The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1997-04-02 PacketMINUTES OF THE UKIAH CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting - March 19, 1997 A regular meeting of the Ukiah City Council, the agenda for which was legally noticed and posted, convened at 6:31 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. Roll was taken and the following Councilmembers were PRESENT: Councilmembers Chavez, Ashiku, Kelly, and Mayor Malone. ABSENT: Councilmember Mastin. Staff Present: Community Services Director DeKnoblough, Finance Director Elton, Assistant City Manager Harris, City Manager Horsley, Associate Planner Lohse, Planning Director Sawyer, Senior Planner Stump, City Attorney Rapport, Senior Civil Engineer Woods, and City Clerk Henderson. 2. Pledge of Allegiance Mayor Malone led the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. Regular Meeting - March 5, 1997 MIS Ashiku/Malone to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 5, 1997 as submitted was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Chavez, Ashiku, and MayorMalone. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: Councilmember Kelly. ABSENT: Councilmember Mastin. 4. RIGHT TO APPEAL DECISION Mayor Malone explained the appeal process. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR MIS Ashiku/Chavez to approve the Consent Calendar as follows: a. Approved the Report of Disbursements for the month of February 1997; b. Approved the Report of the Acquisition of Flexible Crack Sealant from Tri-American, Inc., in the amount of $7,658.68; and c. Adopted Resolution No. 97-62 Establishing a 20-Minute Restricted On-Street Parking Space at 756 South State Street. The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Chavez, Ashiku, Kelly, and Mayor Malone. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilmember Mastin. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Mayor Malone explained the procedure for audience comments. No one wished to address the Council. Mayor Malone moved to consideration of Council Reports as it was not time for Item 7, Public Hearings. 8. CITY COUNCIL/REPORTS Councilmember Chavez reported she attended a Main Street meeting. Plans are underway for a Cinqo de Mayo celebration. The Main Street Committee is preparing flyers to advertise special downtown events, directing them to expected railroad excursion groups. Councilmember Kelly reported she arranged a meeting with Kathy Hayes of Senator Mike Thompson's office. Ms. Hayes will research possibilities for legislation which may be able Regular Meeting - March 19, 1997 Page 1 to assist small utility companies with debt relief in the face of pending deregulation of the electric utility industry. She also attended a Sun House Guild meeting, as well as an Arts and Recreation Center Site Committee meeting. She is going to a League of California Cities Community Services Policy Committee meeting on Friday in San Francisco. She also reported the skateboarders' graffiti clean up group had a successful clean up day and will have another one next Saturday. Their purpose is community service and good will. She noted the Observatory Park neighborhood planning meeting was very successful with 80 people in attendance. There was interest in the historical aspect of the site. Another meeting is scheduled at the site on Observatory Avenue at 5:30 p.m. on April 8, 1997. Councilmember Ashiku mentioned the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) will be downgraded on their investment bond rating, which is not beneficial to refinancing or debt relief. He reemphasized the City of Ukiah's utility rates are cost based. NCPA staff is working diligently to bring down costs. He commended Councilmember Kelly's efforts with Senator Mike Thompson's office in regard to legislation to give some relief to small electric utilities now that deregulation of electric utilities is pending. He also noted that Pacific Gas & Electric is raising its gas rates. This is a direct result of deregulation of the gas industry. Mayor Malone mentioned he attended a Northern California Railroad Authority (NCRA) meeting. Excursion trips are being planned and the Ukiah Chamber of Commerce needs to promote the City so that Ukiah will be a destination for train excursion travelers. 9. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENT HEAD REPORTS City Manager Horsley reported the excursion trains are stopping in Ukiah this weekend and the Ukiah Chamber of Commerce is organizing and promoting events to train excursion travelers. She also reported that the City's arborist has found that the walnut trees on Clara Street, which may have been effected by a Fire Department demolition burn, are in a state of decline. RECESSED: 6:54 p.m. RECONVENED: 7:01 p.m. 1 PUBLIC HEARINGS - 7:00 P.M. Receive Public Input Regarding Community Application to the California Department of Development Development Block Grant Housing and Community Assistant City Manager Harris explained the Ukiah Community Center (UCC) is completing an analysis of the financial feasibility of purchasing the property upon which its facility is located. Depending upon the outcome of that study, UCC may request the City to submit a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) application. In order to do that a public hearing is necessary to address the General Allocation portion of the grant. He noted this hearing is for input and information only; no Council action, other than to conduct the hearing, is required. Mayor Malone opened the Public Hearing at 7:04 p.m. No one wished to address this issue. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:05 p.m. MIS Kelly/Malone to receive the public input. The motion passed by a voice vote of all AYES. ABSENT: Councilmember Mastin. 7b. Introduction of Ordinance Amending the City Zoning Map to Rezone 19 Lots in the Miscellaneous Area No. 3 General Plan Rezoning Area Senior Planner Stump explained the need to rezone certain areas of the City to conform to the new General Plan adopted in December of 1995. Phase No. 8(c) involves the Regular Meeting - March 19, 1997 Page 2 potential rezoning of 25 parcels from "R-I" (Single Family Residential) to "R-3" (General Multiple Residential), generally located along Luce Avenue between Dora Avenue and State Street, and along the east side of South Street between Luce Avenue and Observatory Avenue; 19 parcels from "R-2" (Multiple Family Residential) to "R-3," generally located along Observatory Avenue between Dora Street and South Street; and 1 parcel from "R-3" to "C-N" (Neighborhood Commercial), located at 202 Washington Avenue. The Planning Commission, with staff"s concurrence, only recommends the rezoning of the 19 parcels from "R-2" to "R-3." No other rezoning is recommended. Mayor Malone opened the Public Hearing at 7:08 p.m. Pat Stefani spoke to retaining the zoning of "R-3" for the parcel on Washington Avenue. Mayor Malone closed the Public Hearing at 7:09 p.m. MIS Ashiku/Chavez to introduce an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Ukiah Amending the Official Zoning Map for the City of Ukiah, California, as it pertains to the rezoning of 19 lots in the Miscellaneous Area No. 3 General Plan Rezoning Area by title only was carried by a voice vote of all AYE. ABSENT: Councilmember Mastin. City Clerk Henderson read the Ordinance by title only. MIS Ashiku/Malone to introduce the Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Ukiah Amending the Official Zoning Map for the City of Ukiah, California as pertains to the rezoning of 19 lots in the Miscellaneous Area No. 3 General Plan Rezoning Area was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Chavez, Ashiku, Kelly, and Mayor Malone. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: CouncilmemberMastin. 7C. Consideration and Approval of Applications Submitted by Robert H. Lee and Associates for Property Located at 1105 Airport Park Boulevard (Assessor Parcel No. 180-070-36): i. Adoption of Resolution Making CEQA Findings ii. Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Airport Industrial Park Planned Development (AlP PD) Ordinance (No. 979) to Delete the Existing Provision Which Prohibits Drive-Thru Restaurants from the List of Allowed Uses in the Highway Commercial Area of the AlP iii. Site Development Permit Application No. 97-03, to Allow the Construction of an Auto Service Station and Convenience Store, a Drive-Thru Restaurant, and a Freeway Oriented Pole Sign on a 1.38 Acre Parcel Located in a Portion of the Airport Industrial Park (ALP) Designated for Highway Commercial Land Uses in the AlP Planned Development Ordinance (No. 979) Associate Planner Lohse outlined this item for the Council. The Planning Commission did not approve the Ordinance amending Ordinance 979 or approve the Site Development Permit. Since the Planning Commission's denial of the project, the applicants made modifications to the Site Development Plan, based on Planning Commission concerns, and submitted a revised site plan. Staff considered traffic, design, and air quality issues, and, based on that analysis, recommended approval of the project. The 46 recommended conditions of approval, if adopted, will be made a permanent part of Site Development Permit No. 97-03. Senior Planner Stump gave the Council an overview of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis of the project. The City Engineer and planning staff believe the project is consistent with the City's certified Environmental Impact Report. Regular Meeting - March 19, 1997 Page 3 Planning Director Sawyer explained that two actions were necessary for approval of the project: one, to introduce an ordinance amending the Airport Industrial Park Planned Development Ordinance to allow drive-thru restaurants in the Highway Commercial land use designation; and another to approve the Site Development Permit No. 97-03, as modified by the applicants, and subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Department. City Attorney Rapport stated that one Public Hearing would encompass all actions relative to this project. Mayor Malone opened the Public Hearing at 7:30 p.m. Adam Freeman, Citizens for Adequate Review, as a representative of that group, asked to be allowed to comment for 10 