who disregard speed signs. A few days of ticket writing would clear up that "problem" very quickly! I thank you in advance for your consideration of my concerns. Attn' Mayor Malone,City Counsel,and Mr. Kennedy: We, the undersigned, would like the~arricade at Orchard and Marlene Streets, made permanent. We also would like to know when the direction of traffic at Lorraine and Talmage frontal road will be completed as well as the removal of the curb on Talmage frontal road, between Lorraine and Betty. We would like to make a request, for more frequent enforcement of speed laws on the southern end of Betty and Lorraine Streets. Na~i'e . Address /. ( / ~/>:.~? ..... ,.~,~,,~ ............. ~~ ~_~.~ ....J:_~ ...................... ., ~ ~.~. ~ >~~~~ .................. ~_~.~ .... ~ ..................... ................ : : ...................... ...~~ ._.~ ............... ~ ~ ~ ~.~ .,~_~_~ ............................ t :/' ~ / ,' : ................ ~o:,'~¢~ ~~'. ...... Attn' Mayor Malone,City Counsel,and Mr. Kennedy' We, the undersigned, would like thCarricade at Orchard and Marlene Streets, made permanent. We also would like to know when the direction of traffic at Lorraine and Talmage frontal road will be completed as well as the removal of the curb on Talmage frontal road, between Lorraine and Betty. We would like to make a request, for more frequent enforcement of speed laws on the southern end of Betty and Lorraine Streets. Name Address ~ ,, ~ ..... ? ................................ Attn' Mayor Malone,City Counsel,and Mr. Kennedy: We, the undersigned, would like the barricade at Orchard and Marlene Streets, made permanent. We also would like to know when the direction of traffic at Lorraine and Talmage frontal road will be completed as well as the removal of the curb-on Talmage frontal road, between Lorraine and Betty. We would like to make a request, for more frequent enforcement of speed laws on the southern end of Betty and Lorraine Streets. Name /1 ,_. ,, Address ,,, Attn' Mayor Malone,City Counsel,and Mr. Kennedy: We, the undersigned, would like the/barricade at Orchard and Marlene Streets, made permanent. We also would like to know when the direction of traffic at Lorraine and Taimage frontal road will be completed as well as the removal of the curb on Talmage frontal road, between Lorraine and Betty. We would like to make a request, for more frequent enforcement of speed laws on the southern end of Betty and Lorraine Streets. Name Address ct ory ra On T,ffany Avenue City erects 11, barrio, rs to m: ke road in Mission District'quieter, safer B~ Dan Levy Ghron~ie Only a week ago, San Francis- co's Tiffany Avenue was a virtual on-ramp for cars and trucks racing toward the entrance to Interstate 280. City engineers measured traf- fic at 4,000 vehicles per day, an as- rounding number for the little two-lane Mission District street. Today, calm reigns over Tiffa- ny. An elderly neighbor ambles up the street with her grocery bags. Young women walk in pairs, push- lng strollers with sleeping infants. The only cars visible are the ones belonging to Tiffany Avenue residents. ' In a rare neighborhood ~ictory over fast-paced commuter culture, the San Francisco Department of Parking and Traffic last week erected 11 steel barriers at Tiffany and 29th Street, shutting down the two-block-long street to all but rez- idents and their cars for the next six months. "Es mucho meJor,' said a de- lighted Lydia Laguardia, 63, stolY ping to talk the other day' after making her shopping rounds on nearby Mission Street. "It's much better. There used to be a lot of noise, a lot of trash. During the night, trucks would come and shake my house."' Tiffany neighbors fought for the street closure for nearly two, years, combining perseverance. and teamwork to addres~ an alarming sense that traffic had: gotten way out of han~. "It was more dangerous here' than on Mission Street," said Xavi- er Garza, 35, standing Outside his i small, pale-colored stucco house in the middle of the block. "Cars were speeding through here. It was crazy. Late at night, it was a hazard." Mark Rand, a city engineer, said many commuters heading for the highway used Tiffany as a shortcut when six-lane San Jose Avenue was congested. : Noise and pollution were Issu- es, but the safety of Tiffany's chil- dren was the primary concern of neighborhood residents. Homes on the street do not have large back yards. For years, parents have been wary of letting their kids play outside because of the traffic problem. Also troublesome were 18- wheel trucks that delivered to Safeway's back entrance on Tiffa- ny and 29th Street and young peo- ple cruising the street on weekend' nights. The relief effort got under way when l residents, led by Nancy Tucker, requested a traffic survey to determine the number of cars passing through. The traffic de-~ partment requires a petition show- ing that 50 percent of households, plus one, support such a move.. Eighty percent of Tiffany's 97 households signed the petition. ~ G~C street,' ~id the petition, ~hich was ai~ printed ~ Chin~e. "Make Tiffany Avenue a ~ce'neighbor- ho~ once again." ~e problem w~ inde~ bad enough w war~nt the highly un- usual city ac~on. ~nd ~id he can remem~r only one other im~nce in h~ ~y~r ~r~r in which neigh~rs succ~ in ~clos~g a street to traffic -- ~d that w~ 15 years ago. , After*.~e tr~fic Survey r~ veai~ the extent of the problem, · e next hurdle w~ dealing with city bur~ucracy. Several alterna- tiv~ to shut~g ~e s~eet were comidered. ~ "We ~lk~. a~ut ~e on-way ~ibility, but in many cas~ ~at ~nds ~ ~incr~ ~e ra~ of s~,' ~nd ~id. ' InStead,'the traffic depa~ment put up steel barrie~ on one end of the street and movable wooden ~who~~ on' ~e other, so ~a~ neighbors with ca~ can still move in and out: at Duncan Street. A concern by ~e fire depart- ment that truc~ would not be able to get through in emergenci~ was ~lved by placing two collapsible barrie~ in ~e middle of the col- umn ~ow. ,The barriers will be up for six months, when the traffic depart- ment ~ scheduled to re~valuate the situation. ~e city may turn the street ~to a cul~c or pm up another kind.of barrier. Bm , speeding cars and big rigs appear to be gone for g~. "We do r~ognize Tiffany a~ primarily a r~idential street," engineer Tom Fol~ said. "We fee strongly it should re.in local traf tic for the most part." For neighbors, that ts cause ~ gloating. "Nice strut, eh? ~id Don Car roll, ~, walking down ~e middl of ~ffany's new ~phalt promc nade ~e other day. ~ ~e closure apparently won' deter some drivers. One white va~ ~failing to he~ the "Street Closed signs, roared down from Dunca: Street, encountered the ste( pillars, and simply drove onto sidewalk and around the barrier~ ITEM NO. 9b i, ii . DATE: May 7, 1997. AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: AGREEMENTS WITH KMART CORPORATION AND PEAR ORCHARD ASSOCIATES TO FINANCE CONSTRUCTION OF A BRIDGE OVER ORR CREEK (AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE ULTIMATE PROJECT TO EXTEND ORCHARD AVENUE TO BRUSH STREET) SUMMARY: In May, 1994, the City Council approved the new KMart Store, consisting of a 117,000 square foot building on an 11-acre site located at Hospital Drive and (continued on page 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize City Manager to execute the contribution of funds agreement with KMart Corporation ($200,000), and the contribution of funds agreement with Pear Orchard Associates ($75,000) towards the construction of a bridge over Orr Creek. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Do not approve the agreements, and provide alternative direction to staff. 2. Revise the agreements, as may be articulated by Council direction. Citizen Advised: Applicants advised Requested by: Candace Horsley, City Manager Prepared by: Robert Sawyer, Planning Director Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager; Mike Harris, Asst. City Manager; and David Rapport, City Attorney Attachments: KMart Corp. Contribution Agreement Pear Orchard Associates Contribution Agreement APPROVED:,~ ~~,.~ ~ ~ce I:-Io~sley, Cit-Y'M~nager Orchard Avenue. During Council's review of the project, it was determined that access to the site, and the surrounding commercial land uses, would be enhanced by extending Orchard Avenue across Orr Creek and connecting it to Brush Street. Even though the KMart Traffic Study did not include this project as an essential component of the traffic mitigation program, which was otherwise quite extensive, the City Council, in concert with KMart Corporation and Pear Orchard Associates, nonetheless determined that the street extension project would be beneficial to overall circulation, and would lessen potential impacts to the nearby Wagensellers residential neighborhood. Indeed, the ultimate extension of Orchard Avenue from its current terminus south of Orr Creek up to Orr Springs Road and Hensely Creek Road to the north is considered a high priority in the Circulation Element of the adopted Ukiah Valley General Plan, and the subject project is considered an important first step towards this ultimate circulation goal. Accordingly, as a peripheral yet independent part of the KMart discretionary actions, the Council approved three agreements associated with financing the cited improvements, and one associated with gaining right-of-way in the adjacent County of Mendocino jurisdiction. Specifically, the financing agreements consisted of the following: I , KMart Corporation contributes $200,000 towards the design, engineering, and construction of the Orr Creek bridge; , Pear Orchard Associates (owners of the land) contributes $75,000 towards the design, engineering, and construction of the Orr Creek bridge; and , KMart Corporation loans the City of Ukiah a sum of money not to exceed $220,000 towards the road improvements associated with extending Orchard Avenue from its current terminus to Brush Street. Hence, the agreements would ensure that the costs to build the cited road improvements would be covered, whereby the applicant team would immediately contribute $275,000 towards the construction of the Orr Creek bridge. This would be accomplished by the City and the respective contributors entering into the subject agreements, thereby ensuring that the design and construction of the bridge is adequately financed. The cited loan agreement would thereafter ensure that funds were made available to construct the road improvements associated with extending Orchard Avenue to the bridge, and ultimately to its connection with Brush Street. It should be noted that the three components of this project, consisting of the bridge over Orr Creek, the extension of Orchard Avenue to its northerly intersection with the Brush Street extension, and the extension of Brush Street westerly to its currently improved segment, are collectively referred to as the "Orchard/Brush Improvements." Specifically, from Ford Street to the proposed bridge crossing at Orr Creek, Orchard Avenue will be improved to provide necessary pavement width and taper. From the proposed bridge crossing to Brush Street, Orchard Avenue will be extended by constructing adequate pavement width, structural section, shoulders, and drainage for two (2) travel lanes. From the extension of Orchard Avenue to the west line of the railroad right-of-way, Brush Street will be widened at various locations, reconstructed at some locations, and overlaid at other locations to provide adequate pavement width, structural section, shoulders, and drainage for two travel lanes. The proposed and preferred crossing for Orchard Avenue at Orr Creek, is a single concrete span bridge with a total of 62 feet to provide four (4) travel lanes, four foot wide bicycle lanes, and five foot wide sidewalks on both sides. Two of the four lanes are for the future widening of Orchard Avenue as development along Orchard occurs. The agreements were approved by the City Council on May 4, 1994, yet never signed by either of the three parties of interest, and subsequently, the KMart project was temporarily abandoned. Recently, however, the project has been resurrected, and the City has taken a new look at the earlier approved agreements. This new look has resulted in revisions to all three agreements, which might best be characterized as better protecting the City's financial interests in the project. It should be noted that only the contribution agreements, and not the loan agreement, constitute the subject of this staff report, and the subject of the Council's consideration of approving the revised agreements. The previously cited loan agreement with Kmart Corporation has not yet been revised to the satisfaction of both the City and Kmart, and the City Attorney and the Kmart attorney are currently working on resolving certain legal issues. It is expected, however, that the loan agreement will be forwarded to the Council momentarily, accompanied by a staff report which fully explains the tenets of the agreement, as well as the ways in which it deviates from the previously approved, 1994 loan agreement. The original contribution agreements previously approved by the City Council required the City to commence construction within two years from the effective dates of the agreements. If the City failed to commence construction within that time, it was required to return the money plus interest earned on the money. The revised contribution agreements require the City to complete construction within five years, or return that portion of the money and accrued interest not already spent on designing or constructing the Orchard/Brush Improvements. Construction of any portion of the Orchard/Brush Improvements located within the unincorporated areas of Mendocino County depends on the City and County entering an agreement, satisfactory to the City, addressing issues of annexation, and authorizing the construction and providing maintenance for these improvements. This separate agreement with the County is currently being discussed by both the City and the County, and will be forwarded once it is approved by the County. In summary, the City Attorney has composed new agreements which better protect the City's financial interests, while maintaining the spirit and intent of the original agreements to facilitate the accumulation of funds towards the construction of a bridge over Orr Creek and a limited roadway system connecting Orchard Ave. to Brush Street. In so doing, traffic circulation and efficiency from northerly directions to the site should be greatly enhanced. Accordingly, staff recommends that the Council honor the earlier commitment to collect the funds necessary for design and construction of the Orr Creek bridge by approving the subject agreements, as revised to protect the City's financial interests. saw/asragree.doc/winword AGREEMENT This Agreement is made and entered this day of , 1997, in Ukiah, California, by and between the City of Ukiah ("City"), a general law municipal corporation and KMart Corporation ("Kmart"), a corporation organized and existing under and in compliance with the laws of the State of Michigan, and authorized to conduct business in the State of California. RECITALS-. A. City has determined in connection with its approval of the Kmart Project that it is desireable to construct an Orrs Creek Bridge, as part of a project consisting of extending Orchard Avenue to Brush Street, a bridge across Orrs Creek, and the surfacing of Brush Street from its intersection with the extended Orchard Avenue westerly to the City limits ("Orchard/Brush Improvements"). B. Until the City completes an environmental review of the Orchard/Brush Improvements in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, it cannot approve the Improvements. However, it has sought to enter various agreements, including this one, to establish the means by which the Orchard/Brush Improvements will be financed, if it is approved. The Orchard/Brush Improvements, including the Orrs Creek Bridge, are described in more detail in the attached Exhibit A, which is incorporated herein by reference. AGREEMENT: Wherefore, in consideration of the above-recited facts and the terms and conditions as further stated herein, the parties hereby agree as follows: 1 Within thirty (30) days from the date of this Agreement, Kmart ~hall deposit $200,000 with the City's Finance Director, who shall credit said deposit to a fund, designated the "Orchard/Brush Improvement" fund. The City shall be entitled to invest said funds in any investment authorized by law for surplus funds of the City. The City shall separately account for the interest or other income produced by the Orchard/Brush Improvement fund. The funds deposited by Kmart into the Orchard/Brush Improvement fund and any income attributed to said deposit shall be used exclusively to design and construct an Orrs Creek Bridge as part of the Orchard/Brush Improvements. "Design and construct" shall mean and include all costs, including engineering, contract preparation and administration and inspection costs, associated with the design and construction of the Orrs Creek Bridge. 2. If City has not completed construction of the Orrs Creek Bridge within five years from the date of this Agreement, the City s:\u\agr~ts97\kmart4.con May 2, 1997 1 shall return to Kmart the portion of the funds deposited by it into the Orchard/Brush Improvement Fund which have not been expended for the design and construction of the Orrs Creek Bridge together with any income earned by said deposit, and Kmart shall be relieved of any requirement to contribute to the Orchard/Brush Improvements as a condition of approval of the new Kmart store. 3. City and Kmart shall not assign any interest in this Agreement, and shall not transfer any interest in the same (whether by assignment or novation), without the prior written consent of the other party. 4. The parties hereby agree that all applicable Federal, State and local rules, regulations and guidelines not written into this Agreement shall hereby prevail during the period of this Agreement. 5. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, and any legal action concerning the agreement must be filed and litigated in the proper court in Mendocino County, the parties hereby consenting to venue in Mendocino County and waiving any objections to venue they might otherwise have. 6. If any provision of the Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall nevertheless continue in full force and effect without being impaired or invalidated in any way. 7. This Agreement contains the entire agreement among the parties and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous oral and written agreements, understandings, and representations among the parties. No amendments to this Agreement shall be binding unless executed in writing by all of the parties. 8. Whenever notice, payment or other communication is required or permitted under this Agreement it shall be deemed to have been given when personally delivered or when deposited in the United States mail with proper first class postage affixed thereto and addressed as follows: Kmart UKIAH Kmart Corporation City of Ukiah 3100 West Big Beaver Road C/o City Manager Troy, Michigan 48084 Ukiah Civic Center Attention: Real Estate Department 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 9. This Agreement may be executed in one or more duplicate originals bearing the original signature of both parties and when s:\u\agrmts97\kmart4.con May 2, 1997 2 so executed any such duplicate original shall be admissible as proof of the existence and terms of the Agreement between the parties. WHEREFORE, the parties have entered this Agreement on the date first written above. CITY OF UKIAH ATTEST: By: Mayor City Clerk KMART CORPORATION By: Its: s:\u\agrmts97\kmart4.con May 2, 1997 3 EXHIBIT "A" City Improvements , . , Extend Orchard Avenue northerly to bridge at Orrs Creek. Develop two lanes of travelway on Orchard Avenue northerly from the Orrs Creek Bridge to Brush Street. Improve two lanes of Brush Street westerly from the extension of Orchard Avenue northerly past the Orrs Creek Bridge to the railroad tracks. Exhibit A I of 6 RIGHT OF WAY < 30.00' DIRT SHOULDER ,,- 6.00' ,,. 12.00' .. CENTERLINE 30.00 12.00' RIGHT OF WA~' > >< ~.oo', > .- DIRT SHOULDER AGGREGATE BASE ORCHARD AVENUE TYPICAL SECTION ORR CREEK TO BRUSH STREET B - B RIGHT OF WAY < CEN?"...LI~". RIGHT 0~' 30.00' >< Z0.00 .-'" VARIES < 2s.oo, > < ~, To 12, > EXISTING 3" ASPHALT CONCRETE ' /--3' ASPHALT DIRT SHOULDER ~" 1.50' AGGREGATE BASE EXISTING 8" CLASS 3 ' ORCHARD .AVENUE AGGREGATE BASE TYPICAL SECTION FORD STREET TO ORR CREEK A - A 'Exhibit A ., '2 of 6 RiOUT OF WAY CENTERLINE i < lS.OO. ~1< 15.00' ! IITUIIT gL' WAY .. 3'" AgPHALT CONCRETE % 1,S0' AGGRI~GATB BArB ~' {}RUSH STREET TYPICAL SECTION FROM RAILROAD TO ORR STREET E - E /3® ABPHAL? CONCRETE LS0' AGGREGATE BABE RXglIT OF WAI* 15,00' /, 1S,0O* ROAD#AY ~2' AfPIIAL? CONCRETE RI(JIlT OF NAY V BRUSH STREET TYPICAL SECTION FROM APPROX. S00' EAST OF ORR STREET D - D RXGilT OF MAY CBHTBRLINE RXGHT OF MAY !/ 14,o9' ~/% IS,oo' , < J.3,oo' >< 12.oo' ,.t,.... 3.o~ ~-,XZSTIHO ROADWAY1 /I% / / s,o, ..I.. 7.oo, 'L. 7.00, ..L.s.o, ..I : ' ]- .,,,,A,-~ I -I / .4'" co.CRBTE- -- _._ i-- :- "' 1.50'OF AOflRIGATB / 1.S0"OF AGGRBOATE BASE BRUSH STREET. ! TYPICAL SECTION FROM APPROX. $00' EAST OF ORR STREET TO ORCHARD AVENUE C C '*' Exhibit A ,.,' 3of6 ULTIM ATE STREET Exhibit A i SECTIONS BRUSI-I STREET FULL DEVELOPMENT _ FROM RAILROAD TO ORCHARD ST. < , 3o.oo' :30.00 'r' ! I ! o,,c...,:, ^v,:..,. Exhibit A FULL DEVELOPMENT ~_0.0..~~ .~o ...~. ~.~. 4 of 6 ~ ~$ tO~ Exhibit A Exhibit A 6of6 AGREEMENT This Agreement is made and entered this day of , 1997, in Ukiah, California, by and between the City of Ukiah ("City"), a general law municipal corporation and Pear Orchard Associates ("Pear Orchard Associates"), a corporation organized and existing under and in compliance with the laws of the State of California. RECITALS: 1. City has determined in connection with its approval of the KMart Project that it is desirable to construct an Orrs Creek Bridge, as part of a project consisting of extending Orchard Avenue to Brush Street, a bridge across Orrs Creek, and the surfacing of Brush Street from its intersection with the extended Orchard Avenue to the City limits ("Orchard/Brush Improvements"). 2. Pear Orchard Associates owns property that will be benefitted by the construction of the Orchard/Brush Improvements in that access to said property will be improved. Pear Orchard Associates has determined that $75,000 represents a fair proportion of the total cost of constructing these improvements for it to contribute given the benefits to its property resulting from the construction of the project. 3. Until the City completes an environmental review of the Orchard/Brush Improvements in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, it cannot approve the Project. However, it has sought to enter various agreements, including this one, to establish the means by which the Orchard/Brush Improvements will be financed, if it is approved. The Orchard/Brush Improvements, are described in more detail in the attached Exhibit A, which is incorporated herein by reference. 4. The City shall only be obligated to construct any portion of the Orchard/Brush Improvements located within the unincorporated areas of Mendocino County, if the City and County enter an agreement, satisfactory to City, authorizing the construction and providing for the maintenance of said improvements. AGREEMENT: Wherefore, in consideration of the above-recited facts and the terms and conditions as further stated herein, the parties hereby agree as follows: 1. Within thirty (30) days from the date of this Agreement, Pear Orchard Associates shall deposit $75,000 with the City's Finance Director, who shall credit said deposit to a fund, designated the "Orchard/Brush Improvement" fund. The City shall be entitled to invest said funds in any investment authorized by law for surplus funds of the City. The City shall separately account for the interest or other income produced by the Orchard/Brush Improvement fund. The funds deposited by Pear Orchard Associates into the Orchard/Brush Improvement fund and any income attributed to said fund shall be used exclusively to design and construct the Orrs Creek Bridge. "Design and construct" shall mean and include all costs, including engineering, contract preparation and administration and inspection costs, associated with the design and construction of the Orrs Creek Bridge. 2. If City has not completed construction of the Orrs Creek Bridge within five years from the date of this Agreement, the City shall return to Pear Orchard Associates the portion of the funds deposited by it into the Orchard/Brush Improvement Fund which have not been expended for the design and construction of said improvements together with any income earned by said deposit, and Pear Orchard Associates shall be relieved of any requirement to contribute to the Orchard/Brush Improvements as a condition of approval of the new Kmart store. 3. City and Pear Orchard Associates shall not assign any interest in this Agreement, and shall not transfer any interest in the same (whether by assignment or novation), without the prior written consent of the other party. 4. The parties hereby agree that all applicable Federal, State and local rules, regulations and guidelines not written into this Agreement shall hereby prevail during the period of this Agreement. 5. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, and any legal action concerning the agreement must be filed and litigated in the proper court in Mendocino County, the parties hereby consenting to venue in Mendocino County and waiving any objections to venue they might otherwise have. 6. If any provision of the Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall nevertheless continue in full force and effect without being impaired or invalidated in any way. 7. This Agreement contains the entire agreement among the parties and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous oral and written agreements, understandings, and representations among the parties. No amendments to this Agreement shall be binding unless executed in writing by all of the parties. 