minutes. Mayor Malone agreed that would be acceptable. Mr. Freeman asked the Council to continue this matter until all Councilmembers could be present and to take its time in making such an important decision. He does not think there is evidence in the record to make the necessary CEQA finds. He believes the project will result in traffic and circulation problems, have an adverse visual impact, and have a detrimental effect on the air quality of the Ukiah Valley. He urged the Council to find solutions to these concerns before acting on this project. Gary Ackerstrom, developer of Redwood Business Park, spoke to traffic access problems and solutions for Talmage Road. Phil Baldwin, Ukiah, felt the project contradicted the mandates and vision statement of the new General Plan. Peter Bucklin, PMB Development Company, Petaluma, commented that the modifications to the Site Development Plan will result in the best use for the location. Ellen Cianciaruli, Architect for the project and representing Robert H. Lee & Associates, addressed the design, site layout, accessibility and compatibility with the surrounding buildings in the Airport Industrial Park. Her clients are willing to adapt the project to blend with Wal-Mart. She explained the landscaping was planned as a screening device between Highway 101 and the adjacent shopping center. Chuck Shaw, Real Estate Manager for Jack in the Box, addressed his corporation's desire to be a part of the community and its efforts to mitigate the Planning Commission's concerns. Councilmember Chavez inquired of Mr. Shaw the number of people to be employed from the Ukiah area and what the pay scale would be. Mr. Shaw anticipated all but one would be hired locally and that the salary range was from $35,000-$40,000 per year for a manager to $5 to $7 per hour for part-time employees. Jack in the Box employs between 50 and 60 people per restaurant. Dennis O'Keefe, Golden Gate Petroleum, owners of the proposed Shell Station, stated the Shell Station plans to employ about 15 people locally with pay standards similar to Jack in the Box. Donna Roberts, 761 Sidnie Court, Ukiah, spoke to traffic and air quality concerns and the blind approach from the over crossing of Highway 101. John McCowen, P. O. Box 454, Ukiah, stated the project was a quality project, but he thought zoning did net allow such a use. He regretted the site originated as an industrial park and is now a shopping center. He stated no more changes, including this proposed Regular Meeting - March 19, 1997 Page 4 change, should be made to the Airport Industrial Park's zoning. He also had traffic and air quality concerns. Mike Schutz, Park Boulevard, Ukiah, spoke against the project. He had concerns regarding traffic, signage, and site layout. David Faulkner, Air Pollution Officer for the County of Mendocino, addressed the challenge of meeting State of California ozone standards. He does not think the project addresses the cumulative effect on the air quality of the Ukiah Valley. He stated the Air Quality Control District's proposed air quality ordinance is now on hold, but the District is willing to work with the City on that ordinance. He was not willing to commit to a time frame in which his staff could complete the ordinance. He agreed this one, single project would not put the Ukiah Valley's air quality standards over the acceptable threshold, but emphasized cumulative impacts need to be addressed. The Public Hearing closed at 8:47 p.m. RECESS: 8:47 p.m. RECONVENED: 8:58 p.m. Mayor Malone asked if the Council had questions on the project. City Attorney Rapport, in response to a question from Mayor Malone, stated State statutes prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages at gas stations. Staff addressed Council's concerns regarding overall design standards, air quality issues, and ingress and egress problems. There is no mandated design review for Airport Industrial Park, however, projects have been directed to be compatible with the design elements of the Park's first tenant, Wal-Mart. Mendocino County is the lead agency on air quality matters. The City Engineer did consider the ingress and egress problems on Airport Boulevard. Councilmember Kelly had concerns that this project would not be conducive to the southern gateway to the City of Ukiah. Councilmember Ashiku stated the City needs to deal with the design issue of the Industrial Park in general and since that has never been done, it would be wrong to deny the project because of its visual element. He looks at this site as highway commercial not industrial. Mayor Malone polled the Council as to whether or not all had viewed the site. All Councilmembers indicated they had viewed the site. MIS Ashiku/Malone to adopt Resolution No. 97-63 Making Findings Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines Section 15091 Relying on the Previously Certified Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Prepared for Buildout of the Airport Industrial Park (ALP) in Conjunction with Amendments to the AlP Planned Development Ordinance (97-02), and Approval of the Shell Gas Station and Jack-in-the-Box Joint Development Project was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Chavez, Ashiku, and Mayor Malone. NOES: Councilmember Kelly. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: CouncilmemberMastin. MIS Ashiku/Chavez to introduce by title only the Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Ukiah Amending the Airport Industrial Park Planned Development was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Chavez, Ashiku, and Mayor Malone. NOES: Councilmember Kelly. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilmember Mastin. Regular Meeting - March 19, 1997 Page 5 City Clerk Henderson read the Ordinance by title only. MIS Ashiku/Chavez to introduce the Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Ukiah Amending the Airport Industrial Park Planned Development was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Chavez, Ashiku, and Mayor Malone. NOES: Councilmember Kelly. ABSTAIN. None. ABSENT: Councilmember Mastin. MIS Ashiku/Chavez to approve Site Development Permit No. 97-03 to allow the development of a drive-thru restaurant and an auto service station that includes multiple gas pumps, a convenience store and an auto wash, subject to the 46 conditions of approval as outlined on pages 5 through 9 of the staff report and with three additional conditions: 1) the car wash is open only to customers who have filled up with gas at the Shell Station; 2) the trimming of landscaping is subject to the approval of the Planning Department; and 3) the matter of the proposed driveway for ingress and egress to the site from Airport Park Boulevard is left to the discretion of the City Engineer; however, the driveway's disposition shall not be based on traffic accidents. The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Chavez, Ashiku, and Mayor Malone. NOES: Councilmember Kelly. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilmember Mastin. 10. CLOSED SESSION There was no closed session. 11. ADJOURNMENT MIS Chavez/Ashiku to adjourn the meeting was carried by a voice vote of all AYES. ABSENT: Councilmember Mastin. The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Colleen B. Henderson, City Clerk Regular Meeting - March 19, 1997 Page 6 day of April, 1997, to: ~ In appreciation for extraordinary conduct above and beyond the call of duty. WhentheAutumnLeavesfirebrokeo~tyouriskedyourlife~ through the upstairs hallways advising the tenants of the fire. And as the smoke became too great you began removing second story residents through their windows assisting at least seven residents to their sqfety by way of extension ladders to the ground. Even though you inhaled a considerable amount of smoke ~andwastransportedtothehospitalfortreatment, youreturned~ to fire scene after minimal recuperation and continued helping your Autumn Leaves family members, ensuring no one was overlooked until all persons were cleared from the scene. You remained at the site and aided other stqO'members in ~ securing the area. During this entire event your actions were directed toward the we{fare of others at the potential sacrifice of Ukiah, on behalf of my fellow City Councilmembers, Jim Mastin, Kristy Kelly, Phil Ashiku, and Guadalupe Chavez, your family at commend you, Don Lauenroth, for your exemplary activities during and qiter the 1997 Valentines Day fire at Autumn Leaves and thank you for your service above se{f. ITEM NO. 6a DATE: APRIL 2, 1997 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: DENIAL OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES RECEIVED FROM SAMUEL YAN; AND REFER TO CITY INSURANCE CARRIER, REMIF The claim from Samuel Yan was received by the City of Ukiah on March 19, 1997 and alleges damages related to a traffic collision on December 11, 1996. Pursuant to City policy it is recommended the City Council deny the claim as stated and refer it to Redwood Empire Municipal Insurance Fund (REMIF), the City of Ukiah's insurance carrier. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Deny Claim for Damages received from Samuel Yan; and Refer it to REMIF, the City's Insurance Carrier. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Alternative action not advised by the City's Risk Manager. Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Appropriation Requested: N/A Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: Acct. No.: N/A Yes Claimant Michael F. Harris, AICP, Assistant City Manager Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Claim of Samuel Yan, pages 1-4. APPROVED:~~ t ~,,.,-, Candace Horsley, Oity~ana~er mfh:asrcc97 0402CLAIM 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 LAW OFFICE OF DUNCAN M. JAMES DUNCAN M. JAMES, State Bar No. 40505 DAVID M. KINDOPP, State Bar No. 183991 Attorney at Law P.O. Box 1381 Ukiah, CA 95482 Telephone: (707) 468-9271 Attomey for Claimant In the Matter of the Claim of SAMUEL YAN CLAIM AGAINST CITY OF UKIAH (GOVERNMENT CODE l§ 910 et seq.) SAMUEL YAN, Claimant, presents this claim to the City of Ukiah pursuant to §§ 910 et seq. of the Government Code. 1. Claimant's address is 1420 Ridgeview Drive, Ukiah, CA 95482 2. Claimant desires notices concerning this claim to be sent to the following address: Law Office of Duncan M. James P.O. Box 1381 Ukiah, California 95482 3. The date, place and circumstances of the occurrence giving rise to this claim are as follows: Traffic Collision in the City of Ukiah on December 11, 1996 between claimant and Christopher Lee Dewey, an employee of the City of Ukiah. 