8. Whenever notice, payment or other communication is required or permitted under this Agreement it shall be deemed to have been given when personally delivered or when deposited in the United States mail with proper first class postage affixed thereto and addressed as follows: s:\u\agrmts97\pearl.kmt May 2, 1997 2 Pear Orchard Associates UKIAH Pear Orchard Associates Corporation Attention: City of Ukiah c/o: City Manager Civic Center 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 9. This Agreement may be executed in one or more duplicate originals bearing the original signature of both parties and when so executed any such duplicate original shall be admissible as proof of the existence and terms of the Agreement between the parties. WHEREFORE, the parties have entered this Agreement on the date first written above. CITY OF UKIAH ATTEST: By: Mayor City Clerk Pear Orchard Associates By: Its: s:\u\agrmts97\pearl.kmt May 2, 1997 3 EXHIBIT "A" gitY Improvements le . . Extend Orchard Avenue northerly to bridge at Orrs Creek. Develop two lanes of travelway on Orchard Avenue northerly from the Orrs Creek Bridge to Brush Street. Improve two lanes of Brush Street westerly from the extension of Orchard Avenue northerly past the Orrs Creek Bridge to the railroad tracks. Exhibit A 1 of 6 RIGHT OF WAY < CENTERLINE 30.00' 30.00 DIRT SHOUDDER RIGHT OF WAY ~..oo, .,J,, ~..oo, >< e.oo, > I I, ! /-- 3" ASPHALT DIRT SHOULDER AGGREGATE BASE ORCHARD AVENUE TYPICAL SECTION ORR CREEK TO BRUSH STREET B - B RIGHT OF WAY < 30.00' CENTERLINE I : 30.00 RIGHT OF WAY I VARIES < :~s.oo, ~< ~., TO ~.2' > I I EXISTING 3" ASPHALT CONCRETE I' /-- 3" ASPHALT DIRT SHOULDER /. · _ / ,!'." ~'"'.'." EXISTING 8" CLASS 3 ORCHARD AVENUE AGGREGATE SASE TYPICAL SECTION FORD STREET TO ORR CREEK A ^ 'Exhibit A ,,'2 of 6 RZOHT OF NAY CEN?ERLIHR , I< 15.00, 1<! 15.00' RIOIIT OF NAY .. 3' AOPNALT 1.50' AGGRBHATB BAOR~*GflUSH STREET TYPICAL SECTION FROM RAILROAD TO ORR BTREET E - E ASPHALT CONCRITH 1.50' AGGREGATE BASE RXHHT OF WAT ~ 15,oo' ! 15.00' ROAD#AY RZGIIT or MAY BRUSH 8TREET TYPICAL SECTION FROM APPROX. SO0' EAST OF ORR STREET D - D RXGIIT Of NAY CBHTEI~LIHE RXGHT O!' NAY 15.oo' ,.!/ ~,5.oo' ,J ",. ' /l~ ' /1% ~ ' ~ S.O' 7.OO' ' / %00' 3' A~HAbT I COHCRBT8 1.50' O~ AOQRBGATI ~ 1.100' OF AGQRiOATI BAlE BRUSH STREET. ! TYPICAL SECTION FROM APPROX. S00' EAST OF ORR STREET TO ORCHARD AVENUE C - C Exhibit A '3of6 ULTIMATE STREET Exhibit A i SECTIONS I < ?o' ; .... s, .. s, .. (,.~/ No'..'' ~x,..'' s, ~_. s, ~ Ax, ~ No, .. 4...~ s, .. s, . LEFT TO~ LA~I ~ 3" ASPH~T . - ' · e- 'e~ BRU8H 8TREET FULL DEVELOPMENT FROM 'RAILROAD TO ORCHARD BT. ~ 30.00' ,~ , 30.00 I ! ! F ' , 25.00' ~ . . . · L' ,4.5', I,. 4'-[.- 10' -.L, LI.' .~ X:L' .J/ 10' l 4', ,4.S'.. ,un ~/w /"zx" /' / LA.,. ~ 'l l It.x"'' / / ' ,-3' xs,nxz,,/ m . 5' J' ORCHARD AVENUE FULL DEVELOPMENT FORD BTREET TO BRUSH STREET Exhibit A " 4of6 Exhibit A 6of6 ITEM NO. 10a DATE: May 7, 1997 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION DECLARING CERTAIN CITY OWNED PROPERTIES AS SURPLUS Periodically, staff reviews the City's inventory of materials, equipment and properties to evaluate items which may be declared surplus. Most recently staff has identified several real properties which may be suitable to be declared as surplus. These properties had been acquired by the City in the past for various public uses which are no longer necessary or have since been discontinued at the subject locations. In reviewing these properties staff can identify no practical use by the City in the foreseeable future and recommends they be declared surplus. The three properties staff is recommending as surplus are: North State Street Fire Station, 1800 North State Street, Assessor's Parcel #170-050-13; parcel adjacent to the north bank of Orr Creek, fronting Oak Street, Assessor's Parcel #002-111-39; and parcels located in the west hills along Low Gap Road, Assessor's Parcel #156-160-06 and 156-180-08. (Continued on Page 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt resolution declaring certain real properties as surplus ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Determine identified property list requires revision and adopt resolution as revised. 2. Determine adoption of resolution is inappropriate at this time and do not adopt. Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Appropriation Requested: N/A Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: Acct. No.: N/A (if budgeted) Candace Horsley, City Manager Larry W. DeKnoblough, Assistant Redevelopment/Community Services Director Candace Horsley, City Manager ~.~.~ Michael Harris, Assistant City Manager 1. March 13, 1997 Memorandum 2. Resolution AP P ROVE D: L-( -( -( -( -( -( -( -( -~ ~ Candace Horsley, City ~anager Id/property.asr The North State Street Fire Station has been in minimal use by the City since the establishment of the Ukiah Valley Fire Protection District and the subsequent reduction in the City's fire protection area. Public Safety has been utilizing the facility primarily as a service garage with minimal staff on site. The Oak Street parcel adjacent to Orr Creek was created at the time the City rerouted the Creek's path due to extreme storm damage. The property extends along the creek between Oak and Brush Streets and has remained undeveloped. It currently serves as a pedestrian path between the two streets. The zoning in the area is Single Family Residential with a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet. The subject property is more than adequate to create a residential parcel and still retain a significant strip along the creek for pedestrian traffic and creek maintenance which would be required by the City. The property located along Low Gap Road is approximately 35 acres of steep hillsides and was originally purchased by the City for the purpose of water source development. The project never developed and the property has remained unused. The parcel is landlocked and an easement would need to be obtained in order to gain access. Staff has attached a resolution for the Council's consideration which declares the property as surplus. Staff has also attached a March 13,1997 memorandum from David Rapport detailing the appropriate procedures for surplus property disposition. Should the Council wish to proceed with adoption of the resolution, staff will be required to notify several agencies of the pending sale and also obtain appraisals of the properties pursuant to the requirements defined in the attached memorandum. Law Offices Of RAPPORT AND MARSTON David J. Rapport Lester J. Marston Scott Johnson An Association of Sole Practitioners 200 W. Henry Street P.O. Box 488 Ukiah, California 95482 MEMORANDUM TO: Candace Horsley, City Manager ;~~ FROM: David J. Rapport, City Attorney~ ~-. DATE: March 13, 1997 SUBJECT: Disposition of city owned real property (707) 462-6846 FAX 462-4235 You have asked for a description of the procedures the City must follow in order to sell surplus City property. The following procedures are required or available to the City in disposing of surplus City real property: 1. On or before December 31 of each year the City shall make an inventory of all lands it owns that are in excess of its foreseeable need. The inventory shall be a public record and upon request shall be made available to any citizen, limited dividend corporation, housing corporation or non-profit corporation. (Government Code 9 50569.) [Required] 2. The City may hold a protest hearing prior to selling any real property it owns. (Gov. Code 99 37420 - 37430.)1 [Optional] ~ Under these procedures, the City Council adopts a, resolution stating its intent to sell the property. (Gov. Code 9 37421.)~ The resolution states the time for hearing protests, provides for publication of a notice of hearing, fixes the time for final action to be taken, and contains an accurate description of the property. (Gov. Code 9 37422.) The resolution is published at least once in a daily newspaper and is posted not less than 10 days in advance in three conspicuous places on the property offered for sale. (Gov. Code 9 37423.) Anyone objecting to the sale may file a written protest with the City Clerk at any time prior to final action by the City Council. (Gov. Code 9 37425.) The City Council can override any protests by a 4/5 vote. (Id.) s:\u\memos97\horsley.sal March 13, 1997 Memoranduzn to Horsley Subject= Sale of surplus real property March 13, 1997 Page 3 City's minimum legal residential building lot size, or 5,000 square feet, whichever is less or (B) has no record access and is less than 10,000 square feet; and is not contiguous to land owned by a state or local agency which is used for park, recreational, open-space, or iow- and moderate-income housing purposes. 6. Where notice in No. 4 above is required, the entity desiring to purchase the property for the required purpose must notify the City in writing of its intent to purchase or lease the land within 60 days after receipt of the City's notice. If the City receives such a notice within that time period, it must negotiate with the entity in good faith for a period of not less than 60 days. (Goc. Code § 54223.) The City is not required to sell the property for less than its appraised fair market value. (Gov. Code § 54226.) I hope this provides sufficient guidance for your purposes. If you need additional information, please let me know. DJR:can s:\u\memos97\horsley.sal March 13, 1997 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH DECLARING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTIES AS SURPLUS WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ukiah has determined the properties identified in exhibits A, B, and C of this Resolution as no longer necessary for public use; and WHEREAS, the City Council has further determined that as these properties no longer support public service, they may be declared surplus; and WHEREAS, any housing corporation, limited dividend or non-profit corporation shall be provided with a copy of this list of surplus properties upon request. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Ukiah does hereby declare Assessor's Parcels No. 002-111-39, 170-050-13, 156-160-06, and 156-180-08 to be surplus properties. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of May, 1997, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Sheridan Malone, Mayor Colleen Henderson, City Clerk ~L 6g '.LS ~g LO4 ~® Ii II I [ [ [ I [ @~ ;tS )~0 L96 666 ,® ®~ o ,001 .j... , ~ ~ OZL,oo/ ~ ~ Ii A ITEM NO. 10b DATE: MAY 7, 1997 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE SOLID WASTE COLLECTION FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WITH SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS, INC. SUMMARY Submitted for the City Council's consideration and action is a proposed amendment to the current Agreement with Solid Waste Systems, Inc., ("Contractor") for the collection, transportation, and disposal of garbage, refuse, and rubbish and recycling of recyclable materials which are generated within the City of Ukiah. This amendment would provide for the following: , The extension of the term of the Agreement by five (5) years from midnight March 31, 2002, to midnight March 31, 2007 in the event the Contractor constructs a recycling facility and redemption center at the Contractor's Taylor Drive site. CONTINUED ON PAGE 2 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the Amendment to the Agreement entitled "Contract for Collection, Transportation, and Disposal of Garbage, Refuse, and Rubbish, and Recycling of Recy¢lable Materials from within the City of Ukiah" executed on March 23, 1992, and authorize the City Manager to execute said Amendment on behalf of the City. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Return matter to Staff for changes to any proposed provision of the Amendment. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: Appropriation Requested: N/A N/A Rick H. Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Rick H Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Candace Horsley, City Manager I , Proposed Amendment to Agreement Current Agreement Correspondence from Ukiah Solid Waste December 17, 1996. (USW) dated Correspondence from USW dated January 14, 1997 Correspondence from USW dated January 24, 1997 APPROVED',_~--~ ~0_ Ca~-dac~ Horsley, C Manager R: 1 \LANDFILL:kk ASOLID.WST Proposed Amendment to the Solid Waste Collection Franchise Agreement with Solid Waste Systems, Inc. May 7, 1997 Page 2 BACKGROUND The Contractor desires to construct a recycling facility and expand the existing redemption center at their facility site located on Taylor Drive south of the Mendocino Transit Authority's facility. The new facility will be a pre-fabricated metal building with a floor space of approximately 8,610 square feet. The structure will house a bailer for processing recyclables, and a portion of the floor space will be utilized for the Redemption Center. The proposed structure is depicted in Exhibit "A" of the Amendment. To facilitate a reasonable amortization period, the Contractor is requesting that the termination date of the current Franchise Agreement be extended five (5) years from March 31, 2002 to March 31,2007. Construction of the structure must commence within one year from the date of the amendment and must be completed within 180 days from the start date. Staff recommends that the Contractor's request be approved. Staff agrees with the Contractor that the facility will enhance recycling operations as well as enhancing economic returns. It is to be noted that there will be no increases in the collection rates nor will there be any additional cost to the City by reason of the improvement, reference is made to the Contractor's correspondence dated December 17, 1996. R:I\LANDFILL ASOLID.2 AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT ENTITLED "CONTRACT FOR COLLECTION, TRANSPORTATION, AND DISPOSAL OF GARBAGE, REFUSE, AND RUBBISH, AND RECYCLING OF RECYCLABLE MATERIALS FROM WITHIN THE CITY OF UKIAH", EXECUTED ON MARCH 23, 1992 WHEREAS, Solid Waste Systems, Inc., (the "Contractor"), has been granted the sole and exclusive right and franchise to collect, transport, and dispose of refuse, garbage and rubbish, and to collect and recycle for market recyclable materials, generated by all sources within the corporate limits of the City of Ukiah (the "City"), pursuant to the provisions of an agreement executed on March 23, 1992, and entitled "Contract for Collection, Transportation and Disposal of Garbage, Refuse and Rubbish and Recycling of Recyclable Materials from Within the City of Ukiah" (the "Agreement"); WHEREAS, the Contractor desires that the terms of the Agreement be extended five (5) years thereby permitting the Contractor to amortize the cost of contemplated improvements at the Contractor's place of business from which he provides service to Ukiah, and WHEREAS, the contemplated improvements will enhance recycling programs that benefit the City of Ukiah. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the facts as recited above, the City and the Contractor hereby agree to amend the Agreement by incorporating the following amendments: AMENDMENTS I , In the event the Contractor, within one (1) year from the date of this Agreement is executed, obtains all required permits and approvals and commences construction of a recycling facility and redemption center at the Contractor's Taylor Drive site in substantial conformance to the facility depicted in Exhibit "A", attached and incorporated herein by reference, and completes construction within 180 days thereafter the five (5) year term stated in Article 2 of the Agreement shall be changed to a ten (10) year term and the date stated in Article 2 of the Agreement as the date the term of the Agreement terminates shall be changed from Midnight, March 31, 2002, to Midnight, March 31, 2007. 0 Section 16 of the Agreement is amended to provide that the Contractor shall also be obligated to maintain books of account and to provide the audit described in that Section for any other entity which is legally controlled by the Contractor and which performs any of the obligations of the Contractor under the Agreement. 3, The Contractor warrants that has been duly authorized by the Contractor to execute this Amendment on behalf of the Contractor. Upon execution of this Amendment, the provisions of this Amendment shall become binding upon both parties of the Agreement and shall modify any conflicting provisions of the Agreement, pursuant to the provisions of Paragraph 28 of the Agreement. In witness whereof, the City and the Contractor have executed this Amendment this ~ day of , 1997, in Ukiah California. SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS, INC. CITY OF UKIAH BY: BY.' Candace Horsley, City Manager ATTEST: Colleen B. Henderson City Clerk B:TRANSFER.2 EXISTING BUILDING NT5 APPROXIMATE I \ \ \ \ PROPERTY LINE i · $'"'~ITl i,d- EFF .... -J 79'-00' 29'* 07' I I L & CONTRACT F ~)R COLLECTION, TRANSPORTATION AND DISPOSAL OF G,V/OBAGE, REFUSE, AND RUBBISH, AND RECYCLING OF RECYCLABLE MATERIALS FROM WITHIN THE CITY OF UKIAH This Agreement is entered into on March 23 , 1992, in Ukiah, California by and between the City of Ukiah, a municipal corporation with its principal place of business located at 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California 95482 ("City"), and Solid Wastes Sys- tems, Inc., a California corporation with its principal place of business located at 940 Waugh Lane, Ukiah, California 95482 ("Contractor"). In consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties hereby agree as follows: 1. FRANCHISE Contractor is hereby granted the sole ~a~d exclusive right and franchise to collect, transport and dispose of refuse, garbage and rubbish, and to recycle ~'ecyclable materials generated by all sources within the corporate limits of the City of Ukiah, in accordax~ce with the provisions of the Ukiah Municipal Code and state law for the term specified in Ar- ticle 2 hereof. Enforcement of such exclusive right, where requested by the Contractor, shall be at Contractor's expense. 2. TERM OF THE CONTRACT · The term of this agreement, shall be for ten (10) years commencing on April 1 , 1992, and terminating at mid-ight on ~rch 31 ,2002, unless terminated earlier pur- suant to paragraph 20 herein; provided, however, that at the end of said ten year term, the agreement shall bc extended for an additional term of five (5) years on the same terms and conditions, unless either party gives notice of termination ninety (90) days prior to midnight ~iarch 31, 2002. At the election of Contractor and with the concurrence in writing of City, this Agreement can be extended for such additional term or terms as the parties shall agree. 3. AGREEMENT TO PERFORM WORg Contractor agrees to perform the work of collecting, transporting and disposing of all refuse, garbage and rubbish generated by all sources within the corporate City limits of the City of Ukiah, said collection being mandatory as to residential units, all in the manner, at the times and under the rules and conditions set forth in the Specification dated Septem- her 14, 1974, a copy of which is attached hereto, designated Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth. Contractor further agrees to comply with the condi- tions of Chapter $ of Division $ of the Municipal Code. Section 15 of the aforementioned specifications is modified hereby to provide that the rates shall be as set, forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference or as may be modified in accor- dance with this Agreement hereafter. 4. pAYMENT Contractor just received a rate adjustment expected to be effective until June 1993. Beginning July 1, 1993, Contractor shall be paid based on rates that will increase each year for the next two years by an amount equivalent to 75% of the percentage change from the previous year in the U.S. Department of Labor ('DOL"), Bureau of Statistics, Consumer Price Index ("CPI"), U.S. Cities Average, March to March ('Comract CPI"). In addition, the City shall add to the garbage rate any amounts necessary to fully compensate the Con- tractor for any increase in the gate fee charged to the Contractor for disposing of refuse at the City owned landfill. Prior to the third year, commencing on July 1, 1995, the City Coun- cil shall conduct a rate hearing pursuant to UCC sections 3950-3957 to determine what, if any, adjustment should be made to the garbage collection rates in the third or subsequent :..- years, taking into consideration the annual audits of the Contr~.ctor's operations and all other factors deemed relevant by the City Council. Thereafter, unless the City Council should determine otherwise at any rate hearing conducted pursuant to Ukiah City Code (UCC) sections 3950-3957, the rates shall automatically increase annually every two years by the Contract CPI and any h~crease in the gate fees charged to the Contractor at the landfill. The City Council shall conduct a rate hearing in every third year pursuant to UCC sections 3950-3957. $. FRANCHISE PAYMENTS Contractor agrees to pay to City as and for the rights granted hereunder an amount equal to fifteen percent (15%) of the Contractor's annual gross revenue from Contractor's operation under this Contract. Sect,.'on 13 of Exhibit "A" is incorporated herein as if fully set forth. 6. GARBAGE COLLECTION BILLING City has responsibility for all residential and commercial garbage collection billing. The City shall receive a fee of three percent (3%) of the said amounts billed and collected for this service, all in accordance with Section 12 of Exhibit "A". 7. COLLECTION OF STREET CONTAINERS A. Contractor shall make regular collections from all City-owned street refuse con- tainers in the downtown area located on public streets or sidewalks without charge to City. The City shall maintain all its refuse containers in the downtown area. B. Contractor shall provide collection and recycling services and recycling con- tainers to the City and all properties owned by the City free of charge. Contractor shall maintain in good condition all recycling containers provided to the City without charge to the City. 8. SCOPE OF RECYCLING SERVICES A. Curbside Recycling. Under a Recycling Service Manager, Contractor shall per- form curbside recycling services in the City of Ukiah as follows: (i) Collection. From all residential units that receive individual can garbage service Contractor shall collect and remove all Recyclable Materials, which are segregated and placed in or adjacent to recycling containers at the curbside on public streets and from commercial and multi-family residential customer shall collect and remove all Recyclable Materials which are segregated and placed in recycling containers at a location mutually 3 -"~f~ ~ acceptable to the City and Contractor. In addition, Contractor shall separately collect all yard waste set out for collection by residential or commercial customers on the usual col- lection day, provided that the yard waste is placed in a container clearly identifiable as con- taining yard waste, or, in the case of branches, cut to lengths of four feet or less and neatly bound together. (ii) Recyclable Materials Defined. For the purposes of this Agreement, Recyclable Materiah has the meaning provided in UCC Section 4480 K, 1-6 and includes yard waste. "Yard waste" means yard waste which consists of discarded natural vegetative substances suitable for decomposition into a usable agricultural soil amendment, as deter- mined by the City Manager or his or her designee, not including household food waste. (iii) Time of Collection. Contractor shall collect the Recyclable Materials placed at the curbside for collection once each week, regardless of weather conditions. To the extent possible, collection will be on the same day of the week as garbage collection service. Collection schedules need not be maintained on the following holidays: January 1, Thanksgiving, and December 25. Collection which would normally occur on such holidays shall be rescheduled as mutually agreed upon by Contractor and City's Recycling Coor- dinator. (iv) Container Purchase and Distribution. (1) Residential containers. Contractor shall purchase, at Contractor's sole cost and expense, and shall distribute one set of recycling containers to all residential units. Residential containers are described in Exhibit C entitled MRecycling Containers", at- tached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, or other similar containers : mutually agreed upon by Contractor and City's Recycling Coordinator. Following the dis- tribution of containers as provided herein, Contractor shall not be required to purchase or provide additional recycling containers unless requested to do so by the City's Recycling Coordinator. The ownership of the recycling containers purchased by Contractor under this Agreement shall be and remain with Contractor, unless this Agreement is terminated 4 as provided in paragraph 20. (2) Commercial and multi-family unit containers. Contractor shall provide suitable recycling containers for all commercial, roll-off box and multi-family gar- bage customers to accomodate all Recyclable Materials as further provided herein. (a) Small quantity, containers. For small quantities of Recycl- able Materials, the commercial recycling containers may be the same as those used for single-family residences and shall be provided to commercial customers on the same terms as they are provided to residential customers under subsection 8.A (iv)(1). (b) Large quantity_ containers. For larger quantities of Recycl- able Materials, including yard waste, the commercial or multi-family recycling containers shall be wheeled plastic containers, dedicated recycling dumpster-type containers, sec- tioned dumpster-type containers, or other container systems approved by the City Recy- cling Coordinator. For these types of containers, the Contractor may charge a monthly rental fee not to exceed the actual cost of providing and maintaining the container. The Contractor shall provide the City with a current list of such rental charges. After the An- nual Audit due March 15, 1993, the City Council may consider whether and shall have the right to require the Contractor to use all or part of the income received from the sale of Recycled Materials collected from commercial customers to reduce the rental charge for large quantity commercial recycling containers. (v) Replacement of Containers. The parties acknowledge that from time to time a customer may damage or destroy the small quantity recycling containers supplied by Contractor. City agrees that it will encourage the customer to replace said recycling con- tainers at the expense of the customer. To this end, Contractor shall make sets of three (3) such recycling containers available for purchase by any customer at a price not to exceed Contractor's actual cost for such containers. The parties also acknowledge that from time to time containers may be stolen from the curb. When notified of such occurrence, Con- tractor shall replace up to one set of three (3) containers per year for any one customer, at no charge to the customer. (vi) Transportation of Materials. Contractor shall transport recyclable materials to a central location approved by the City Recycling Coordinator for sorting and preparation for sale or recycling. Unless approved by the Recycling Coordinator, it shall constitute a material breach and grounds for termination of this Agreement for Contractor to dispose of any recyclable materials at a landfill or in any other fashion that does not guarantee the recycling of the collected materials. (vii) Labor and Costs. Contractor shall, at its sole cost and expense, except as otherwise provided herein, furnish all labor and equipment required to perform curbside collection pursuant to this Agreement. (viii) Missed Pick-ups. In case of a missed pick-up called in by a resident, Contractor shall collect the Recyclable Materials from such resident within twenty-four (24) hours. All calls relating to missed pick-ups shall be logged in by Contractor and such log shall be available for inspection by City. If the missed pick-up was caused by the cus- tomer, the cost of the subsequent collection may be charged to the customer. B. Public Awareness Pro~itm. Contractor shall develop and implement that por- tion of the Public Awareness Program designated "Contractor's Responsibilities" described in Exhibit D, entitled "Public Awareness Program", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. C. Repons. Contractor shall file with the City written reports of Contractor's per- formance under this Agreement as more particularly set forth in Exhibit E, entitled "Repons", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. D. Sale of Recvclable Materials. Contractor shall sell all Recyclable Materials col- lected from the curbside by Contractor pursuant to this Agreement at fair market value. Revenue obtained from such sales shall be retained by Contractor but shall be considered by the City Council as off-setting income, when the City Council conducts rate hearings as provided in paragraph 4 of this Agreement and sets rates for refuse collection and recy- cling. E. Expansion of Pro_m'.a.m, Contractor and the City shall continue developing and implementing plans and schedules for expanding the recycling program in connection with the development of a waste management plan under Chapter 1095 of the Statutes of 1989 CAB 939"). 9. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE Contractor shall perform those services set forth in Section 8 of this Agreement in accordance with a schedule to be established by the City Manager or his designee after consultation with the Contractor. In the event unforeseen circumstances arise which would cause a delay in performance, said Schedule of Performance may be modified accordingly by the mutual written agreement of City and Contractor. City's Recycling Coordinator is authorized to modify said Schedule of Performance on behalf of City. 10. CITY'S RESPONSIBILITIES A. Public Awareness Pro_m'i~m. City shall participate in the Public Awareness Program as provided in Exhibit D of this Agreement. B. Protection of Materials. City agrees to take such steps as it deems necessary to protect Contractor's ownership of all Recyclable Materials placed at the curbside for col- lection by Contractor under the terms of this Agreement, including enforcement of its anti-scavenging ordinance (Ordinance No. 893). Any enforcement at Contractor's request shall be at Contractor's expense. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 11. PERSONAL EOUIPMENT Contractor shall acquire, provide, maintain and repair at its sole cost and expense such equipment, materials, supplies, etc. as Contractor needs for its use for the proper con- duct of the aforesaid services which are not simply tools and other instrumentalities provided customarily by employees. 12. COMPLIANCE ._~ ~ Contractor, in the conduct of the services contemplated hereunder, shall comply with all statutes, State or Federal, and all ordinances, rules and regulations enacted or issued by the City Council of the City of Ukiah. 13. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR Both parties hereto in the performance of this agreement will be acting in an inde- pendent capacity and not as agents, employees, partners, or joint ventures of one another. Neither Contractor nor its employees are employees of City and are not entitled to any of the rights, benefits or privileges of City employees including, but not limited to, medical or workers' compensation insurance furnished by City. The parties intend to and have en- tered into a bona fide independent contract and nothing herein is a subterfuge to avoid making the Contractor an employee of the City. Contractor agrees to provide its employees with all legally required benefits and to withhold from their wages all taxes as required by law. Contractor agrees to indemnify and hold City harmless from and against any claim for unpaid taxes or benefits which are based in whole or in part on a claim that Contractor's employees are City's employees. 14. HOLD HARMLESS To the maximum extent permitted by law Contractor shall assume the defense of, and indemnify and save harmless, the City and each and every officer, employee and agent thereof from all suits, actions, damages, claims, or loss of every name and description to which the City may be subjected or put because of or arising out of Contractor's perfor- mance under this Agreement. Contractor shall have no duty to indemnify City for claims of damage caused by the active and sole negligence of City and its officers or employees. In providing the indemnification of City provided in this Agreement, Contractor agrees to provide for all costs of any necessary legal defense including, but not limited to, expert wit- ness fees and other litigation expenses, and all attorneys' fees incurred in defending or deemed by City necessary to defend any claim, whether actually filed in any court or not. 15. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS; Contractor shall comply with the insurance requirements contained in the attached Exhibit F which is incorporated herein by reference. 16. AUDIT Contractor shall maintain full and accurate books of account for its operations un- der this Agreement in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, at its principal office located at 940 Waugh Lane, Uldah, California, and the City, its officers, agents or employees shall have the right to inspect and examine all such books and support- lng records during normal business hours. Contractor shall provide the City with an annual audit of Contractor's books and records pertaining to all the operatiom covered by this Agreement, on or before March 15 of each year. The audit shall cover the audit period January 1 to December 31. The audit shall be prepared by an independent Certified Public Accountant satisfactory to both parties, and shall be paid for by Contractor. The auditor shall prepare a report with opinions showing the income, expenses, liabilities, and assets of the operations covered by this Agreement in accordance with generally accepted account- ing principles. Each year's audit and report shall be submitted to the City Manager or other person designated by him or her for his/her review. The report shall include a separate schedule of all income and expenses of the recycling operations. 17. ASSIGNMENT The Contractor shall not directly or indirectly, voluntarily or involuntarily assign, mortgage, pledge, or encumber any interest in all or part of this contract and shall not transfer any controlling stock or ownership interest in Solid Wastes Systems, Inc. or take any other action which would result in any individual or entity other than Contractor as it existed on the effective date of this Agreement providing services hereunder without the prior written consent of the City Council. The City Council shall have the right to deter- mine in its sole discretion whether to approve, conditionally approve or deny any request by Contractor for approval under this paragraph. Any action requiring City Council ap- proval under this paragraph that occurs without such approval shall give City the right to 9 terminate this Agreement without prior notice to Contractor or its successors or assigns. 18. INSOLVENCY OF CONTRACTOR-TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT Either the appointment of a receiver to take possession of all or substantially all of the assets of Contractor, or a general assignment by Contractor for the benefit of creditors, or any action taken by or suffered by Contractor under any insolvency or bankruptcy act shall constitute a breach of this Agreement by Contractor and shall, at the option of City, provide it with the right to terminate this Agreement without prior notice to Contractor or its successors or assigns. 19. pERMITS AND LICENSES Contractor, at its sole expense, shall obtain and maintain throughout the term of this Agreement all permits, licenses and approvals necessary or required for Contractor to per- form the work and services described herein, including, but not limited to, a business license from the City. 20. TERMINATION A. Except as otherwise specifically provided elsewhere in this Agreement, in the event Contractor materially defaults in the performance of any of the material covenants or agreements to be kept, done or performed by it under the terms of this Agreement, City shall notify Contractor in writing of the nature of such default. Within thirty (30) days fol- lowing such notice: (i) Contractor shall correct the default; or (ii) In the case of a default not capable of being corrected within thirty (30) days, Contractor shall commence correcting the default within thirty (30) days-of City's notification thereof, and thereafter correct the default with diligence. B. If Contractor fails to correct the default as provided above, City, without further notice, shall have all of the following rights and remedies which City may exercise singly or in combination: (i) The right to declare that this Agreement together with all rights granted 10 · ! Contractor hereunder are terminated, effective upon such date as City shall designate; (ii) The right to license others to perform the services otherwise to be per- formed by Contractor hereunder, or to perform such services itself; and (iii) The right to rent or lease the equipment from Contractor for the pur- pose of collecting, transporting and processing garbage and/or recyclables which Contrac- tor is obligated to collect, transport and process pursuant to this Agreement, for a period not to exceed eighteen (18) months. In the case of equipment not owned by Contractor, Contractor shall assign the City, to the extent Contractor is permitted to do so under the in- strument pursuant to which Contractor possesses such equipment, the right to possess the equipment. If City exercises its rights under this subsection B, City shall pay the Contractor the reasonable rental value of the equipment so taken for the period of the City's posses- sion thereof. (iv) The right to immediate possession and ownership of all containers furnished by Contractor under paragraph 8A(iv). The City shall pay Contractor for such containers the lesser of fair market value or an amount computed as follows: divide the purchase price of the containers by 144 and multiply the result by the number of full months that have elapsed since February 15, 1990, at the date Contractor's right to perform under this Agreement is terminated. C. In the event City materially defaults in the performance of any of the material covenants or agreements to be kept, done or performed by it under the terms of this Agree- ment, Contractor shall notify City in writing of the nature of such default. Within thirty (30) days following such notice: (i) City shall correct the default; or (ii) In the case of a default not capable of being corrected within thirty (30) days, City shall commence correcting the default within thirty (30) days of Contractor's notification thereof, and thereafter correct the default with diligence. D. If City fails to correct the default as provided above, Contractor, without further notice, shall have all of the following rights and remedies which Contractor may exercise singly or in combination: (i) The right to declare that this Agreement together with all rights granted City hereunder terminated; and (ii) The right to bring suit against the City for breach of contract. 21. PERFORMANCE BOND The Contractor shall provide and continue in force throughout the life of the agree- ment the bond of a surety company or its equivalent approved by City in the amount of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) conditioned upon the faithful performance by Con- tractor of each and every term covenant and condition of this Contract by Contractor agreed to be performed. 22. WORKER'S COMPENSATION INS~Ci*. Before beginning the work the Contractor shall furnish to the City satisfactory proof that it has secured, for the period covered by the work under this contract, full payment of compensation to all persons whom it may employ directly or through subcontractors, in car- tying out the work contemplated under this contract, in accordance with the "Worker's Compensation and Insurance Act," Division 1V of the Labor Code of the State of Califor- nia and any acts amendatory thereof. Such insurance shall be maintained in full force and effect, during the period covered by this contract. The Contractor shall sign and file with the City a Worker's Compensation Certifi- cate prior to performing any work. 23. INSPECTION The City, its officers, agents or employees shall at all times have the right to inspect and observe every aspect of Contractor's business operation to determine whether the serv- ices being provided by Contractor are being performed in a workmanlike and professional manner. In exercising this right, Contractor shall provide the City with access to all of its business facilities so that the City, its officers, agents or employees can observe every aspect 12 of Contractor's business operation. 24. pATENTS The Contractor shall assume all responsibilities arising from the use of patented materials, equipment, devices, or processes used on or incorporated in performing the work or providing the services required under this Agreement. 2~. SUBCONTRACTING Contractor shall not subcontract with any independent Contractor to perform the work or services required under this Agreement without the express written consent of City. If the City authorizes a subcontractor to perform any work or services under this Agreement and said subcontractor does not perform said work or services to the satisfac- tion of the City Manager, the subcontractor shall immediately be removed from performing said work or services upon receipt by Contractor of the City Manager's written request to do so and said subcontractor shall not be employed again by Contractor to perform any work under this Agreement. 26. PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY The Contractor shall so conduct its operations so as to cause the least possible obstruction and inconvenience to the public and to traffic. 27. LAWS ~ The Contractor shall keep itself fully informed of all existing and future State, Federal and Municipal laws and regulations which in any manner affect those engaged or employed in the work, or the materials used in the work, or which in any way affect the conduct of the work, and of all such orders and decrees of administrative bodies or courts having any jurisdiction or authority over the same, and adhere thereto. 28...WAIVER OR MODIFICATION No waiver, alteration, or modification of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be binding unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of both parties to this Agreement. ~d~.~ ~9. C~OVEg~; This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. 30. pREVIOUS AGREEMENT Any and all existing statement or agreements, whether oral or written, or renewals thereof, between the parties hereto, covering the same subject matter, are hereby canceled and superseded by this Agreement and such prior agreement shall have no further force or effect. 31. pARAGRAPH HEADINGS The paragraph headings contained herein are for convenience and reference only and are not intended to define or limit the scope of this Agreement. 32. NOTICE Whenever notice to a party is required by this Agreement, it shall be deemed given when deposited with proper address and postage affixed thereto in the U.S. Mail or when personally delivered as follows: CITY: UKIAH CIVIC CE~R 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 ATrN: City Manager CONTRACTOR: JAMES SALYERS, President Solid Wastes Systems, Inc. 940 Waugh Lane Ukiah, CA 95482 33. DUPLICATE ORIGINALS This Agreement may be executed in one or more duplicate originals bearing the original signature of both parties and when so executed any such duplicate original shall be admissible as proof of the existence and terms of the Agreement between the parties. 34. FORUM SELECTION Contractor and City stipulate and agree that any litigation relating to the enforce- ment or interpretation of this Agreement, arising out of Contractor's performance or relat- 14 lng in any way to the work shall be brought in Mendocino County and that venue will lie in Mendocino County. 3~. AUTHORITY Contractor warrants that James Salyers has been duly authorized by Contractor to enter into this contract on behalf of Contractor. 15 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City of Ukiah and Contractor have executed this Agree- ment this 23 day of Harch ,1992 in Ukiah, California. SOLID WASTES SYSTEMS, INC. By: (S:\FROMUSA\U\CONT~RECYCLE) F er Date:, .~/~- ~/ ~ 2--- ~-KI H Y i Clerk 16 [lkiah Solid Waste Jim Salyers 3310 Stratford Ave. .Redding, California 96001 Candace Horsley City Manager, City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Drive Ukiah, California 95482 12/17/96 Dear Candace: Ukiah Solid Waste would like to build a recycling processing facility at our Taylor Ave. site. This processing facility would include: I. a new baler for baling cardboard, newspaper and office paper, plastic containers, tin and aluminum cans 2. a new sorting system for sorting co-mingled recyclables, such as different grades of paper and plastics, and mixed recyclables from conunercial and multi-family recycling routes 3. an improved buy-back center 4. an area to receive and grind wood waste Preliminary designs have already been prepared for the project and we are ready to proceed with obtaining the necessary permits, ordering the equipment, and contracting to build. Ukiah Solid Waste is not requesting an increase in our collection rates to finance this project. We are, however, asking to exercise the language in our contract allowing an extention to our franchise with the City of Ukiah. As a means of spreading the cost to build this facility over a period that will enable us to build it without requesting an increase in our rates we are asking for an additional ten years added to the existing teml of our franchise. Please let me know if, and how, we can proceed with my request. I will be happy to met with you at your convenience, possibly with the City's Solid Waste Committee, to discuss our plans. If I can answer any questions or provide you with any information please give me a call at (916) 949-0486. Sincerely, Jim Solid Wastes Systems, Inc. P.O. Box 60 · Ukiah, CA 95482 Tel: 007) 462-8621 · Fax: (707) 462-0112 1-14-97 Rick Kennedy Director of Public Works, City Engineer 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah, CA 95482 Dear Rick, Per your request, ! have detailed our proposal to construct and operate a recycling processing facility and redemption center at our Taylor Drive site. The building to be constructed will be a metal pre-fabricated structure large enough to accommodate our current and future recycling stream. I have included building and site plans for your review. Items to be processed and baled include cardboard, paperboard, milk cartons, newspaper, office paper, magazines, phone books, plastic bottles, tin cans and aluminum cans. Other items to be processed but not baled include glass bottles and jars. The above items will come from our residential and commercial recycling routes, the landfill drop off center and our on site redemption center. If the City would like Solid Wastes Systems to accept junk metal at our site, we would be willing to discuss how this material might be handled in a cost effective manner. Our current redemption center is located adjacent to our vehicle maintenance area on Taylor Drive. It is our intention to move the redemption center into the same building as our processing facility. This will give us much needed room to serve our customers and to add future recyclable materials as markets become available. This facility enhancement will allow the City of Ukiah to continue to be a leader in waste diversion for many years to Come. if you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 462-8621. ~Crely' ~ · M~Crack en Solid Was~es Systems c. Candace Horsley ~ Printed on Recycled Paper Solid Wastes Systems, Inc. Your P.O. Box 60 · Ukiah, CA 95482 Tel: (707) 462-8621 · Fax: (707) 462-0112 January 24, 1997 Rick Kennedy City of Ukiah Public Works Director, City Engineer- 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah, CA 95482 Dear Rick, I wanted to update you on our timetable regarding the Taylor Road facility expansion. As of today, both the County Building Department and the Ukiah Valley Fire District have approved the expansion plans as submitted. Next week we will begin interviewing prospective construction firms that are interested in working on the project. Final selection of the firm will not be made until after the City Council approves our contract extension. It is my understanding that the existing language within the current agreement will remain the same including the section allowing for a negotiated term extension. Please let me know when you will have a staff report prepared so that I may review it prior to the Council meeting on February 19th. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Sin~rely, Bruce C. Mc~racken Solid Wastes Systems c. Candace Horsley, City Manager ~ Printed on Recycled Paper EXISTING BUILDLNG APPROXIMATE t PROPERTY LiNE 575 Z C~ · 2-'- 8 ~2" 79'-00' I m I tide ABO*~ EXISTING BUILDING NT'~ . ...: .: ..... :... _ _ 2; - e './2" --i I 2~r-8 ~'2- RECEIVED C!TY OF UKIAH To: The Ukiah City Council April 30,1997 APR 3 0 1991 CITY CLERK DEPARTMENT Subject: April 30, 1997, Llkiah City Council Meeting and MSWMA Transfer Station Proposal. De~ Council Members, I am writing to express my personal views and share some information with you regar ding various matters conoerningthe solid waste transfer station on North State Street in Ukiah as proposed bythe Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority (MSWMA). Due to a previou~ engagement, I will not be able to attend your meeting tonight where you will be discussing and possibly taking action on a number of issues related to the proposed transfer station. I am, of course, speaking for myself and not the Mendocino County Bozrd of Supervisors in addressing these matters. I would like to briefly discus~ several important points relative to the MSWMA-proposed transfer station. As proposed, the basic contract for the transfer station has a 20-year duration with a "roHover" renewal option of five years. Given the automatic annual CPI escahtor clause, the total worth of this contract could easily be in the neighborhood of some $60 million m probably the largest such contract in County history. The 36-page contract which few public officials, including myself, has ever seen, attempts to lock MSW MA's member local goverflments into a 10-year agreement to direct solid waste to a specified landfill. Furthermore, that agreement may also be extended by two five-~ rollovers. Those kinds of inflexible terms and conditions are not good public policy because local governmental bodies are, in effect, relinqui_thing their responsibilities to protect ratepayers. It's also important to note that current County agreements with trash haulers have a basic term of only five years. Keep in mind that the "locked-in" features of the proposed contm~ prevent MSWMA member jurisdic- tions from re-directing solid ~ flow to a cheaper or more economieal la~d~ once the contrac~ is approved. In other wor ds,if landfill "X' with a tipping fee of g30 per ton is the desigo~ted landfill for 10 y~trs, MSWMA members could not avail themselves of an agreement with landfill "Y" which offers a $10 tipping fee. With new hndfilb opening every year there is fierce competition in the solid w'dm~ marketplace which hat resulted in tippingfees as lowas $9 per ton. Contraryto MSWMA offieiab arguments,nmb rock-bottom fees are not solely, or even mosOy, derived from the economy of scale allegedly engendered by a centralized transfer facility receiving all of the County's solid W'd~e. For example, at the April 23 meeting ofthe Willits City Council, Solid Wnmte of Willits owner Jerry Ward stated in response to a que~on from City Mmutl~ Oordon Logexi, that the same $9 per ton tipping fee offered to MSWMA bythe Loekwcod, Nevada landfill alto ~ proffered to him ba~ed on Willits' approximate 4~00 tons of mmual solid waste, some 10 percent of the County's overall solid waste. With la~dfills being permitted in nearbyColun County, and with Lake County possibly expanding its landfill in the near future, it only makes sense for local governments in Mendoeino County to keep their options open regarding solid waste disp~ ~. MSWMA officials have attempted to create an artificial crisis in order to stampede member jurisdictions into signing off on the proposed contract. Remember that the North State transfer station isa't planned to be opened until the Ukiah landfill cloees. We are not in a "time crunch." On April 23 the Willits CityCouncil took action relative to the MSWMA proposal ttmt is best described as keeping its options open and Page 2 guaraateeLu{~ the be~i rate~ for its ~tueats. The Willi~ City Co~ re~d ~ be ~peded ~d J~ ra~a~s ~e bet~ off b~~ of it. On Apr~ 28 ~e F~t Bra~ City Co~ ~ k~t i~ ~fi~ ~ by ~g~ dehy ~ ~~ ~ ~e ~~~ ~fi~ p~d~g ~ ~p~t~ty~ renew ~e ~t ~ be ~l~d bid pr~~ k~ ~e pr~~~ ~~~ ~~ b~d~/~a~. I have enclosed for your review a new~p~tper article which addresses the April 23 Willits City Council meeting. I want to thank you for aHowingme to share my thoughts and concerns with you re~tr ding this very important ism~e. In conclusion, the bm way to guarantee the best rates for County residents is to keep our options open by not allowing ourselves to get tied-down or locked into long-term solid wax~e agreements as currently proposed by MSWMA. Siacerely, 3rd District Supervisor Mendocino County Boar d of Supervisors .Political Page 3 By Jim Shields Wiliits Protects Ratepayers, Refuses To Be Locked In To Transfer Station Plans to build a mega-garbage transfer station in north Ukiah were dealt a serious blow in thc wee hours Thursday morning (April 24) when the Willits City Council refused to guarantee its solid waste would flow to thc proposed S4 million facility which is being propos~ by the Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority (MSWMA). In a 4.1 vote, the Council's majority rejected a proposal that poten- tially would have required Willits to haul all ils trash lo a centralized processing center on North State Street. Subsequent to that decision, the Council voted unanimously to "utilize its best efforts" to send its solid waste to the transfer station, but the Council made it clear that thc proviso is oontL, t~ent o~ ratcpayers receiving the best deal there and not someplace else.~ Summing up the feelings of fellow council members, Denny Mclntirc said, '~)ur main obligation is lo the ratepaycrs." Referencing the reje~l~ proposal's minimum duration of 10 years, Mayor Tom Lucier commented, "Personally, I'm not going to make any kind of decision that tics thc hands of future (City) Councils." Thc Council's vote was Nso an affirmation of ils lens.standing relationship with Willlts traSh hauler Jerry Ward, who is currrcntly being sued by the County over transfer stalion politics, At one point during the almost six-hour meeting, Lucier told MSWMA officials that constituents arc urging the Council to join in support of Ward in his court fight. Next wee, k, city councils in Fen Br~g and Ukiah a~ expected to take action on the same MSWMA propo~l turned down by Willits. While no one is predicting with certalnty bow those two councils will decide the issue, it would not be surprising if they were to follow Wiilits' lead. Re~,ardle~s of how Uldah and Fort Bragg re~olve the matter, it's probably back to the drawing board for MSWlVfA officials ~s the transfex station deal is structured on the premise that al! o£thc County L~ trash will flow through the facility. With Willits keeping its Optioas open in order m protect ~ mtepayers, MSWMA can no longer guard. tee prospective builders and operators of the mesa.station that it will handle all of the County's garbage, a key componen! in the bidding process and financial arranBcments. In related action, the Council okayed by ~ 4-1 vote (Ha~cy no) to send its trash to the Ukiah landfill after the Willits landfill closes on Juno 30. Thc Ukiah dump is scheduled to shut its sates in th~ fall of 1998 at which time the proposed mcga-tzansfer station is supposed to be, on-line -- which could be an interesting deadline given recent develop- menu~. Page 4 Assuming that the l. lkiah u-ansi'er ration is built, the Council also gave its unanimous .support in favor of rail-hauling trash to the desig- nated out-of-county landf'dl. Finally. by another unanimous vote, the Council, siuin$ u the Pl~mning Commission, ~ved a conditional use permit for a scli'.haul uansfcr station &nd recycling center on Franklin $tnect. The transfer station is being built by Want, ownc~ of Solid Waste of Willits, who is hopini the facility will be open to coincide with the closure of the local landt"tll on 3une 30. Construction was set back a month pending thc results of a tralT~c study whiCh ultimalelY concluded there w~ no need for signals a! thc intersection of Highway 20 and Blosscr Lane. In the event that the self. haul facility is not operational on lub, 1, Ward and thc Council agreed ~o come up with a ~cmporary alternative for trash drop-off and recycling. ITEM NO. 10c .... DATE: MAY 7, 1997. SUBJECT: AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT APPROVAL OF LOAN TO RURAL COMMUNITIES HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FROM FUND 335 FOR LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING By letter of April 18, 1997 Rural Communities Housing Development Corporation (RCHDC) has requested a loan of $106,000 to assist in developing Iow and moderate income housing. The Fund from which the monies are sought is 335, Community Development Commission. This fund was established many years ago as part of a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program for Iow and moderate income housing rehabilitation. Original funding was from a federal grant. Current revenue to the fund is the payment of Iow or deferred interest loans awarded to the homeowners as part of the grant. No general fund monies were utilized in this regard. The fund balance as of March 31 was $107,559. Reuse of the CDBG funds must benefit Iow and moderate income persons either for housing or economic development. The fund has been maintained as a ready resource for temporary assistance and not granted for single purpose expenditures which would have depleted the account. The proposed use of the funds by RCHDC meets the criteria for reuse of the funds. The proposed repayment interest rate is lower than that which would be received as part of the City's investment portfolio, but it is short term and the funds will be used for the intended purpose. RCHDC has had a long and positive relationship with the City in providing affordable housing and will utilize the funds in an efficient and effective manner. Staff recommends that a loan of $106,000 to RCHDC for two years at three percent interest from Fund 335 be approved and the City Manager be authorized to execute loan documents. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve a loan of $106,000 to RCHDC for two years at three percent interest from Fund 335 and authorize the Manager to execute loan documents. City ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS' 1. Determine loan conditions must be altered, identify changes, and approve modified loan agreement. 2. Determine loan should not be made and deny request. Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Acct. No.: 335.115.OO7 Appropriation Requested: N/A Citizen Advised' Yes Requested by: Rural Communities Housing Development Corpo~r,a~!~o~ (_RC~;) Prepared by: Michael F. Harris, AICP, Assistant City Manager~J'~ R,~ Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: 1. April 18, 1997 letter from RCHDC, page 1. 2. Balance hee._t for Fund 335,~e 2. APPROVED: ~ ~^ Candace Horsley, c~tY I~anager mfh:asrcc97 0507RCHDC Housing Development Corporation 237 E. Gobbi St. Ukiah, California 95482 (707) 463-1975 Fax (707) 463-2252 A Non-Profit Corporation Serving Lake and 6Aendocino Counties April 18, 1997 Candace Horsley City Manager City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah, CA. 95482 Dear Ms. Horsley: I would like to request financial assistance from the City of Ukiah Community Development Commission Fund to develop a parcel for Self- Help housing in the southern part of the City. Specifically, I would like to request a loan from this fund for $106,000 to cover a part of the infrastructure costs in this development. RCHDC would need these monies for a period not to exceed two years and is willing to pay the City 3% for their use. This project will produce 22 units of housing for lower income families in Ukiah, which addresses the major need of affordable homeownership in our community. If you have any questions you can contact me at 463 1975 ext. 17. Executive Director I ZUJ Z~ ~0~0000 ~0~000~ I ~0~00~0 · ~I · · · · · · §§ · · ) i,. · · · · · · ooo2dodd~ · · · · '~ '.e ~ "' II, III eeeee.eee Z iA. ITEM NO. 10d DATE:_May 7, 1997 AGENDA SUMARY REPORT SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION REVISING THE CITY CEQA GUIDELINES SUMMARY: In response to the establishment of State Guidelines for implementing the California Environmental Quality Act in 1973, the City adopted local guidelines for maintaining a quality environment, and to assure public disclosure and participation in the required environmental review analysis of land development projects. In 1974, the local guidelines were revised because of amendments to the State Guidelines. Since that time, no revisions have been adopted even though the State Guidelines have been amended a number of times. The City has relied on the State Guidelines for direction when processing environmental documents. Accordingly, staff has prepared revised local CEQA Guidelines to bring them into conformance with the State Guidelines, and to tailor a number of sections related to procedural steps to our local community. These sections include Compliance Responsibilities, Detailed Project Description Requirements, Communication with Project Applicants, Funding the Preparation of EIR's, the RFP and Consultant Selection Process, Preparing and Executing Consultant Contracts, Administrative Draft EIR Provisions, and Delineation of the Certifying Body for EIR's. These Sections are discussed in the Staff Analysis on pages 2 and 3 of the April 9, 1997 Planning Commission staff report (attachment #3). (continued on page 2) RECOMMENDATION. Adopt the Resolution revising the City CEQA Guidelines. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: 1. Do not adopt the Resolution, and provide direction to staff. Citizen Advised: Public notices published in the Ukiah Daily Journal Requested by' Planning Department Prepared by: Charley Stump, Senior Planner Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager and Bob Sawyer, Planning Director Attachments: . 2. 3. 4. Resolution revising the City CEQA Guidelines Revised CEQA Guidelines Planning Commission Staff Report, dated April 9, 1997 Planning Commission Minutes, dated April 9, 1997 APPROVED: On April 9, 1997, the Planning Commission discussed the revised City CEQA Guidelines and voted unanimously to recommend City Council approval. recommendation, the Commission agreed that they wanted to In forming their draw the Council's attention to one particular issue. Currently, there is no appeal process to the Planning Director's decision as to what type of environmental document is required for a project. The Commission felt that it may be appropriate to establish an appeal process for any party objecting to the Planning Director's decision. While CEQA does not require an appeal process to the staff decision making process regarding what type of environmental document is appropriate for a given project, some communities have established an appeal procedure. However, staff questions the need for such a process in our community for two reasons: First, we do not have a large number of big complex development projects, and therefore process very few Environmental Impact Reports (2 in the last 5 years). Second, the purpose of the environmental document review process is to solicit public comment on the adequacy of the document. If any concerned citizen, group, agency, or developer objects to the Planning Director's decision to prepare a Negative Declaration rather than an EIR for a project, they have the opportunity in the review process to state in detail why they believe that an EIR should be prepared. If the decision makers were to agree, they could then require the preparation of an EIR. In the event that the project applicants disagree with a decision to require an EIR, they could meet with the Planning Director to discuss the analysis that lead to the decision to require an EIR, and modify the project to make it eligible for a Negative Declaration. Conclusions The California Environmental Quality Act has changed dramatically since it was first enacted 27 years ago by the State Legislature. These changes are the result of both legislative and judicial decisions, and pertain to procedural and technical aspects of the Act. Since 1974, the City has relied on the State Guidelines, rather than revise the local Guidelines. The current project is an attempt to bring our local guidelines into conformance with the State CEQA Guidelines, and to tailor a number of procedural steps to our local community. The Planning Commission is suggesting that an appeal process be established for objecting to the Planning Director's decision regarding what type of environmental document to require for a given project. Staff respectfully disagrees because there is an inherent "appeal" procedure within the format of the review process. 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 1 2 3 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH REVISING THE CITY CEQA GUIDELINES WHEREAS, in 1973, the City Council adopted Resolution 73-41 establishing local guidelines for implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, in 1974, the City Council adopted Resolution 74-37 revising the local CEQA Guidelines to be consistent with the State CEQA Guidelines which had been recently amended; and WHEREAS, the City of Ukiah local CEQA Guidelines have not been revised since 1974, and numerous changes have occurred to the State CEQA Guidelines since that time; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21082) requires local CEQA Guidelines to be consistent with the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, on April 9, 1997, the Planning Commission reviewed and discussed the revised City CEQA Guidelines, and voted unanimously to recommend City Council adoption; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is appropriate and reasonable to amend the local CEQA Guidelines to be consistent with the State Guidelines. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Ukiah hereby revises the local CEQA Guidelines, attached as Exhibit "A" so that they are consistent with the State of California Guidelines. 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 1 2 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED this AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ~heridan Malone, Ma~or _, by the following roll call vote: ATTEST: Colleen B. Henderson, City Clerk EXHIBIT SA (23 pages) CEQA GUIDELINES CITY OF UKIAH, CALIFORNIA Prepared by the City of Ukiah Planning Department April, 1997 CEQA GUIDELINES City of Ukiah, California Adopted CITY COUNCIL Sheridan Malone, Mayor Jim Mastin, Vice Mayor Kristy Kelly Philip Ashiku Guadalupe Chavez PLANNING COMMISSION Judy Pruden, Chairman Eric Larson, Vice Chairman Jennifer Pusher Joe Chiles Mike Correl CITY ADMINISTRATION Candace Horsley, City Manager David Rapport, City Attorney Robert Sawyer, Planning Director Charley Stump, Senior Planner CITY OF UKIAH II. III. IV. PREFACE.. INTRODUCTION A. Basic Purpose of CEQA ......................... B. Purpose of City Guidelines ... C. Lead Agency Authority ............. OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY OF PROCEDURES A. al cw CEQA applicability ........ · ....... 2 Exemptions from CEQA .... Initial Studies, Negative Decla~tions, and EIR's .................. 2 D. Responsible Department: Planning AUTHORITY PROVIDED BY CEQA A. Mitigation ............... · '''......... 3 B. Denial of Pr~ects .... ''''''''''''........ 4 C. Approve Pr~ec~ Despite Significant Effec~ .. ''''''''''.---..... 4 D. Providing Commen~ to a Lead Agency .......... ''''''..--..... 4 E. Establishing Fees .. APPLICABILITY OF CEQA Am Gm Government Action .. '''''''''-.-...... 4 Time of Compliance ..................... Ministerial Projects ....... V. D. Discretionary Projects ................. E. Definition of Project ............. F. Compliance Responsibilities . .. G. Advisory Role of Departments .................. H. Lead, Responsible, and Trustee Agencies .. · '''''''''''......... 6 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCEDURES Am Bm Gm Dm Em Fm lm m Early Project Review and Consultation · ' ' '' '' · '' · · · ... · · ·.. 6 Review for Project Completeness · ' ' '' '' ' ' ' '' · ''. · · · · · .... 6 CEQA Compliance and Exemptions ... · ' '' ' ' ' · · · · .-. · · · ·... 7 1. Not Defined as a Project · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 7 2. Statutory Exemption · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 7 3. Categorical Exemption ... · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 7 4. ~o Possible Impact Rule · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 7 ~otice of Exemption · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 7 Initial Study ......... · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 7 1. Purpose ... · ' ' '' ' '' · ''' '' · · · .. · · · .. · ............ 7 2. Information Required - Submission of Data ............. 8 3. Environmental Analysis ... · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 8 4. Determining Significant Effect ... · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 8 5. Mandatory Findings .. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 9 6. Time Limit~ · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ' · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·9 Negative Declarations ................................. 10 When to Prepare Negative Declarations ... ............ 10 Composing Mitigation Measures .................... 10 Hi Gl 1 1 1 Contents of Negative Declarations ... ................ 11 Public Notice ................................... 11 Time Limits .................................... 11 Action on Negative Declarations .................... 11 7. Notice of Determination ... Environmental Impact Reports... 1. Decision to Prepare an EIR 31 Ri w 1 Si 10. 11. 12. Appeal of Determination .......................... 12 Communication with Project Applicant ............... 12 Funding the Preparation of EIR's ... ................. 12 Notice of Preparation (NOP) .......... .............. 12 Types of EIR's .................................. 13 Contents of EIR's ... ............................. 13 Request for Proposals to Prepare an EIR .............. 14 Selecting a Consultant .... ........................ 14 a. Single-Source procurement ................... 14 bi Prequalified consultants ..................... 15 c. Selection through the RFQ Process ............. 15 d. Selection through RFQ and RFP process ......... 16 Preparation and Execution of Contract ............... 16 Administrative Draft EIR (ADEIR) .................... 17 Draft EIR and Notice of Completion ... ............... 17 Public Review of Draft EIR... Ji El Em Mm Nm Ow Pm Preparation and Contents of Final EIR... .................. 19 Certifying the Final EIR ... ............................. 19 Time Limits ......................................... 20 Preparing and Adopting Findings ........................ 21 Taking an Action on the 'Project ......................... 21 Statement/Findings of Overriding Consideration ............. 21 Filing the Notice of Determination ... ..................... 21 Mitigation Monitoring .......... ........................ 22 1. City responsibility .......... ................... 22 2. Project applicant responsibility ................... 23 3. Mitigation compliance plan ... VI. APPENDICES Appendix A: Graphics of Environmental Review Process NOTE: The City's CEQA forms (Notice of Exemption, Notice of Determination, Notice of Completion, State Clearinghouse Transmittal form, Notice of Preparation, Negative Declaration, etc.) are maintained by the City Planning Department. The California Environmental Quality Act was enacted in 1970 as a system of checks and balances for land-use development and management decisions in California. Its primary purposes are to maintain a quality environment for the citizens in California now and in the future, and to assure public disclosure and participation in the required environmental analysis of public and private land development projects. The City of Ukiah guidelines for implementing the California Environmental Quality Act are intended to provide the same checks and balances, and to maintain the high quality of the environmental setting in the City. In addition, the Guidelines have been prepared with the intent of being easily understood and interpreted by the general public. The City of Ukiah recognizes and supports the State legislative intent to ensure public access and Participation in the environmental review process for land development projects. Citizen involvement in local government activities should be a virtue and an obligation. I. INTRODUCTION Gl A. BASIC PURPOSES OF CEQA (CEQA Guidelines [CG] 15002) The basic purposes of CEQA are to: 1) inform governmental decision-makers and the public about the environmental effects of proposed land development activities; 2) involve the public in the decision-making process; 3) identify ways that impacts to the environment can be avoided or significantly reduced; and 4) Prevent environmental impacts by requiring modifications in the project through the use of mitigation measures or alternative designs. PURPOSE OF THE CITY GUIDELINES Ukiah's Guidelines for environmental review establish detailed and comprehensive procedures for complying with the California Environmental QualityAct (CEQA). Their primary purpose is to protect the local and surrounding natural environment. Protection and enhancement of the ecological setting of the area promotes a high quality of life, provides a foundation for economic development, and retains the unique aesthetic values of the community. These Guidelines do not replace the State requirements under CEQA, rather they are intended to conform with and supplement State procedures by providing local process for the City. The City must follow these procedures in addition to the State requirements for implementing CEQA. CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, as amended, are incorporated by reference into these City procedures. The Guidelines set forth criteria for determining if CEQA applies to a given project, and establishes a method for conducting environmental review of projects that are not "exempt." The intent is to meld State laws and court decisions to a succinct guide for use by City staff, residents, project applicants, City decision makers, and interested organizations. LEAD AGENCY AUTHORITY For development projects located within the municipal limits, the City of Ukiah is recognized as the lead agency responsible for coordinating CEQA review. With I1. regard to the local implementing procedures, the City, when acting as lead agency, has approval authority for the following functions: 1. Making findings in support of issuance of a Negative Declaration. 2. Making findings as required by Sections 15091, 15092, and 15093 of the State Guidelines for Environmental Impact Reports. B, Cg 3. Review and consideration of the Negative Declaration or the Final Environmental Impact Report prior to approving a project. OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY OF PROCEDURES Al CEQA APPLICABILITY Once a development proposal is submitted, it is reviewed to determine if it is considered a CEQA "project" and is therefore subject to further review. CEQA defines a "project" as any discretionary action that may cause a physical change to the environment. However, even though it may be defined as a "project", it may still be exempt from environmental review. EXEMPTIONS FROM CEQA Basically, there are two types of exemptions from the environmental review process - categorical and statutory. Categorical exemptions apply to certain classes of projects that have been determined by the State Secretary of Resources to not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. These project can include landscaping, signs, small residential and commercial structures, minor lot line adjustments, and the replacement/reconstruction of buildings, and other minor types of projects (see Appendix C). INITIAL STUDIES, NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS, AND EIR'S If it is determined that a development proposal qualifies as a "project" according to CEQA, the City will prepare an Initial Study. This work effort determines whether or not a Negative Declaration or EIR is needed for the project. Information for the preparation of the Initial Study is gather by staff from a variety of sources. If the Initial Study identifies significant adverse impacts, staff, in consultation with the applicant and responsible agencies and organizations will prepare mitigation measures, and incorporate them into the project. If no significant adverse impacts are identified, or if the project is revised to include reasonable and appropriate mitigated measures, the conclusion of the Initial Study is that there is no significant impacts and a Negative Declaration is appropriate. III. D. If a significant adverse environmental impact is identified that cannot be successfully mitigated, the Initial Study shall conclude that the project will have significant effects on the environment and that an EIR is required. RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT: PLANNING The Planning Department shall be the lead department for administering and implemented these CEQA Guidelines. The functions and duties of the Planning Department related to environmental review and CEQA compliance shall include, but not be limited to the following: 1, m , g Determining whether a submitted proposal is defined as a "project." Determining whether a project is exempt from CEQA. Conducting the Initial Study. Preparation and circulation of a Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report. Select and retain consultants for the purposes of Preparing Environmental Impact Reports. . Recommendation concerning the adequacy of an Environmental Impact Report. 7, . Filing of notices as required by CEQA. Review and recommendation of environmental documents Prepared by a lead agency where the City of Ukiah is a responsible and/or interested agency. AUTHORITY The City applies CEQA during the development review process to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. CEQA provides the City authority for: A. MITIGATION (C.G. 15041 NOTE: C.G. refers to the applicable State CEQA Guidelines Section): The City may require redesign or changes in the project to lessen or avoid significant adverse effects on the environment. IV. aw Gl DENIAL OF PROJECTS (C.G. 15042): The City may deny projects if necessary to avoid significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project were approved and carried out. APPROVAL OF PROJECTS DESPITE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS (C.G. 15043): Di The City may approve a project, even though it may cause a significant adverse effect on the environment, if the City makes a fully informed and publicly disclosed decision that there is no feasible way to lessen or avoid the effect. In doing so, the City shall identify expected benefits from the project that outweigh the adverse impacts or the costs of mitigating the impacts of the project (findings/statement of overriding considerations). PROVIDING COMMENTS TO A LEAD AGENCY (C.G. 15044): The City, as a responsible agency, may submit comments to a lead agency concerning environmental effects. The City shall be proactive as a responsible agency, and shall provides comments on environmental documents prepared and circulated be lead agencies. E. ESTABLISHING FEES (C.G. 15045): The City, as a lead agency, may charge and collect reasonable fees in order to recover the estimated costs of preparing environmental documents. These costs are subject to periodic review and adjustment. APPLICABILITY OF CEQA GOVERNMENT ACTION Bi The provisions of CEQA apply to "discretionary" government action. This most commonly involves private activities that require approval by the local Government, but also applies to projects undertaken by the City itself. TIME OF COMPLIANCE The City shall comply with the CEQA procedures in these guidelines whenever the City proposes to carry out or approve a development activity. CEQA compliance occurs prior to granting an approval of private projects or authorization of public projects. The required environmental documentation should occur early enough in the process to allow environmental considerations to dictate project program and design, yet late enough to allow the gathering of adequate information for proper environmental assessment. C. MINISTERIAL PROJECTS. Di E1 Fi "Ministerial" describes a government decision involving little or no personal judgement by City officials as to the manner of carrying out a project. These projects are not subject to the requirements of CEQA. DISCRETIONARY PROJECT: The requirements of CEQA apply in situations where the City uses its judgement in deciding how, and if, a project is approved. These projects are called "discretionary", because the City has the discretion or latitude to say yes or no. A discretionary decision requires the exercise of judgement in deciding whether to approve or disapprove a particular activity. Discretionary projects may include rezonings, conditional use permits, General Plan amendments, variances, and site development permits. DEFINITION OF PROJECT: CEQA defines a project as the whole of an action, that might result in a physical change to the environment, directly or ultimately, and is: a . An activity directly undertaken by the City including, but not limited to, public works projects, clearing or grading of land, improvements to existing public buildings, enactment or significant amendment of zoning ordinances, and adoption or amendment of the General Plan: An activity undertaken by a person which is supported in whole or in part through City contracts, grants, subsidies, loans, or other forms of assistance; or . An activity involving the discretionary issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement granted by one or more public agencies. COMPLIANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: The Director of Planning shall ensure that these guidelines are followed for private projects, as well as public projects initiated by the City. These guidelines apply to all agencies/departments of the City. G. ADVISORY ROLES OF CITY DEPARTMENTS. The Director of Planning, or his designee, may provide guidance, direction, advice and consultation to other City departments at their request with respect to CEQA matters. The Director of Planning shall coordinate CEQA matters between departments, and shall maintain an ongoing dialogue between department heads to ensure public project compliance with the provisions of CEQA. Mm H. LEAD, RESPONSIBLE AND TRUSTEE AGENCIES: CEQA defines a "lead agency" as a public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project (CG 15051). A spons~b~e agency" is defined as any public agency, other than the lead lire · , agency, that has discretionary approval power over the project. For example, street improvements for a Particular project may require Caltrans review and approval, in which case, Caltrans would be a responsible agency. A "trustee agency" is a State agency that controls national resources held in trust for the people of California, and which may be affected by a proposed development project. For example, the California Department of Fish and Game is a trustee agency with regard to the State fish and wildlife resources. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCEDURES Al EARLY PROJECT REVIEW AND CONSULTATION. All public or private projects that require authorization or entitlement from the City are subject to CEQA review. Every effort should be made to conduct environmental review according to these Guidelines as early in the project design and/or entitlement process as possible. This will provide time to address environmental issues, and will result in cost savings to agencies and project applicants. al REVIEW FOR COMPLETENESS The City shall determine whether a proposed project is "complete" for processing within thirty (30) days of its submittal for review (CG 15060). When reviewing the application for "completeness", the City will be alert for environmental issues that might require the preparation of an Environmental Impact report or that might require additional explanation by the applicant. In order for the application to be deemed "complete", a comprehensive description of the whole and/or ultimate project proposal must be submitted by the applicant. All phases of project planning, implementation and operation must be included in the project description. DI E. Gm CEQA COMPLIANCE AND EXEMPTIONS: All development proposals or activities must be reviewed to determine if one of the following exemptions is appropriate: 1. Not a Project Under CEQA: If a proposed activity is not a project, as defined in these Guidelines, it is exempt from CEQA review. 2. Statutory Exemption: Certain activities have been exempted from CEQA by the State legislature. These exemptions include feasibility or planning studies, ministerial projects, and emergency actions. 3. Categorical Exemptions. Certain classes or "types" of projects have been determined by the State Secretary of Resources to have an insignificant effect on the environment, and are know as categorical exemptions. Currently, the State's CEQA Guidelines recognize 29 classes of categorical exempt projects, which the City routinely uses. 4. No Possible Impact Rule (CG 15061): CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity or "project" in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. However, even though a project may appear to qualify as a statutory or categorical exemption, it could potentially have an adverse impact upon the environment. In this case, the project should not be exempted, and the City should prepare an Initial Study. NOTICE OF EXEMPTION (CG 15062): If the City concludes that a project is exempt from the requirements of CEQA, a Notice of Exemption may be filed with the County Clerk. The notice shall include a project description, the location, and a statement (finding) as to why the project is exempt including its exemption class (type). The filing of the Notice of Exemption initiates a 35-day statute of limitations period in which legal challenges to the City's determination can be made. If the City fails to file the notice, then the statute of limitations period is 180 days. INITIAL STUDIES . Purposes of an Initial Study: An Initial Study is a preliminary analysis of the potential environmental impacts resulting from a development project. It is intended to aid the lead agency in determining whether or not to prepare an EIR or Negative Declaration. It also enables a project proponent to modify the design or program of a project, mitigating 1 1 1 potential impacts and qualifying the proposal for a Negative Declaration. In addition it serves the following purposes: a, Focuses the scope of an EIR. b, Identifies environmental impacts early in the project review process. Cw Provides a factual basis for finding that a Negative Declaration is appropriate for a given project. Information Required - Submission of Data. The submittal of the environmental information form provides planning staff with the basic information to prepare the Initial Study. However, additional information may be gathered in order to accurately analyze a project. If certain information is not readily available to staff, the project proponent may be asked to furnish the data. If the project proponent does not submit the requested information within a reasonable time, the time period for preparing the Initial Study leading to either a Negative Declaration or EIR shall be suspended (CG 15109). Environmental Analysis: In almost all cases, the Initial Study is prepared by City Planning Department staff. It is conceivable that a consultant could be hired to prepare a detailed Initial Study for a major project. The document includes a project description, a characterization of the environmental setting, environmental checklist, discussion and analyses of impacts, recommended mitigation measures, and a mitigation monitoring program. The discussion of impacts should explain both yes and no responses to each category of questions on the checklist. Large complex projects may require special studies in order to complete the Initial Study document. All phases of project planning, implementation, and operation must be considered in the Initial Study. Planning staff must consult with other City departments such as engineering, fire, utilities, etc. In addition, it may be necessary to consult with outside public entities that may be a responsible or trustee agency for the project, and any individuals or organizations otherwise concerned. Determining Significant Effect: CEQA defines a significant effect on the environment as a "substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment." It is a substantial change in the physical conditions of a project site and surrounding area. Existing conditions include existing development, plus any projects that are approved but not yet constructed. If there is clear factual evidence in the record that a project will have a significant adverse effect on the environment, and the impact can not be mitigated or avoided, an EIR must be prepared. . There is not an absolute definition of what constitutes significant effect because the significance of an activity can vary dramatically with location. However, the environmental analysis must consider the following: a. Primary or direct impacts such as the construction related impacts of dust and noise. bi Secondary or indirect impacts such as those associated with growth resulting from sewer line extensions or collector road improvements. c. Cumulative impacts such as those resulting from total effect of a group of proposed projects over time. Significance shall be judged by the intensity and duration of change, the size of the area affected, and alterations from existing conditions. Mandatory Findings of Significance (C.G. 15065): According to CEQA, the City must prepare an EIR if any of the following conditions occur: a. The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce wildlife habitat, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of California history; b. The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals; c. The project has environmental effects that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. This means that the incremental effects of a project are significant when considering past projects, approved projects, and probable future projects. d. The environmental effects will have substantial adverse impacts on human beings, either directly or indirectly. For purposes of CEQA, economic and social effects are not considered environmental impacts, but may be used to help determine the significance of physical changes. Time Limits. For projects initiated by the private sector, the City will prepare an Initial Study within 30 days of deeming the application complete. However, City staff shall endeavor to complete the required Initial Study within 14 days to promote timely processing of applications. For public initiated projects, these timelines do not apply. Pursuant to Section E(1) above, the Initial Study will determine if staff recommends F. adopting a Negative Declaration or if the proposed project requires the preparation of an EIR. NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS Ii w When to Prepare Negative Declarations (C.G. 15070): A Declaration shall be prepared for non-exempt projects if: am bm Negative the Initial Study concludes that there is no substantial evidence of the project having a significant effect on the environment; or the Initial Study identified potentially significant effect but 1. prior to completion of the Initial Study, the project is revised to avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where no significant effects would occur; and 2. there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment. Composing Mitigation Measures (C.G. 15370): If there is a potential for significant impacts, every effort shall be made to identify and incorporate mitigation measures into the project design prior to completion of the Initial Study. If identified impacts can be mitigated to a non- significant level, the time and expense associated with preparation of an EIR can be avoided. Every known impact must be reduced in this fashion, or an EIR is required. Creativity, reasonableness, and practicality should be used in developing mitigation measures for identified impacts Pursuant to CEQA, mitigation includes: · a. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action, or parts of an action; Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation; Ca dl ew Repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring an impacted environment; Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. 10 Sa =, . =, Contents of a Negative Declaration (C.G. 15071): A Negative Declaration consists of a location map, the completed Negative Declaration form, a summary of conclusions reached in the Initial Study, and a finding that the project will not have a significant impact. Public Notice (C.G. 15072): The City shall notify the public of its intention to adopt a Negative Declaration, and provide opportunities to review it and any related documents. The notice shall be posted in the County Clerk's office 21 days prior to approving the project. Additional public notice shall be made at least 21 days prior to acting on the project. These notices shall be sent to all adjacent property owners, any agency or individual that requested a notice, and by at least one other means. These include, but are not limited to, publication in a local newspaper, posting on and off the project site, and direct mailing to property owners within 300 feet of the project site. If a Negative Declaration is to be reviewed by a responsible or trustee agency, a Notice of Completion and 10 copies of the Initial Study and Negative Declaration must be sent to the State Clearinghouse for a ~ (30) day review periorl. __ Time Limits: The Negative Declaration must be completed and ready for approval within 105 days from the date that an application for a private project is deemed complete. Approval of the Negative Declaration by a hearing body may occur at a later date. Any unreasonable delays resulting from failure of the applicant to provide information requested by the City and necessary to complete the Negative Declaration shall suspend these time limits. Action on Negative Declarations: Prior to project approval, the hearing body shall consider the Negative Declaration and all comments received during the review period. The Negative Declaration shall be adopted if it is found that on the basis of the Initial Study, and comments received, no substantial evidence exists that there will be a significant adverse impact on the environment. Notice of Determination (C.G. 15075): Subsequent to the approval of a project for which a Negative Declaration has been prepared and approved, the City shall file a Notice of Determination with the City Clerk. This notice shall be filed and posted within five (5) working days following project approval. If the project requires a discretionary approval from any State agency, the notice shall also be filed with the State Office of Planning and Research. The filing and posting of the Notice of Determination starts a 30-day statute of limitations on court challenges to CEQA approvals. Failing to file the Notice of Determination within the required time period extends the statute of limitations to 180 days. 11 G. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS (EIRs) Decision to Prepare an EIR: If the Initial Study determines that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, which cannot be off-set by changing the project or adding mitigation measures, the City must initiate the preparation of an Environmental Impact report (EIR). The Planning Director will determine whether or not an EIR is required within thirty (30) days of deeming the project application complete. If the City can determine that an EIR will be clearly required for a project, the City may skip further initial review of the project and begin work directly on the EIR process. In the absence of an Initial Study, the City shall focus the EIR on the significant effects of the project and indicate briefly its reasons for determining that other effects would not be significant or potentially significant. . Communication with Project Applicant: Prior to making the decision to require the preparation of an EIR, the Planning Director or designee shall contact the project applicant and discuss the findings contained in the Initial Study. The applicant shall be given an opportunity to withdraw, redesign, and resubmit the project in an attempt to address identified environmental concerns and qualify the proposal for a Negative Declaration. . Funding the Preparation of EIR's: The City shall notify the project applicant by letter that an EIR is required. The applicant must then authorize City staff to continue processing the application and begin the EIR preparation process. After the City selects the consultant to prepare the EIR, and prior to contract execution, the applicant shall deposit the full cost of the report plus an administrative fee equal to fifteen (15) percent of the cost to the City. The City shall manage the consulting team and direct the effort to prepare the EIR. Communication between the project applicant and consultant team shall be subject to approval by the City. . Notice of Preparation (NOP): After determining that an EIR is required and receiving payment of fees from the applicant, the City shall prepare and distribute a Notice of Preparation of an EIR. The purpose of this notice is to inform responsible agencies, neighboring jurisdictions, area residents, and public interest groups that an EIR is being prepared; and, seek guidance about significant environmental issues and possible mitigation measures. The Notice of Preparation shall be sent to adjacent property owners, individuals or organizations who have previously requested such notification, and to any affected local, regional, or federal agency. If any State agency is affected, the Notice shall be sent to the Office of Planning 12 ,, ,, and Research for distribution. The response period for the Notice of Preparation is a minimum of thirty (30) days, but may be extended for complex or controversial projects. Types of EIR's (C.G. 15160): To promote efficiency, CEQA allows for the preparation of different types of EIR's. The most common type or EIR is a project EIR which evaluates the environmental impacts of a specific development proposal. This type of EIR focuses on changes to the environment that would result from the project, examining all phases of the project including planning, phasing, construction, and operation. A subsequent EIR (C.G. 15162) may be appropriate if an EIR has already been prepared but there have been changes in the project, changes in the circumstances affecting the project (such as environmental degradation), or new information of significant importance has been discovered that was not previously analyzed. If the changes are minor, with respect to either project characteristics of the environmental circumstances, a Supplemental EIR, or Addendum to an EIR may be appropriate (C.G. 15163 & 15164). A Program EIR is an EIR which may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project are related in one of the ways articulated in Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines. Subsequent activities in the program must be examined in light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared. Other types of EIR's include program EIR's for multiple or phased projects, General Plan EIR's, staged EIR's, Master Environmental Assessments, and Joint Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statements. Content of EIR's (C.G. 15120): The required contents of EIR's, as set forth in Article 9 of the State CEQA Guidelines, are hereby incorporated by reference. Staff shall refer to the State CEQA Guidelines to assure that the content requirements are satisfied. Request for Proposals to Prepare an EIR: Professional consultants are often hired by the City to prepare complex environmental documents because the City staff simply do not have the time accomplish the task. In addition, the permanent staff may not have the technical expertise in such disciplines as biology, air quality, and geology to provide an acceptable and legally adequate analysis. Hiring a professional consulting 13 Si firm that has diverse experience in CEQA related matters can provide the City with both a professional and objective environmental document. Generally, it is advisable to defer consultant selection until the review period for the Notice of Preparation has expired. This assures that all comments from responsible and trustee agencies is included in the scope of work. Pursuant to AB 314, passed in 1994, the City shall contract with a consultant to prepare an EIR within 45 days from determining that an EIR is required for a project. Selecting a Consultant: The first step in selecting a consultant is to decide which selection procedure is appropriate for the particular project. The decision depends on the complexity of the project and the amount of time available for the selection process. In all cases, the final decision concerning the selection of a consultant is made by the City Manager and Planning Director. The following four general procedures may apply: a. Single-Source Procurement: This procedure involves the City contacting only one consultant for a Particular project or retaining the same consultant on an on-going basis. One distinct advantage of this approach is that it allows the City to develop and maintain a long-term relationship with a consultant who is familiar with the environmental setting and dynamics of the community. Single-source procurement may be used when a previously used consultant with solid service to the City is available. It is also accepted to use this procedure when a highly specialized consultant is needed, there is not adequate time to set up a formal search procedure, or a significant cost savings can be achieved by using a consultant who is already familiar with a particular project, the community, City staff, and their procedures. When single-source procurement is used, the City should document its reasons for doing so, to avoid any discriminatory practice claims by other consultants. 