4. Claimant has incurred injury to his person, damages to his property, and damage to his business. 5. The name of the public employee causing the injury, damage or loss is: Christopher Lee Dewey. -1- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 6. The amount of claimant's claim exceeds $10,000 and jurisdiction will lie in Superior Court. Dated: March I~., 1997 Attom~q.~or Cla~ -2- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 VERIFICATION I, SAMUEL YAN, declare: 1. I am the claimant in the above-entitled action. 2. I have read the foregoing Claim Against City of Ukiah (Government Code Section 910 et seq.) and know the contents thereof to be true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters set forth on information and belief, and to those matter, I believe them to be true. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct, except as to those matters set forth on information and belief and as to those matter, I believe them to be true. Executed on March 18, 1997, at Ukiah. California. Samuel Yan -1- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PROOF OF SERVICE BY PERSONAL DELIVERY I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County of Mendocino. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within above entitled action; my business address is 445 North State Street, Ukiah, CA 95482. On March 19, 1997, I served the within CLAIM AGAINST CITY OF UKIAH (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 910 ET SEQ.) by personal delivery, addressed as follows: City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 I, Leslie Snyder, do declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 19th day of March, 1997, at Ukiah, California. -1- AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. 6b DATE: APRIL 2, 1997 REPORT SUBJECT: REJECTION OF PROPOSALS FOR PRINTING AND MAILING OF CITY OF UKIAH UTILITY AND OTHER BILLS. The Billing and Mailing Process The Billing and Collection Division of the Finance Department is responsible for the process of printing and mailing the 8,000 utility bills occuring four times monthly, and 1,730 other bills generated three times monthly. Many steps are performed prior to producing a statement for City customers, concluding with the printing of the bills; insertion of the bill, the return envelope and any additional flyers into a mailing envelope; sorting and counting by zip code; and finally delivering the bills to the Post Office for mailing. These tasks are performed by Customer Service Representative IIl's who also perform most of the in office steps leading up to the printing, stuffing, and mailing operation. In addition to these mechanical procedures, they provide a variety of customer contacts including new customer application processing and responding to customers who have questions or disputes with their bill. They also prepare past due, delinquency notices, and all the paperwork necessary to disconnect service for those customers who have failed to pay their bill. As part of this process they spend time with customers reviewing alternatives such as assistance from various community organizations or preparing an extended payment plan to avoid imminent interruption of electric or water service. All of these time consuming procedures are integral to the entire billing and collection process. (Continued on page 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Reject proposals for printing and mailing of utility and other bills. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Accept proposal for printing and mailing of utility and other bills. 2. Direct staff to prepare an alternate proposal. Acct. No. (If NOT budgeted): N/A Acct. No.: N/A Appropriation Requested: N/A Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: N/A Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: Gordon Elton, Finance Director and Patsy Archibald, Customer Service Supervisor Candace Horsley, City Manager None APPROVE~): i~~ ~,.Candace Horsley, City Manager PA:billcost.agn HISTORY The U.S. Postal Service began offering significantly reduced bulk rates only for bar-coded mail as of July 1, 1996. Staff investigated the cost of implementing bar-coding on the existing billing software and determined that other avenues of producing invoices should be explored. Staff's belief was that these services were available at cost effective rates. In October 1996, a cashier, who had been with the City for many years, chose early retirement. At that time, the decision was made to operate with one less staff member in the Billing and Collection Division of the Finance Department. The Customer Service Representatives who perform the previously mentioned duties added assistance at the cashier window to their list of duties. This process has been followed