14 d. b. Cw Selection From a List of Prequalified Candidates: This method of consultant selection involves reviewing a list of firms whose qualifications are known to the City. A short list of these firms is developed, and the principals are contacted to ascertain their interest and availability. Interested firms are asked to submit a Preliminary proposal describing how they would approach the project. The preliminary proposals are Presented by the firms in an interview with key City staff. A selection is made based on a number of factors, including, but not limited to experience, availability, competence, creativity, familiarity with the community, and the ability to work effectively with people. The selected firm is then asked to submit a detailed work program, list of team members, cost estimate, etc. A contract is then either executed with the selected firm, or if the detailed proposal is unacceptable and negotiations are unsuccessful, the next candidate firm is invited to submit a detailed proposal. Selection Based Upon Responses to a Request for Qualifications: For some projects, it may be appropriate for the City to broaden its list of candidates by soliciting responses to a Request for Qualifications (RFQ). This procedure involves publicizing the desire to hire a consultant for a specified project and the availability of an RFQ for interested consultants. The RFQ briefly describes the project, desired outcomes, and minimum qualifications. Responses to the RFQ are then ranked on the basis of information submitted. Previous experience with relevant projects is particularly important. The City then investigates the references of the top three or more firms. The record of each firm in meeting deadlines, solving problems with creativity, using sound planning processes, and producing quality final reports are Particularly important. The next steps in this procedure follow the same sequence of the steps in Prequalified consultant procedure above beginning with submittal of a detail proposal from the top ranking firm. The RFQ procedure is Particularly useful when the City is not confident that its list of prequalified consultants is appropriate for the project. Selection based on a two-step process that includes a Request for Qualifications followed by a Request for Proposals: The procedure is most useful for projects with large budgets. The RFQ for this procedure is basically the same as the first three steps of the RFQ procedure outlined in Section "C" above. The primary difference between the two procedures is that once three to five firms are identified via the RFQ process, they 15 10. are not called in for informal interviews, but are sent a formal Request for Proposals (RFP). The RFP is sent only to the consultants selected through the RFQ process. RFP's usually contain a proposed scope of work, resumes of all professional staff involved with the project, a list of relevant experience, a schedule for report preparation, an indication of who will attend which meetings and public hearings, a breakdown of all costs for report preparation, an indication of the number and type of graphics to be provided, and a statement of information needed by the consultant prior to initiation of report preparation, including any maps, reports, files or surveys. Following distribution of an RFP to three to five consulting firms, the City may hold a presubmittal conference to assure that all responding consulting firms have a comprehensive understanding of the project. A selection team then evaluates each proposal on the basis of established criteria. These criteria may include those described in Section "B" above. The top two or three firms are then invited to a formal interview where staff looks for evidence of enthusiasm, strong "chemistry" between the firm members and staff, insight, and public presence. Preparation and Execution of Contract: To facilitate and expedite the contracting process, a standard contract form has been developed for consultant services. These forms contain standard terms and conditions that apply to the majority of contracting situations. Copies of the standard contract are available at the City Planning Department. The standard contract form used for a particular project often requires some modification. Should this be the case, the contract must be reviewed and approved by the City Manager and City Attorney before it is finalized. It is the responsibility of each department to draft and administer its contracts. Upon approval of the contract by the City Council and/or the City Manager, the City will enter into the agreement only after all necessa ins policies and other contra ry urance ct attachments have been received by the City The City Attorney's office is responsible for ensuring that all requirec~ attachments are included prior to approving the contract as to form. N__9 contact between the project applicant and the consultant shall occur during the consultant selection process p__r during the preparation of the EIR without the consent of the City. Unauthorized contact may result in City rejection of a proposal and/or cancellation of the contract if awarded. 16 11. Administrative Draft Environmental Impact Report (ADEIR): Upon completion of an Administrative Draft Environmental Impact Report (ADEIR) by the consultant, the City Planning Director shall distribute the ADEIR to appropriate City departments for review and comment. The review period should be approximately ten (10) working days. At the dis.cretion of the Planning Director, the ADEIR may be distributed for review and comment by other responsible aqencies. Review of the ADEIR by the project sponsor, if deemed appropr~'ate by the Planning Director, shall be limited to review for factual accuracy of the project description, environmental settings or technical studies provided by the project sponsor for peer review. Comments from the project sponsor related to the disposition of impacts, mitigation measures or alternatives shall not be accepted. Hi The ADEIR is considered a non-public document, and therefore is not available for public review and comment. The Planning Director shall be responsible for providing the consultant with a master copy of proposed revisions to the ADEIR. If the Planning Director determines that the document is not adequate, a list of the specific nature of deficiencies in the document shall be sent to the consultant. 12. Draft Environmental Impact Report. Notice of Completion: Upon completion of a Draft Environmental Impact Report by any City department, the Planning Director, in consultation with the lead City department, shall determine the adequacy of the Draft for public review. If it is found to be adequate, the Planning Director shall file a Notice of Completion with the County Clerk and State Office of Planning and Research in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15085. A copy of the Notice of Completion shall also be posted on a bulletin board in the City Civic Center. Notice to Mendocino County and State responsible agencies shall be by certified mail or other method which provides a record of receipt. A Notice of Completion of the Draft EIR shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation at the same time that it is sent to the State Clearinghouse. The notice should also be sent to property owners within 300 feet of the project site property, and any other individuals or organizations that have previously requested such notice. PUBLIC REVIEW OF EIR . Agency Review: After the Draft EIR is completed and approved for distribution, the lead City department, in consultation with the Planning Director, shall distribute copies of the document for review in order to 17 1 ,, 1 . obtain comments from all responsible departments and agencies, any trustee agency responsible for natural resources affected the project, public agencies having jurisdiction by law with respect to the project, Mendocino County, and any nearby City affected by the project. Copies may also be distributed to any other person having special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved. Public Review: The Planning Director, acting as coordinator for City CEQA matters, shall provide at least a thirty (30) calendar day public review period for a draft EIR. If a State agency is a responsible or trustee agency, the public review period shall be no less than forty five (45) calendar days unless a shorter period is approved by the State Clearinghouse. Notice of Public Review Period: The Planning Director, acting as coordinator for City CEQA matters, shall publish notice of public review for a draft EIR upon filing the notice of completion of the State Clearinghouse. Direct notice shall be provided to all organizations or individuals who have requested such notice. Notice shall be given through publication at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City. Notice of the formal public review period may also be given by posting the site or direct mailing as provided in Section 15087 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Distribution of Copies of Draft EIR: The Planning Director shall provide copies of the draft EIR to all known responsible and trustee agencies for review and comment. If a State agency is a responsible or trustee agency, the City shall provide ten (10) copies of the draft EIR to the State Clearinghouse for distribution. A reasonable number of copies shall be made available at the City Civic Center and local public library for public review. Comments Concerning the Draft EIR: Comments received as a part of the public review should be in writing and should focus on environmental issues related to the project. Commenting responsible and trustee agencies shall make comments related to areas which are within the agency's field of expertise and statutory authority. Public Hearings on the Draft EIR: The City May conduct a public hearing for purposes of receiving public comments on the adequacy of the Draft EIR. However, the Planning Director may decide not to have a public hearing on the Draft EIR, and determine that a public hearing for the purpose of certifying the EIR and taking an action on the project is a 18 Jw . reasonable and appropriate process. In the event that the Planning Director makes the decision not to hold a public hearing on the draft EIR, it shall be stated in the notice advertising the public review period. Evaluation and Response to Comments. All comments received on the Draft EIR shall be expeditiously forwarded to the consultant preparing the Final EIR for an appropriate response pursuant to Section 15088 of the State CEQA Guidelines. PREPARATION AND CONTENTS OF FINAL EIR The Final EIR shall be prepared after the formal public period has ended and all comments have been received form the public and reviewing agencies. It shall include all responses to comments received during the public review period of the Draft EIR and all additional information as specified in Sections 15088, 15089 and 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The Planning Director may direct the consultant to respond to late comments if enough time is available. A mitigation monitoring program, revised as necessary by the Final EIR response to comments, shall be included in the Final EIR Appendix. CERTIFICATION OF AN EIR 1 Certification Review: Notice of the availability of and review period for the Final EIR and the scheduled action by the recommending or certifying body to certify the Final EIR shall be provided to all those who commented on the Draft EIR and/or who request a copy of the Final EIR. Notice shall also be given in a newspaper of general circulation and may be combined with any notice on action on the merits of the project for approval. The Planning Director shall also distribute the completed Final EIR to all those who have commented on the Draft EIR and/or who request a copy of the Final EIR. A minimum ten (10) day review period shall be provided for review of the Final EIR prior to any action to certify it. The review of a Final EIR shall exclusively focus on the adequacy of response to comments on the Draft EIR. A separate public hearing to receive testimony on the recommendation to certify or certification of a Final EIR shall not be required. Written comments received on the Final EIR response to comments within the review period deadline shall be considered together with any written or oral response from staff or the EIR consultant, at the time action is taken by the certifying body to act on a project and certify the Final EIR. Certifying Body: In those cases where the Planning Commission is the decision making body for the project, said Commission shall be the certifying body for EIRs. In those cases where the City Council is the decision making body for the project, said Council shall be the certifying body for the EIR. 19 El K. 1 Planning Commission Decision: When the Planning Commission is the decision making body and is satisfied, after the conduct of a public hearing, that the Draft EIR plus the contents received and the responses thereto adequately fulfill the intent and requirements of CEQA, the Commission shall certify the document and any attachments thereto as the Final EIR, pursuant to Section 15090 of the State CEQA Guidelines. If the City Council is the certifying body for the project, the Commission shall forward a recommendation for certification of the EIR to the Council. If the Planning Commission is not satisfied that the Final EIR is adequate, the Commission may return it to the lead department for revision and resubmittal to the Commission, or forward it to the Council without recommendation for certification. In forwarding the document under this scenario, the Commission shall state the reasons for its finding(s) of inadequacy. 4. City Council Decision: When the City Council is satisfied that the Final EIR recommended for certification is adequate and in compliance with CEQA, it shall certify the document and any attachments thereto. TIME FOR COMPLETION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS 1. Environmental Impact Reports: EIR's shall be completed and certified within one (1) year of the acceptance of the project application as complete. The one (1) year time limit may be extended once for a period of not more than ninety (90) days upon consent of the City and the applicant. ,. Negative Declarations: Negative Declarations shall be completed and ready for action within one hundred and five (105) days of acceptance of the project as complete. Any unreasonable delay by the applicant in providing necessary information or funding of environmental documents shall suspend these time periods. PREPARING AND ADOPTING FINDINGS The City shall not approve or carry out a project for which an EIR identifies one or more significant environmental effects unless the City makes one or more written findings for each of the significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. Findings must be supported by substantial evidence in the record of project review. The possible findings are: 20 Nw O. lw Changes have been required, or incorporated into, the project that avoids or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. Necessary changes are generally identified after preparing the Initial Study. 2. Changes that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects are within the jurisdiction of another public agency or have been adopted by another agency. 3. Specific economic, social or other considerations make the identified mitigation measures or project alternatives infeasible. TAKING AN ACTION ON THE PROJECT After considering the final EIR, the hearing body shall not approve a project for which an EIR was prepared unless the project as approved will not have a significant effect on the environment; or all avoidable significant effects on the environment have been eliminated or substantially lessened, and any remaining significant effects on the environment are determined to be unavoidable and acceptable based on the findings described in Section "N" above. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS If the benefits of a proposed project substantially outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, such effects may be considered "acceptable." If the City approves a project that allows the occurrence of significant effects, it shall adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations that details specific reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR and/or other information in the record. PREPARING AND FILING A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION Within five (5) days of project approval, a Notice of Determination shall be .prepared, filed and posted with the Mendocino County Clerk. If a State agency ~s a responsible or trustee agency, the Notice of Determination shall also be filed with the State Office of Planning and Research. The filing and posting of the Notice of Determination starts a thirty (30) day statute of limitations on court challenges to approval under CEQA. Failure to properly file this notice, within the specified time period, increases the statute of limitations to one hundred eighty (180) days. 2.1 P,, MITIGATION MONITORING REQUIREMENTS State legislation in 1989 (AB 3180) amended CEQA law to require monitoring of imposed mitigation measures. This law requires lead agencies to require mitigation monitoring and reporting programs to ensure compliance of mitigation measures throughout project construction and implementation. Accordingly, the City shall require applicants to submit monitoring programs for each mitigation measure imposed as a part of the environmental review process. For complex technical mitigation measures, the City may require that a qualified consultant be hired at the developer's expense. The applicant shall designate an individual to work with the City staff in developing monitoring programs. The adopted environmental document shall include a summary of the imposed mitigation measures and monitoring program. The mitigation monitoring program, revised as necessary by the final EIR response to comments, shall be included in the final EIR Appendix. Monitoring programs shall be detailed enough to adequately report on individual mitigation measures, and shall generally be consistent wi procedures to monitor ~,,.,,.,, .... ,_,.. ....... . th the followi~0,g format,: nld) ?) . the ,,,,~,,~,,,=,t~t~on Of mmgation measures prior t during a fter construcbon; 2) a regular schedule for the submittal of progress reports to the City; detailed enforcement procedures; and 4) an on-site mitigation monitoring coordinator to administer the program and act as a liaison between the City and construction team. The City can also require mitigation monitoring or reporting programs from outside agencies that have jurisdiction over the natural resources affected by the project. If agencies require mitigation measures to be imposed on a project, that agency is required to prepare and submit a monitoring program related to those mitigation measures. 1. City's Responsibility: The administration and management of the mitigation monitoring program shall be the responsibility of the City. Project applicants shall fund the costs for monitoring in accord with the terms of the City Planning Department fee schedule. The responsibility of the City throughout the monitoring effort includes serving as a liaison between the various City departments, the project applicants, and the applicants' contractors, and maintaining prompt and regular communications with on-site environmental monitors and specialists, and applicants' contractors responsible for performance and permit compliance. 1 Project Sponsor's Responsibility: The project sponsor shall perform the measures required of them and comply with the verification and reporting requirements identified in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program as a condition of approval of the project. The project sponsor's responsibilities include administering and preparing daily logs, status reports, compliance reports, and the final construction monitoring report; monitoring on-site, day-to-day construction activities, including the direction of environmental monitors and environmental specialists in the understanding of all permit conditions, site specific project requirements, construction schedules and environmental quality control effort; ensuring contractor knowledge of and compliance with all appropriate permit 22 1 conditions; reviewing all construction impact mitigations; and requiring correction of observed activities that violate project environmental conditions, or that represent unsafe or dangerous conditions. Mitigation Compliance Plan' The project sponsor shall submit a detailed written plan for mitigation compliance to be reviewed and approved by the City of Ukiah Planning Director at each phase of project development. The compliance plan will serve a duel purpose of verifying compliance with the mitigation measures for the proposed project and of generating information on the effectiveness of the assigned mitigation measures. This plan shall describe the steps the project sponsor (and project contractor) will take to assure compliance with project conditions and shall include a checklist verifying compliance with permit conditions. The plan shall also include provisions for any mitigation monitoring personnel found necessary to implement the plan. The monitoring personnel will be retained by the project sponsor and will have expertise in appropriate disciplines. City staff and/or hired consultants under contract to the City will verify mitigation compliance by means of the checklist (Appendix G). The project applicant shall agree to fund any additional City costs for monitoring staff or verification by registered professionals. The mitigation compliance plan shall organize mitigation measures and verification compliance in the following manner, as applicable: a) mitigations required prior to tentative map approval; b) mitigations required prior to improvement plan approval; c) mitigations required prior to grading permit approval; d) mitigations required prior to the issuance of a building permit; e) mitigations required prior to final inspection and the grant of occupancy. 23 CITY OF UKIAH PLANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: 8A. DATE: 04-09-97 DATE: TO: FROM. SUBJECT: APPLICANT: April 9, 1997 City of Ukiah Planning Commission City of Ukiah Planning Department Revisions to Local CEQA Guidelines City of Ukiah PROJECT SUMMARY: In response to the establishment of State Guidelines for implementing the California Environmental Quality Act in 1973, the City adopted local guidelines for maintaining a quality environment, and to assure public disclosure and participation in the required environmental review analysis of land development projects. In 1974, the local guidelines were revised because of amendments to the State Guidelines. Since that time, no revisions have been adopted even though the State Guidelines have been amended a number of times. Adoption of the proposed revisions to the local CEQA Guidelines would provide the City with up-to-date detailed procedures for complying with the California Environmental Quality Act. PROJECT LOCATION: Citywide DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department recommends that the Planning Commission recommend City Council ADOPTION of the resolution approving revisions to the local CEQA Guidelines. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: The proposed revisions to the local CEQA Guidelines do not constitute a "project" under CEQA, and therefore are not subject to the requirements of the Act. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS. ZONING DISTRICT: N/A N/A PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project involves the complete revision of the local CEQA Guidelines. The majority of the provisions are taken from, and consistent with State Law, and therefore, cannot be altered or changed. However, a number of Sections have been added to supplement the Guidelines, and tailor the provisions to our community. These Sections include Compliance Responsibilities, Detailed Project Description Requirements, Communication with Project Applicants, Funding the Preparation of EIR's, the RFP and Consultant Selection Process, Preparing and Executing Consultant Contracts, Administrative Draft EIR Provisions, and Delineation of the Certifying Body for EIR's. These Sections are discussed in the Staff Analysis below. STAFF ANALYSIS: 1. Compliance Responsibilities : The CEQA Compliance Responsibilities are described in Section IV(F) on page 5 of the document. The Guidelines designate the City Planning Director as the responsible person to ensure that all private and public development projects comply with the requirements of the Act. This is not a specific requirement of the California Environmental Quality Act, but the majority of government jurisdictions, particularly smaller cities and counties, assign this duty to the Planning Director. Currently the Planning Director and Senior Planner, acting as Environmental Coordinator, advise all departments on CEQA matters. This provision would merely confirm the City's current practice. . Detailed Project Description Requirements On page 6, Section V(B), entitled Review for Completeness, requires that all applications include a comprehensive description of the whole and/or ultimate project proposal. Additionally, all phases of project planning, implementation, and operation must be included in the project description. While CEQA requires the review of an application for completeness, it does not stipulate what constitutes a complete application. This requirement ensures that staff receives an application eligible for processing and that the processing is appropriately streamlined. ' . Communication with Project Applicants Section V(G)(3) is also on Page 12, and requires the Planning Director or designee to communicate the findings requiring an EIR contained in the Initial Study to the project applicant. The applicant then has the choice to move forward with the project as submitted, withdraw the project, or redesign it to qualify for a Negative Declaration. This type of communication prior to a formal determination requiring an EIR is not specifically required by CEQA, but provides a "working relationship" process that could ultimately produce better projects in a more rapid and less costly fashion. 