for the past five months. During this time, staff has explored the possibility of procuring the services of a firm, offering barcode capabilities, to print and mail the City's invoices. The result of that search is the reason this item is presented for your consideration. Benefits the City expected to receive by having an outside company perform these tasks include: A. Lower postage rates - The U.S. Postal Service requires barcoding of all mail before it can receive the most advantageous postal rates. The City currently mails most bills at a rate of $.295 each. If 6,000 utility bills per month (going to the same zip code) are mailed at $.238 each, a postage savings of $.057, expenses will be reduced by approximately $4,100 per year. It was originally expected that mailing most of the other 1,500 postcard style bills would acheive a postage savings of $.03 per piece from $. 18 to $. 15 due to barcoding, an annual savings of $540. a. Combined billing - Combined billing is available for customers with multiple properties who prefer to have one bill that contains the detail for all their accounts. A benefit for combined or "summary" billing could be realized in reduced postage due to a reduction in the overall number of statements printed. The City cannot make this available with existing billing software. The exact amount of potential savings through the reduction of statements printed monthly that could be combined is not known at this time. Examples of City customers who could benefit from summary billing include City of Ukiah, Mendocino County, and Ukiah Unified School District. Co Paper products inventory - This service would reduce, if not eliminate the need for purchasing and storing an inventory of statements, return envelopes, and window envelopes necessary to produce the bills on an ongoing basis every month. If an outside company were to perform these procedures, they would provide the forms necessary to print each of the four different bills produced. The initial difference if an outside company provided the service is the conversion of printing the Commercial Garbage, Ukiah Valley Sanitation District, and Parking Permit Bills from postcard style to 81/2"x 11" format. PA:billcost.agn Do Increase customer service hours - More staff hours would be available for customer contact and collection of revenue. The time currently spent producing and mailing invoices to customers can be spent in various customer related areas including new services offered such as Budget Billing, Direct Payments, and Credit Card Acceptance. All of these programs require staff time to implement, monitor, and analyze. As new programs, the amount of time necessary to properly present and operate them is not precisely known. By having the bills prepared by an outside source, staff believed sufficient time could be devoted to make these new programs successful. Staff identified four potential providers of the type of service desired. We reviewed our possible requirements with them. They all expressed various levels of interest in providing the service to the City. In December an RFP was issued for printing and mailing services. The RFP was advertized in accordance with standard City policies. In addition, a copy of the RFP was mailed to those companies that staff had previously identified as potential contractors. Responses were received from two companies and opened on January 17, 1997. The responses proposed costs higher than were anticipated. When the proposals were analyzed, it became evident that the out-sourcing of printing and mailing services would increase the overall costs to the City. Proposals Proposals were received from Moore Business Forms and California Water Company. First Image responded with a no-proposal, and ZipMail did not respond at all. Costs proposed by California Water Company were the lower of the two proposals. The best average bar coded postal rate that the proposals estimated is $.27 each. However, a conversion of the current postcard style bills to 8 1/2" x 11" format would be necessary with either proposal. This conversion would then increase our current postage rate of $.18 for approximately 1,500 bills monthly to $.27 per piece. This is an annual increase of approximately $1,620. rather than a reduction of $540. The net annual savings for 9,500 bills per month would be $780. instead of a expected savings of $4,640. Fees for services: Printing and handling costs (including bursting, folding, stuffing, sorting, and delivery to the post office) were proposed at $.21 per bill. Materials (including statement, return envelope, and mailing envelope) were proposed at $. 