1 Funding the Preparation of EIR's Section V(G)(4) is also on page 12, and details the funding process for EIR's. A project applicant is required to deposit the full cost of the EIR, as well as an administration fee of 15% of the total cost. While CEQA does not specify who and how the cost of an EIR is funded, this provision is generally standard for public agencies, and it reflects the way the City currently operates. The RFP and Consultant Selection Process ! Preparing and Executing Contracts Sections V(G)(8,9,10) on pages 14 through 17 outline the Request for Proposal (RFP) and consultant selection process, as well as the process of preparing and executing consultant contracts. CEQA does not include provisions for these procedural matters, because they are administrative in nature and should be tailored to the general practices of the local agency. Accordingly, we have provided these Sections to reflect the way in which the City normally goes about hiring a consultant for contractual services. Administrative Draft EIR Provisions Section V(G)(11) on page 17 describes the Administrative Draft EIR (ADEIR) process. The ADEIR is for internal review only, and is not distributed for public review. The purpose is to identify format and grammatical errors, ferret out inaccurate descriptions of the project and environmental settings, and to correct and glaring errors in the analysis. CEQA does not provide a process for the submittal and review of ADEIR's. This provision is meant to reflect the City's current practice, which is common among California cities and counties, because it provides a step in the process to ensure a quality product. 7. Delineation of Certifying Body for EIR's Section V(J)(1,2,3) on page 19 describes the certific,ation process for EIR's. It also indicates that the decision making body certifying EIR s shall be the body responsible for making the final decision on the discretionary project. CEQA states that the EIR shall be certified by the decision making body. This section is intended to clarify that some decisions are made by the Planning Commission and others by the City Council, and that the EIR may be certified by either body. CONCLUSIONS: The California Environmental Quality Act has changed dramatically since it was first adopted 27 years ago. These changes are the result of both legislative and judicial decisions, and pertain to procedural and technical aspects of the Act. The City has not revised the local CEQA Guidelines in 23 years. The current project is an attempt to bring our local guidelines into conformance with the State CEQA guidelines, and to tailor a number of procedural steps to our local community. ATTACHMENTS. 1. Draft Resolution adopting new CEQA Guidelines 2. Draft City of Ukiah CEQA Guidelines A C KNOWL EDG MENTS: Director CITY OF UKIAH PLANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: 8A. DATE: 04-09-97 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: April 9, 1997 City of Ukiah Planning Commission City of Ukiah Planning Department Revisions to Local CEQA Guidelines City of Ukiah PROJECT SUMMARY: In response to the establishment of State Guidelines for implementing the California Environmental Quality Act in 1973, the City adopted local guidelines for maintaining a quality environment, and to assure public disclosure and Participation in the required environmental review analysis of land development projects. In 1974, the local guidelines were revised because of amendments to the State Guidelines. Since that time, no revisions have been adopted even though the State Guidelines have been amended a number of times. Adoption of the proposed revisions to the local CEQA Guidelines would provide the City with up-to-date detailed procedures for complying with the California Environmental Quality Act. PROJECT LOCATION: Citywide DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department recommends that the Planning Commission recommend City Council ADOPTION of the resolution approving revisions to the local CEQA Guidelines. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION. The proposed revisions to the local CEQA Guidelines do not constitute a "project" under CEQA, and therefore are not subject to the requirements of the Act. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: N/A ZONING DISTRICT: N/A PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project involves the complete revision of the local CEQA Guidelines. The majority of the provisions are taken from, and consistent with State Law, and therefore, cannot be altered or changed. However, a number of Sections have been added to supplement the Guidelines, and tailor the provisions to our community. These Sections include Compliance Responsibilities, Detailed Project Description Requirements, Communication with Project Applicants, Funding the Preparation of EIR's, the RFP and Consultant Selection Process, Preparing and Executing Consultant Contracts, Administrative Draft EIR Provisions, and Delineation of the Certifying Body for EIR's. These Sections are discussed in the Staff Analysis below. STAFF ANALYSIS: 1, Compliance Responsibilities The CEQA Compliance Responsibilities are described in Section IV(F) on page 5 of the document. The Guidelines designate the City Planning Director as the responsible person to ensure that all private and public development projects comply with the requirements of the Act. This is not a specific requirement of the California Environmental Quality Act, but the majority of government jurisdictions, particularly smaller cities and counties, assign this duty to the Planning Director. Currently the Planning Director and Senior Planner, acting as Environmental Coordinator, advise all departments on CEQA matters. This provision would merely confirm the City's current practice. 2. Detailed Project Description Requirements On page 6, Section V(B), entitled Review for Completeness, requires that all applications include a comprehensive description of the whole and/or ultimate project proposal. Additionally, all phases of project planning, implementation, and operation must be included in the project description. While CEQA requires the review of an application for completeness, it does not stipulate what constitutes a complete application. This requirement ensures that staff receives an application eligible for processing and that the processing is appropriately streamlined. ' 3. Communication with Project Applicants Section V(G)(3) is also on Page 12, and requires the Planning Director or designee to communicate the findings requiring an EIR contained in the Initial Study to the project applicant. The applicant then has the choice to move forward with the project as submitted, withdraw the project, or redesign it to qualify for a Negative Declaration. This type of communication prior to a formal determination requiring an EIR is not specifically required by CEQA, but provides a "working relationship" process that could ultimately produce better projects in a more rapid and less costly fashion. m Funding the Preparation of EIR's Section V(G)(4) is also on page 12, and details the funding process for EIR's. A project applicant is required to deposit the full cost of the EIR, as well as an administration fee of 15% of the total cost. While CEQA does not specify who and how the cost of an EIR is funded, this provision is generally standard for public agencies, and it reflects the way the City currently operates. The RFP and Consultant Selection Process I Preparing and Executing Contracts Sections V(G)(8,9,10) on pages 14 through 17 outline the Request for Proposal (RFP) and consultant selection process, as well as the process of preparing and executing consultant contracts. CEQA does not include provisions for these procedural matters, because they are administrative in nature and should be tailored to the general practices of the local agency. Accordingly, we have provided these Sections to reflect the way in which the City normally goes about hiring a consultant for contractual services. 6. Administrative Draft EIR Provisions Section V(G)(11) on page 17 describes the Administrative Draft EIR (ADEIR) process. The ADEIR is for internal review only, and is not distributed for public review. The purpose is to identify format and grammatical errors, ferret out inaccurate descriptions of the project and environmental settings, and to correct and glaring errors in the analysis. CEQA does not provide a process for the submittal and review of ADEIR's. This provision is meant to reflect the City's current practice, which is common among California cities and counties, because it provides a step in the process to ensure a quality product. 7. Delineation of Certifying Body for EIR's Section V( J)(1,2,3) on page 19 describes the certific,ation process for El indicates that the decision making body certifying EIR s shall be the bodyR's' It also for making the final decision on the discretionary project, responsible CEQA states that the EIR shall be certified by the decision making body. This section is intended to clarify that some decisions are made by the Planning Commission and others by the City Council, and that the EIR may be certified by either body. CONCLUSIONS: The California Environmental Quality Act has changed dramatically since it was first adopted 27 years ago. These changes are the result of both legislative and judicial decisions, and pertain to procedural and technical aspects of the Act. The City has not revised the local CEQA Guidelines in 23 years. The current project is an attempt to bring our local guidelines into conformance with the State CEQA guidelines, and to tailor a number of procedural steps to our local community. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution adopting new CEQA Guidelines 2. Draft City of Ukiah CEQA Guidelines ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: ~P, Seni~er - B~ob S~/~~ Director Commissioner Puser stated for the record that she is in agreement with all the proposed amendments with the exception of the Caldwell Frontage Road parcels. She expressed her disagreement with zoning these three parcels" · ,, Commercial instead of"Agricultural". Chairman Pruden concurred with Commissioner Puser regarding the Caldwell Frontage Road zoning but stated it was not enough to vote against the recommended approval of the General Plan amendments. ON A MOTION by Commissioner Correll, Seconded by Commissioner Chiles, it was carried by the following roll call vote to recommend adoption by the City Council of the Resolution for General Plan Amendment No. 1 (97-15), including Exhibit "A": AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Chiles, Puser, Correll, and Chairman Pruden None None Commissioner Larson DISCUSSION ITEM __ 8A. Proposed Revisions to the Local California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The Planning Commission of the City of Ukiah, will be discussing proposed revisions to the local CEQA Guidelines, as prepared by the City Planning Department. The Commission will be formulating a recommendation to the City Council concerning the adoption of a Resolution pertaining to the proposed new guidelines. The proposed revisions are intended to bring the local guidelines, originally prepared and adopted in 1974, into compliance with the current State of California Guidelines adopted by the State Secretary of Resources in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21083. Senior Planner, Charley Stump provided a brief introduction and overview of the proposed local California Environmental Quality Act (CEO. A) Guidelines revision. He noted the original establishment of State Guidelines was adopted by the City in 1973, and a subsequent revision of the Guidelines in 1974. The City has not adopted any further changes in CEQA since that time, though the State Guidelines have been amended numerous times. Staff updated the local CEQA Guidelines comprehensively and requested the Planning Commission's approval and recommendation to City Council for adoption of the resolution that would formally amend the local Guidelines. The amended Guidelines contain provisions mandated by State law that can not be altered in any way, as well as supplemental guidelines tailored to the Ukiah community. These sections were discussed in detail in the Planning Report and consist of Compliance Responsibilities, Detailed Project Description Requirements, Communication with Project Applicants, Funding the Preparation of EIR's, the RFP and Consultant Selection Process, Administrative Draft EIR Provisions, and Delineation of Certifying Body for EIR's. These sections are primarily administrative in nature and will substantiate the procedures Staff currently follows. Commissioner Puser inquired if the Planning Commission would receive copies of the CEQA Guidelines. Mr. Stump stated the Guidelines are primarily for Staff's use in how to implement the CEQA Act. Once the revised Guidelines are adopted copies could be provided for the Planning Commission's reference. Chain'nan Pruden referred to Page 3 of the proposed Guidelines, noting that the Planning Department is the lead department for administering and implementing the CEQA Guidelines. She inquired if there is an appeal process beyond the Staff level. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 4 April 09, 1997 Discussion followed among Staff and the Commission regarding the administrative appeal process that is utilized in other communities. Mr. Stump stated CEQA does not require implementation of an appeal process. He indicated Planning Staff has discussed the inclusion of an appeal process and the Planning Department is not in favor of providing one. Mr. Stump stated the current appeal mechanism is inherent in the review process. We would also meet with the City Manager to discuss the issue. He noted there are pros and cons regarding this issue, but it was decided to leave it out of the revised guidelines and not formalize an appeal process for the CEQA determination. Commissioner Chiles inquired if the appeal procedure would be verbalized to an applicant by Planning Staff if a disagreement were to arise. Mr. Stump stated if a citizen or a developer behind a project were to object to the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report or the decision not to prepare one, they would have the opportunity to challenge the decision through the review process. Staff would elevate that objection to the City Manager's office. Chairman Pruden expressed her disagreement with the current appeal process and recommended that the City Council review whether or not an appeal process is included and discuss the issue further prior formal adoption of the Guidelines. Mr. Stump reminded the Commission that they can disagree with Staff on the use of a mitigated Negative Declaration and instruct them to obtain an Ell:{, as can the City Council. He stressed, however, that this should generally be worked out with the applicant prior to reaching the public hearing level for the benefit of the Commission, as well as the applicants or public. If objections of this nature arise Staff would prefer that they be discussed prior to the public hearing. At that point Staff would consult with the City Manager and seek legal counsel. Commissioner Puser concurred with Chairman Pruden's concerns regarding an appeal process and inquired as to how the City Manager would handle such an appeal situation. Mr. Stump provided examples of how the City Manager might direct Staff through an appeal process, working in conjunction with the hearing body and legal counsel. Mr. Stump further stated some jurisdictions have an appeal process in place whereby the appeal goes directly from the applicant to the City Council, as the legislative body. Discussion continued relative to the appeal of CEQA determinations made by Staff when an EIR is not required. Mr. Stump assured the Commission he would pass their concems on, if the City Council takes up the discussion of appeals. Commissioner Correll inquired about the selection of consultants, referring to Page 14, Item 9 of the proposed CEQA guidelines, and asked if the applicant has any say in the selection process. He expressed concern that Staff has a lot of latitude and control in the EIR process. Mr. Stump stated while some jurisdictions allow an applicant to review the proposals submitted by consultants, this can cause problems because the applicant's choice in consultants may not be the most appropriate. It can also open up an avenue for discourse between the applicant and the consultant, which Planning Staff does not feel is appropriate. Mr. Stump stated Planning Staff would not include the applicant in the consultant selection process, it would be done internally. Staff is responsible to both the development community and the citizens of Ukiah, and staff endeavors to be well balanced and objective in their approach to the consultant selection process and providing an environmental document. Chairman Pruden referenced Page 5, Item D. of the proposed Guidelines and the examples given of discretionary projects. She inquired if this was a comprehensive list and suggested that demolition permits be added. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 5 April 09, 1997 Mr. Stump clarified that the examples listed are not a comprehensive list and noted that all discretionary projects, requiring a yes or no answer, are subject to CEQA. There have been ongoing discussions regarding demolition permits in that regard, with varying opinions. He stated he is not sure the City Attorney would be in favor of adding demolition permits to the list of discretionary projects, but if the Commission is in agreement on this, Staff will bring it to the City Attorney's attention and ask his advise. Chairman Pruden referred to the loss of a recent court case in Oakland relative to demolition permits, which she feels strengthens this area. She requested that Staff bring the issue to the City Attorney's attention. Chairman Pruden also referenced ,Page 9, Item 5a. of the proposed Guidelines and requested that the wording "significant local cultural resources be included as a condition for preparing an EIR, in place of "important examples of California history". She noted that CEQA still uses the term "cultural resources" because it covers both archaeological and historical sites. Since this is a "local" guideline it should protect significant "local cultural resources" to preserve both the historical and archaelogical elements. Mr. Stump recommended including both "significant local cultural resources" and "important examples of California history" in Item 5a. ON A MOTION by Commissioner Chiles, Seconded by Commissioner Puser, it was carried by the following roll call vote to recommend adoption by the City Council of the Resolution approving revisions to the local CEQA Guidelines: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Chiles, Puser, Correll, and Chairman Pruden None None Commissioner Larson PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT~ City Council and Redevelopment Agency Actions Future Planning Commission Agenda Items Status Reports Senior Planner, Charley Stump reiterated Planning Director Sawyer's comments on Page 2 of the Planning Director's Report relative to the Planning Commission denying without prejudice and allowing applicants to come back without charge. He also updated the Commission regarding the Tori Brown Use Permit, noting that it was appealed to the City Council who did not make a final decision but remanded the project back to Staff to work with the applicant and the community further to try to resolve the problem. It will be heard again at the next City Council meeting for final disposition. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT~ The Planning Commission briefly discussed receipt of City Council meeting minutes and the nature of the upcoming Council Electric Workshop. Chairman Pruden indicated she spoke with Planning Director Sawyer regarding her concerns about the continuing loss of Iow income housing relative to the Safeway expansion. She stated the City has lost approximately 40 units from the downtown core area due to redevelopment. Mr. Sawyer indicated to her that Staff shares her concerns and is currently looking at this issue. They will be bringing it before the Commission in the near future. Mr. Stump stated Staff is required to come before the Planning Commission on an annual basis to discuss implementation of the housing element. The rezoning program delayed that somewhat as Staff endeavored to determine how the rezoning and land use designations would impact the housing element. Mr. Stump listed other MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 6 April 09, 1997 factors that impact the housing element, such as demolition loss of housing and difficulty in approving Iow and moderate projects that are needed, but opposed by adjacent property owners. Staff will bring this issue forward for discussion with the Planning Commission in the near future. The Commission discussed with Staff upcoming planning projects, agendizing a planning workshop to discuss protocol, legal requirements, the General Plan, and the direction of City planning for the benefit of the new Planning Commissioners. Mr. Stump indicated he is unsure at this time if there will be an April 23rd Planning Commission meeting, as current planning projects will not be ready to bring forward on that date. Commissioner Chiles requested that future Planning Commission agendas label public hearing projects as such in order to differentiate them from discussion items. Mr, Stump stated the title of "Public Hearing" was changed on the Planning Commission agenda to "Project Review" some time ago for a specific reason. He will clarify it with the Planning Director and advise the Commission at the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:46 p.m. Judy Pruden, Chairman Melody Harris, Recording Secretary 2:~pc040997.rnin MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 7 April 09, '1997 AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. DATE' ,,, REPORT lOe May 7, 1997 SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR LETTER OF SUPPORT TO STATE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION BOARD FOR THE ORR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT ON BEHALF OF THE UKIAH VALLEY STREAMS COALITION SUMMARY. The Ukiah Valley Streams Coalition is submitting a proposal for grant funding to the California Riparian Conservation Program for a Ukiah Valley/Orr Creek Steelhead Trout Urban Stream Restoration Project. Bill Randolph of Alta California Associates is taking the lead in preparing and presenting the proposal to the State. Staff has had several meetings with Mr. Randolph regarding the possible work that could be done on City property in the area of stream restoration. In the past we have worked with Bill Randolph and the Stream Coalition on restoring several stream sites on the golf course property. Mr. Randolph is requesting, if the Stream Coalition is awarded the grant that, once again, the City of Ukiah and the Stream Coalition work together on the City property areas, with the City providing staff and equipment to help complete the projects in a timely manner. All projects performed on City property will be discussed with City staff and approved by the departments involved. Mr. Randolph is also asking for a letter of support from the City of Ukiah to attach to his proposal, which is required by the State to show community and agency cooperation. Staff is, therefore, recommending that Council approve staff to write a letter of support under the Mayor's signature and, if the grant is awarded to the Streams Coalition, for staff to work with them on City owned property stream projects. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve letter of support and for staff to work with the Creek Coalition on City property if grant is successful. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Do not approve letter of support to State Wildlife Conservation Board. 2. City staff not be directed to work with Stream Coalition even if grant is successful. Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted)' N/A Appropriation Requested: N/A Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Attachments: Acct. No.' (if budgeted) Bill Randolph, Ukiah Valley Streams Coalition Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Letter, dated April 28, 1997, from Bill Randolph 2. Proposed City of Ukiah letter of support to California Wildlife Conservation Board 3. Ukiah Valley Streams Coalition draft Proposal for Funding APPROVED: ~-~ '~:Can:^SRSTREM Candace I--]o r~sley ~' O~ty ~anage r IA COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WILLIAM W. RANDOLPH: URBAN & REGIONAL RESOURCE PLANNING; RESOURCE ANALYSIS/INVENTORY SYSTEMS April 28, 1997 Candace Horsley, City Manager City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Re: City Council Letter of Support for the Orr Creek Restoration Project Dear Candace: I am enclosing a "rough draft" letter of support by the City Council on the Orr Creek Project to be addressed at the May 7th City Council Meeting. I will be present at the meeting to respond to questions Council Members or your staff may have regarding the work proposed, especially at it affects City lands. I am submitting a copy of our Executive Summary of the grant to you. Please feel free to call me if you have any comments or questions regarding the enclosed draft. Thank you for your consideration and direction in this matter. Sincerely yours, William W. Randolph, Principal P.O. BOX 912 · UKIAH, CALIFORNIA 95482 · (707) 468-5883 300 SEMINARY AVE., UKIAH, CA 95482-5400 · ADMIN. 707/463-6200 · PUBLIC SAFETY 463-6242/6274 · · FAX # 707/463-6204 · May 8, 1997 Scott Clemons, Project Coordinator California Wildlife Conservation Board · 801 "K'~ Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Mr. C!emons: Orr Creek, one of three urban streams which bisect the City of Ukiah from our western upland watershed lands, east to the Russian River, is a significant steelhead trout stream worthy of the restoration project, presented by the Ukiah Valley Streams Coalition. Of the 34 worksites identified for restoration work on the creek, 26 are located within the corporate boundaries of the City. Nearly all of these sites may prescribe action involving riparian canopy Installation, stream bank stabilization, and in-stream weir placement to enhance spawning runs of steelhead trout. Two significant project stream reaches along the Municipal Golf Course and the City's Municipa! Water Treatment Faci!ity, require canopy planting with streambank rip-rap work to enhance their habitat value to adult and juvenile fish. The City of Ukiah, as evidenced by its Conservation-Open Space Element of the General Plan, is committed to revitalizing the three riparian systems which traverse the City. Orr Creek, the first effort to implement the essence of the City's advocacy of a stream's value to the urban ecosystem, is a community based project worthy of approval by the Wildlife Conservation Board. In this regard the City Council hereby strongly supports the Ukiah Valley Steelhead Trout Urban Stream Restoration Project. Should the grant be awarded to the Coalition, the City will participate with appropriate in-kind staff and equipment support needed to address stream restoration on City-owned lands to insure the successful outcome of the Orr Creek Restoration Work Plan objectives. Sincerely, Sheridan Malone Mayor SM:ky 4:CC:LOrrCm Are Here To Serve" PROPOSAL FOR FUNDING FOR CALIFORNIA RIPARIAN CONSERVATION PROGRAM for the UKIAH VALLEY STEELHEAD TROUT URBAN STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT by the UKIAH VALLEY STREAMS COALITION , CALIFORNIA May 1997 Submitted by: Alta California Associates P.O. Box 912 Ukiah, CA 95482 TABLE OF CONTENTS PROJECT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROJECT DESCRIPTION I. PROJECT BACKGROUND · Ukiah Valley Streams Coalition Restoration Priorities · Project Stream Restoration Preliminary Findings and Conclusions · Project Benefits VII. VIIIe Xe RELATIONSHIP OF PROJECT TO THE OBJECTIVES OF THE CALIFORNIA RIPARIAN HABITAT CONSERVATION PROGRAM COMMUNITY SUPPORT FOR THE PROJECT ANTICIPATED PROJECT COMPLETION SCHEDULE INNOVATION OF PROJECT DESIGN PROJECT COST EFFECTIVENESS AVAILABLE FUNDING SOURCES ORR CREEK PRELIMINARY WORK PLAN PREI,IMINARy PROJECT ITEMIZED BUDGET PRELIMINARY PROJECT WORK SCHEDULE MILESTONES TABLES OF PLATES AND FIGURF~ 1) 2) APPENDICES CITY OF UKIAH OPEN SPACE/CONSERVATION ELEMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN EXAMPLES OF IN-STREAM STRUCTURE ANTICIPATED IN THE PROJECT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROPOSAL FOR FUNDING FROM THE CALIFORNIA RIPARIAN CONSERVATION PROGRAM PROJECT: LOCATION: GOAL: GRANTEE: UKIAH VALLEY ORR CREEK STEELHEAD TROUT URBAN STREAM RF~TORATION PROJECT Western Russian River Drainage of the City of Ukiah encompassing the tributaries of Orr Creek, Creek, Mendocino County, California Restore the Riparian Ecology and Fishe~ Productivity of Orr Creek, as the First of Three Urban Stream Projects .. Ukiah, CA 95482 _. Project Participants and Supporters: Streamside landowners and the Uldah Valley Streams Coalition; William W. Randolph, Alta California Associates; the City of Ukiah; the County of Mendocino; California Department of Fish and Game; USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Mendocino County Resource Conservation District; the University of California Extension Service; the U.S. Forest Service; and the Peregrine Chapter o~f the Audubon Society and the AmeriCorps/Adopt-a-Watershed Program. The following grant proposal by the Ukiah Valley Streams Coalition to the California Riparian Conservation Program consists of the development and implementation of a separately funded, three-year riparian habitat restoration program to enhance and expand the historical ecological viability of three tributaries of the Russian River drainage net. As shown on Figure 1, the Project Area Location Map, Orr Creek and two nearby streams traverse the City of Ukiah from their headwaters, west of the City, east to the main stem of the Russian River. The streams affected: Orr, Gibson and Doolin Creeks are essentially urban streams in nature in that they pass through the City from their respective headwaters to the Russian River. Urban development is a significant barrier to seasonal rum of anadromous fish species moving from the river to spawning waters west of the City. Until the mid 1950s runs of steelhead trout and chinook salmon were common in these streams; and coho salmon, while not present in large numbers, was a significant contributor to the combined anadromous fish populations spawning in limited reaches of the of the Russian River in Ukiah Valley. Currently, steelhead trout are present in all three streams; and steelhead spawning is declining - particularly on Gibson and Doolin Creeks. Historic land use and development practices along their respective courses have resulted in a general deterioration of a formerly viable, productive f~shery habitat value of Orr, Gibson and Doolin Creeks, which citizens - both in the City and general Ukiah Valley area - have expressed a need to reverse. This initial proposal on Orr Creek will ultimately result in the habitat restoration of these three streams to a productive riparian ecosystem with an improved fishery vitality - partieularly~steelhead trout species. The proposed Project will be implemented over a three- year period: FY 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 for Orr, Gibson and Doolin Creeks respectively. Orr Creek, the most northern and largest tributary of the three, has been assessed and evaluated for worksite design completion and restoration action to commence in August 1997, with completion of work on 34 work sites by early December 1997. The riparian vegetation phase of planting riparian canopy and instream vegetation, consisting of willow, cottonwood, alder and redwood species, will occur before the advent of winter rains. To assure maximum survival of plantings during the summer, irrigation during the dry season will be employed as needed on lower reaches of the Creek to protect plantings for at least two seasons. All work tasks shown on Figure August 1997. will be designed and work initiated in Gibson Creek, the second stream as prioritized for restoration action by the Coalition, will be submitted to WCB for funding consideration in January 1998. Hydrological net and habitat assessment will occur in the spring of 1998. Work task sites will be identified, assessed and evaluated for effectiveness and will be designed and executed in summer of 1998, with riparian canopy planting and irrigation lay-out to o.cur in the fall of 1998. We estimate that Doolin Creek, the third prioritize3 stream, will receive hydrological and habitat assessment in the fall of 1998, with instream work completed by late. summer of 1999. The general restoration phases described for Gibson and Doolin Creeks assumes funding by the Wildlife Conservation Board will be available to complete the streams' restoration programs. Emphasis in this initial Project is directed to: restoring the historical ecology and increasing stream flow capacities of Orr Creek to expand steelhead trout spawning opportunities. This will include assessment and evaluation of five box culverts with remedial work, as needed and feasible, to make them more 'fish friendly' for migratory use. Excavation of some key . reaches of all three streams may be necess~ to increase stream flows during the spawning season. This is particularly true in the lower, urban reaches on the Valley floor. To underscore the importance of Orr Creek to the local fishery of the Uldah Valley Steelhead Urban Stream Restoration Project, steelhead trout and chinook salmon have been seen spawning in the Russian River by DF&G personnel and members of the Uldah Rod and Gun Club. The sightings have occurred at the Largo gaging station and in the River's reach near the Masonite Corp. plant approximately 1/2 mile north of Orr Creel~confluence with the River in mid-November 1996. The Project's intensive canopy planting work and selected channel improvement aspects are directly linked to reducing summertime water temperature conditions that are critical to steelhead fry survival along exposed urban reaches of the Creek to the River. Based on our observations in November 8, 1996, the streams generally "go underground" by late June due to increased overburden of sediments in the stream. Orr Creek, while essentially "dry" in these low, urban reaches, does retain some isolated pools into August - depending on the previous winter's rainfall amounts. Upper reaches of the Creek west of the County's Low Gap Regional Park maintain sma'fl flows with ponding during Iow precipitation years. Pool enhancement in the fiat runs of the Creek will be beneficial to all wildlife generally, but especially to juvenile steelhead trout during the low flow summer months. The elevation where the creeks dry up is approximately at the 660 foot contour. Extending the summer water availability by expanding ponds which currently exist . in Orr Creek below and above this elevation is a primary objective of the Coalition. Ponding, in combination with canopy planting, will increase the opportunity for young steelhead trout to survive during the dry season until fall rains allow their release to the Russian River. The Coalition feels strongly that restoring the habitat values of Orr Creek for steelhead trout spawning and the rearing of fry may provide a benefit to salmon species that currently are spawning in the Russian River near the Creek's confluence, as noted above. The Orr Creek Restoration Preliminary Work Plan as shown in Section VIH. describes the locations and action recommended on the 34 work sites identified to date. Cumulatively, the lineal footage of the 34 restoration work sites comprises nearly 1.2 miles of Orr Creek and will be implemented along approxmatelY 4.0 miles of the stream's course. This will result in the direct enhancement of approximately 21.5 acres of riparian habitat and will indirectly have positive environmental effects over the Project's restoration run area of about~. 80 acres. A general photographic survey of this stream's riparian vegetation needs in the City was conducted in January 1997. The combined riparian reaches of the three streams assume a riparian corridor width of 150 ft. and comprise approximately 300 acres of riparian ecosystem cumulatively. Orr Creek, the Project stream, drains approximately 7.7 sq. miles of watershed, with a riparian corridor of nearly 150 acres (as calculated from the stream's headwaters to the Orr Creek confluence with the Russian River). I. PROJECT BACKGROUND: The Ukiah Valley Streams Coalition In November 1994, under the auspices of the Ul~_'ah office of the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) and AmeriCorps, a voluntary.group of 35 citizens and agency personnel came together to respond to the deteriorated habitat conditions of valley streams generally, and established a prioritized restoration action plan on the three streams described above. Restoration Priorities - Short Term The Coalition has defined immediate, or short-term restoration to Orr Creek, as its initial Project, with Gibson and Doolin Creeks to follow as funding is available in subsequent years (1998 and 1999). It is anticipated that a three (3) y.e, xr time frame is necessary to complete the work to reach this comprehensive urban stream restoration objective. Restoration Priorities - Long Term_ -- The Ukiah Valley Streams Coalition has a stated objective of addressing spawning habitat restoration needs of the major streams throughout the upper Russian River Basin on a systematic long-term basis from FY 2000-2001 through FY 2010-2011. The Basin drainage has been divided into east-west hydrological planning units draining into the Russian River from the west fork of the Russian River, north of its confluence with the River's east fork (west and north of Lake Mendocino), south to the U.C. Hopland Field Station, · approximately eleven (11) miles south of Ukiah. The Coalition has established Felize Creek, in Hopland, as the southern boundary.for its long-term planning and restoratioxi efforts. Excluding the short-term Project area encompassing Orr, Gibson and Doolin Creeks, the long-term stream restoration planning program will address nearly 160 sq. miles of Uldah Valley and Sanel Valley watershed. VIII. Orr Creek Preliminary Work Plan The following is a compendium of field notes by IJkiah Valley Streams Coalition members on their work-site assessment walk of Orr Creek on May 20, 1995. The information and stream conditions described consist of integrated field notes provided by Dennis Slota, Mendocino County Water Agency and Bill Randolph, Alta California Associates (AmeriCorps representative, IJ.S.D.A./N.R.C.S.) This 1995 stream survey on approximately 2.5 miles of Orr Creek, from its upper western reaches at the Mendocino County Low Gap Regional Park to lower reaches through the City of Llkiah, eastward to the City's confluence with the Russian River generated 18 work-sites. Additional stream habitat assessment work conducted by personnel from the U.S.D.A./N.R.C.S., the Mendocino County Water Agency, the California-Dept. of Fish and Game and Alta California Associates on the same reaches of Orr Creek essentially confirmed the work-sites identified by the Ukiah Valley Stream Coalifion's 1995 work, plus identified 16 new sites resulting in a total of 34 work sites which are included within the preliminary Orr Creek Restoration Plan. This assessment work occurred on March 7, 14, 21 and 28, 1997 and extended west of the original County Low Gap Regional Park reach to evaluate a major cascade mn of the creek, approximately 1.65 miles west of the Park and 1/4 mile east of Mariposa School. The purpose of the cascade assessment and evaluation was to confirm (or refute) the presence of a large boulder barriers to migrating steelhead trout to historical spawning reaches west of the cascade run. While juvenile steelhead are present above the cascades, their presence may reflect the fact that adult steelhead trout spawners have been released routinely by members of the Ukiah Rod and Gun Club since the drought years of the 1970's. The cascade run, as observed on March 21, 1997, is rugged and steep, between 10% and 12% in grade along its approximate 1/2 mile reach; and it is characterized by very large boulders (5'-6' diameter and larger) within a narrow canyon of meandering configuration, shaded by a heavy canopy of redwood, oak, alder and willow tree species. Visually, these cascades are very impressive and during the high water spawning season generally present no serious obstacle to salmonid migration- with one exception. At a point in the mid-way reach of the cascade run, a waterfall, approximately 12' high from its channel base is a serious barrier to spawning steelhead trout. The height of the barrier to fish passage is compounded by the lack of "step" resting pools at its base. Thus, even during perieds of highest seasonal rainfall, a six foot, near vertical leap by fish must be made to clear the fall. Such a leap by steelhead trout or salmon species is generally not possible. Figure ??, In-Stream Work-Sites, shows the location of the cascade mn and other reaches of Orr Creek that are addressed in the restoration work plan. The preliminary work-site tasks, as identified, are described proceeding downstream as follows: 28 .f, ?,4antoosa. Sel~oo t .-.-.. j. i, .e IZ County 14- 161-/ -- . Ball .- --*~ ' Park Nokomis Asylum Sewas~ Disposal Assessment Date 1977 1997 1997 1997 1997 1995 1997 Work Site_____~g Stream Reach and Work Needed Mariposa School: Reach 200+' below school; Rt. bank erosion. Needs 2' rip-rap at toe with willow waffles. _Cascade Reach: Approx. 400' below school, mid-stream below water tank. Remove boulder "notch" in natural weir, near Rt. bank. .Cascade Reach: Approx. 200+ yds. below "notch site", Rt. bank slide - toe-in willow stakes with existing toe boulders; apply willow wattles above toe. Mid-cascade Reach: Approx. 250 yds below significant gully inlet (left bank) mid-channel 12' waterfall. Relocate lintel boulder(s) via hand labor and fit at base for step-pool development with on-site consultant direction. Low Gap RoaO: Small slide at culvert outfall at new bridge entrance above creek's left bank. Needs willow planting and vegetation seeding. (Potential Adopt-a-Watershed planting and seeding projec0. .County Low Gap Regional Park: Approx. 1.5 mi. east of site #5 stream flo~! plain picnic are large buckeye at water edge (left bank) is flanked by bank undermining,-with moderate erosion upstream/ downstream of site. Needs bank toe 2' rip-rap armor at tree base and at undermined areas of bank interspersed with willow/cottonwood stakes. Extend planting up/down streambank with vegetation seeding. (Potential Adopt-a-Watershed planting and seeding projec0. County LOw Gap Regional Park: Approx. 100' east of site #6. Plant willow/cottonwood stakes in back hoe trench 6' deep. Upstream straight reach (200') needs two deflector weirs both banks (rock and log) with point upstream; left. wing even with top of bank and right wing even with first gravel bar's bench. Lin ft. of Site 200 ft. 100 ft. 150 ft. 75 ft. 25 ft. 200 ft. 300 ft. Worksite Time (days) 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 2.5 3.0 Assessment Date 1997 1995-97 1995-97 1995-97 1995-97 1995-97 1997 Work .Site # Lin ft. Stream Reach' and Work Needed __ _Low Gap Regional Park: Approx. 100' below site #7, place 2' rip-rap with willow stakes along toe of outside curve of right bank to check erosion and stabilize bank. 10 11 12 13 ~Low Gap Regional Park · Approx; 50' below site #8, increase canopy density at Rt. bank water edge and vegetate in-place rip-rap along inside curve adjacent City Municipal Golf Course (west end). Ci_ty Golf Course~: Approx. 150" below sim g9, Rt. bank area adjacent "T"-12 (former large stump hole) displays bank failure. Needs deflector log and large rip-rap at toe of cavity with willow stakes. Plant canopy (willows/cottonwood along top of flank). Ci_ty Golf Course: Approx 100' below site #10, relocate mid-channel in-place stump (formerly located at site //9) to Rt. bank with 3/4" cable tie-in with dead man anchor. Plant canopy or clear upstream adjacent gravel bar of debris to open water flow capacity. City Golf Course_. (County land, left bank): Approx. 100' below site #11 left bank erosion. Armor toe of steep 30' bank with 2' trenched-in 2' rip-rap material. Vegetate bank side and bank top with wild California grape and/or snow berry. City Golf Course Fairway: Large reach approx. 120' below site #12 with no canopy or in-stream shading (area in vicinity of "T" 13). Reach needs in-stream "digger logs" to create scour ponds, in-stream low canopy vegetation to avoid visual screening between "T"s. Plant channel (both banks) with wild grape, snow berry, native wild rose. Needs irrigation (Potential Adopt-a-Watershed planting and seeding project). 14 East end of Ci Golf Course Fairwa Flat Run: Approx. 100'.below site #13 (private land). Rt. bank in-place gabion structure has a large hole indicating failure. The failing structure needs to be reinforced 2' rip-rap material at the "hole" and extended 30-40' up-stream around stream curve to reduce flow velocity impact on Rt. bank. Worksite of Site 250 ft. 200 ft. 75 ft. 100 ft. 75 ft. 1350 ft. 75' 1.5 1.5 2.0 1.5 1.25 4.0 1.0 Assessment Date 1995-97 1997 1995-97 1997 1997 1995-97 1997 Work Site # 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Lin ft. Stream Reach and Work Need~ Pomolita Middle School: Left bank reach, adjacent soccer field is armored with steel sheets for bank stabilization, with no canopy. Need to torch holes (8' O.C.) through steel sheets and plant willow/ cottonwood stakes in holes. Planting should be located from bank toe up to first bench, and should cover left bank reach of lin. 150' upstream and downstream from planted steel sheet site for canopy production. Pomolita Middle School: Approx. 150' below site #15 a large stump'is falling out of Rt. bank. Site needs 2' rip-rap trenched in at toe of bank and placed 5'-6' up the slope of bank work-site. The sheer bank should be rounded back to 2:1 slope. Placement of boulder clusters and/or redwood "cull" logs adjacent and upstream of the stump site reinforce the bank's stability and encourage some meander is recommended. Bush Street (west): Approx. 150' below site #16, both upper banks need willow and cottonwood planting to reinforce sparse existing canopy. Bush Street Reach (east): Approx. 60' below site #17 (east end of box culvert) left bank retaining wall failure. Wall is comprised of lumber fencing and gabions. Needs to be stabilized with 1-2' rock on top of retaining wall and at toe. Willow stakes should be planted (or wattled) in rock placement; willow stakes should also be placed over wall surface. Gabion section needs to be toe trenched with 2' rock backfill. Bush-Oak St. Reach: Approx. 150' below site #18, site shown unchecked soil spoils from left bank moving directly into channel with no cover vegetation. Needs vegetation. Bush-Oak St. Reach: Approx. 125' below site #19, an in-place pool on left bank can be widened and deepened. Placement of a "digger" log with rebar anchoring on left bank will improve the size and depth of pool. Bush-Oak St. Reach: Approx. 30' below site g20 on left bank, a similar condition of pool improvement exists. Placement of "digger" log to expand pool. Worksite of Site 300' 50' 150 ft. 50' 20 ft. 20 ft. 3.0 2.0 1.5 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.0 Assessment Date 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1995-97 1995-97 Work .Site # 22 23 25 26 27 28 29 Lin fi. Stream Reach and Work Needed Bush-Oak St. Reach: Approx. 75' below site g21 a small, unofficial "swimming hole" exists (adjacent west end of Oak St. box culvert) and is frequented by young neighborhood couples with small children. Potential site for AmeriCorps/Adopt-a-Watershed planting and seeding project with native flowers and grasses with two cottonwoods on left bank. Oak Street Reach: Approx. 50' below box culvert, retaining wall failure noted. Needs toe trenching with 2' rip-rap backfill and driven willow stakes along back fill area. Oak Street Reach (at Ruddock St. terminus): Remove asphalt armor off left bank; replace with 1-2' rock and gravel. Vegetate with willow stakes. Ruddock Street "ford" in creek: Need barrier structure to discourage bicycle use of this "unofficial" dirt path to creek. Also, steep adjoining Rt. bank needs 2' rip-rap at toe combined with willow wattles. School Street 'Reach: Approx. 100' below site #25 canopy is very thin. Needs planting along left bank with cottonwoods. No. State Street.Reach (west side of street): Approx. 75' below site//26 unvegetated steep Rt. bank (20__+' high) needs toe trench with 1-2' rip-rap backf'fll combined with willow wattling. No. State Street Reach (east side of street): Needs left bank work (behind Health Club) to stabilize bank; revegetate with willow/alder plantings on bank with 2' rip-rap material wattled with willow cuttings at toe. Rt. bank needs canopy reinforcement and erosion control with alder plantings. Ford Street Reach: Approx. 200' below site g28, small slide scarp needs on left bank needs willow wattles on scarp above bank toe, with 1-2' rip-rap material trenched in toe. Worksite of Site 70 ft. 50 ft. 50 ft. 50 ft. 100 ft. 100 ft. 120 ft. 175 ft. Time (days) 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 .5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Assessment Date Work .Site # 1997 30 1997 31 Lin ft. _Stream Reach and Work Needed ..Ford Street/Rail Road Crossing: Approx. 150' below site g29 (adjacent R/R bridges east face) Needs canopy on both banks. Plant willow/cottonwood stakes along reach for shade on creek. · Ford Street Reach (west of Orr St.): Approx. 200' below site #30, old auto hulks tied' into left bank need screening for aesthetic and canopy reinforcement. Plant willow/cottonwood stakes in bank along reach. (Potential Adopt-a-Watershed planting and seeding projec0. Worksite .,of Site 125 ft. 75 ft. Time (days) 1.5 1.5 1997 32 1997 33 Orr Street/Myron Place Reach (area adjacent and west of Orr Street Bridge): Approx. 100' below site #31, left bank top (behind metal barn). Needs to be laid back to achieve a better angle of repose and vegetate with cottonwood/willow stakes. Right bank needs willow/ cottonwood canopy in-fill. Planting (behind townhouses) Orchard Ave./Hwy 101 Reach: Approx. 900' below site #32 (east face of Hwy bridge) left bank needs canopy. Plant willows. (Potential Adopt-a-Watershed planting and seeding projec0. 1995-97 34 City East Reach: Approx. 1300' east of Hwy 101 at City Municipal Water Treatment Plan. Left bank needs to be "laid back" for better angle of repose. Toe should be rip-raped with 2' material 160' below City stream weir and planted with cottonwood and willow stakes. Remove (or tie-in) recently dislodged auto hulk to left bank. Left bank reach from the weir west 370' needs to be laid back and canopied with willow/cottonwood stakes. Needs' irrigation during the dry season. (potential Adopt-a-Watershed planting and seeding project). Orr Creek Stream Reach Notes: 500 ft. 100 ft. 650' 1. Total approximate cumulative work-site length in lin. feet: 2. Total days to complete work-site labor: 59.75 3. Total approximate cumulative acreage of work-site areas: (Calc. channel riparian width at 150') 6205' (1.20 miles) 60 days 21.4 acres 2.5 1.5 4.0