15 per bill. Postage would be at the actual Postal Service rate for sorted, bar-coded mail. Estimated annual cost for 9,730 bills per month (including 230 parking permits at no postage savings) before postage, is $42,033.60. Related materials costs that would be eliminated are approximately $6,400. Costs of the basic computer system that currently produce bills would not be significantly reduced, even though certain features would no longer be used. The net increase would be $35,633.60 per year; a significant additional cost to the utility operations. Therefore, staff is recommending the rejection of the proposals for printing and mailing of the City utility and other bills on the basis that actual costs exceed estimates anticipated and funding for these services, at the level proposed, is not available. PA:billcost.agn 3 AGENDA SUMARY ITEM NO. 6c DATE: April 2, 1997 REPORT SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY ZONING MAP TO REZONE 19 LOTS IN THE MISCELLANEOUS AREA NO. 3 GENERAL PLAN REZONING AREA SUMMARY: On March 19, 1997, the City Council voted 4-0 (Mastin absent) to introduce the ordinance amending the City zoning map to rezone 19 lots in the Miscellaneous Area #3 rezoning area consistent with the recommendations of the City Planning Commission. The ordinance has been prepared in final form for adoption, and is attached to this Agenda Summary Report. The purpose of the rezonings in the Miscellaneous Area #3 rezoning area is to bring zoning classifications of a number of privately owned properties into conformance with the Land Use Designation assigned in the new General Plan. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt the ordinance amending the City Zoning Map rezoning 19 lots in the Miscellaneous Area No. 3 General Plan rezoning area. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: 1. Do not adopt the ordinance, and provide direction to staff. Citizen Advised: All affected and adjoining property owners duly noticed Requested by: Planning Department Prepared by: Charley Stump, Senior Planner Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager and Bob Sawyer, Planning Director Attachments: 1. Ordinance amending the City Zoning Map APPROVED: Candace Horsley, C r ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FOR THE CITY OF UKIAH, CALIFORNIA The City Council of the City of Ukiah does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION ONE Pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 9009 of the Ukiah City Code, the Official Zoning Map for the City of Ukiah is amended to change the zoning on 19 parcels in the Miscellaneous Area No. 3 rezoning area of the community as identified in the General Plan Rezoning Program. Specifically, the City Zoning Map is amended to rezone 19 parcels from "R-2" (Multiple Family Residential) to "R-3" (General Multiple Residential). The listing of the specific parcels involved in this rezoning action, along with detailed rezoning information is attached as Exhibit "A." SECTION TWO This ordinance shall be published as required by law in a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ukiah. SECTION THREE This rezoning action and amendment to the Official Zoning Map of the City of Ukiah is necessary to bring the zoning for the subject properties listed in Exhibit "A" into conformance with the new General Plan adopted on December 6, 1995. SECTION FOUR This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after adoption. Introduced by title only on March 19, 1997, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Chavez, Ashiku, Kelly, and Mayor Malone NOES: None ABSENT: Councilmember Mastin ABSTAIN: None Passed and adopted on , by the following role call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Sheridan Malone, Mayor ATTEST: Colleen B. Henderson, City Clerk EXHIBIT "A" Miscellaneous Area No. 3 Rezoning Project (96-52c) Assessor's Current General Plan New Parcel No. Zoning Designation Zoning 3-073-10 3-073-11 3-073-15 3-073-16 3-073-17 3-073-18 3-073-19 3-130-48 3-130-49 R-2 HDR R-3 3-590-1 3-590-3 3-590-4 3-590-5 3-590-6 3-590-7 3-590-8 3-590-10 3-590-11 3-590-12 EXHIBIT "A" - Page 1 of 2 MISCELLANEOUS REZONING AREA NO. 3 (96-52c) Rezoning 19 lots from R-2 to R-3 EXHIBIT "A" - Page 2 of 2 ITEM NO. 6d DATE: APRIL 2, 1997 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION SUPPORTING ASSEMBLY BILL 1296 AMENDING GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 831.7 ESTABLISHING SKATEBOARDING AS A HAZARDOUS RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY Assembly Bill 1296 has been introduced into the State Legislature by Assembly Members Morrow, Mazzoni, and Strom-Martin and Senator Thompson. This bill is to amend Government Code Section 831.7 adding skateboarding as a hazardous recreational activity and is identical to AB 2357 which was considered last year. This bill will add skateboarding to the category whereby public agencies are not liable to any person who participates in a hazardous activity. Substantial support for this legislation must be demonstrated to the legislature if passage is to occur. Staff recommends adoption of the support resolution. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt resolution supporting Assembly Bill 1296 adding skateboarding as a hazardous recreational activity. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Determine legislation should be modified, identify changes, and adopt resolution with revisions recommended. 2. Determine legislation is not appropriate and do not adopt resolution. Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Appropriation Requested: N/A Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: Acct. No.: N/A N/A Michael F. Harris, AICP, Assistant City Manager Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Resolution for adoption, page 1. 2. March 17, 1997 letter from Jeff Davis, General Manager of REMIF, pages 2-11. APPROVED: mfh:asrcc97 0402SKATE Candace Horsley, City M~ager RESOLUTION NO. 97- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH SUPPORTING ASSEMBLY BILL 1296 ADDING SKATEBOARDING AS A HAZARDOUS RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY WHEREAS, skateboarding is a recreational activity enjoyed by a significant number of individuals throughout California; and WHEREAS, the citizenry and local governments are limited in their ability to establish reasonable venues for this potentially dangerous activity because of possible liability; and WHEREAS, there currently exists in State Statutes the ability to define this activity in a manner which could place the responsibility for skateboarding upon the participants; and WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 1296 introduced by Assembly Members Morrow, Mazzoni, and Strom-Martin and Senator Thompson would amend Government Code Section 831.7 by adding skateboarding as a hazardous recreational activity thereby relieving some of the liability burden from local governments. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Ukiah strongly supports the passage of Assembly Bill 1296 by both the Assembly and Senate and signature by the Governor. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of March, 1997 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Sheridan Malone, Mayor Colleen B. Henderson, City Clerk mfh:resord skate .-. L '" ~WOOD )IRE '~ilCIPAL ~URANCE ID March 17, 1997 Candace Horsley, City Manager ,City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Dear Candace, As I pro~mised, I am providing you with the information regarding legislation making skateboarding a hazardous recreational activity. Assembly Members Morrow, Mazzoni, and Strom-Martin, along with coauthor Senator Thompson have introduced Assembly Bill 1296. It is identical to Assembly Bill 2357 which we attempted to get passed last year. Once again, your support of this bill hopefully will result in positive action by the legislature to change Government Code Section 831.7 and add skateboarding as a hazardous recreational activity. I have attached a brief narrative from Bob Walters, the CAJPA Legislative Advocate, along with a copy of the bill, in large, easy to read, print. The names of the members of the Assembly and Senate Judiciary Committees are also included. I request that you have your city council adopt a resolution supporting this bill and send a copy of that resolution to committee members and any other legislators you feel will help pass the bill. There is a very strong citizens' support movement up and down Highway 101, that includes letter writing, intemeting, phone calls, and actual visits to the capitol when the committees meet. Finally, we will be receiving support from the skateboard industry itself along with other county and city organizations. The sole opponent of last year's bill, the Consumer Attorneys for California, need to hear very clearly from our legislators that the cities, the parents and the children all want this bill to pass so that skateboard parks can be planned without a threat of lawsuits. This bill simply places the responsibility for skateboarding where it belongs, with the skateboarders. ~LIC ENTITY Candace Horsley March 17, 1997 Page 2 If you have any further questions, please feel free to give me a call. It is important that the resolutions be passed and sent to legislators by the 15th of April. ~VJEFFREY J. DAVIS · General Manager JJD:dd Enclosures Park Executive Bldg., 925 L Street, Suite 350, Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 441-5050 Fax (916) 441-5859 March 4, 1997 MEMORANDUM TO: Supporters of AB 2357 (Morrow) - (1996) FROM: Bob Walters, California Advocates, Inc. SUBJECT: AB 1296 (Morrow) -- Legislation To Make Skateboarding A Hazardous Recreational Activity Under Government Code Section 831.7. Last year, you supported AB 2357 (Morrow), which was introduced to give local governmental entities some freedom so that they would be able to offer skateboarders a reasonable venue to participate in their activity without endangering persons and property in their communities. Unfortunately, AB 2357 did not pass the Senate Judiciary Committee of the California Legislature last year. It did receive substantial bipartisan support from members of the Assembly and a certain number of Senators. The bill received overwhelming support from persons like yourself, either in behalf of cities or park districts, or other entities which are contemplating providing facilities for skateboarding. Many in the private sector, including the skateboard community, the manufacturers of skateboards and related equipment, and those who cover skateboarding in such magazines as Thrasher supported the bill. We would appreciate your support again this year, and we hope we can add to it. Your support for AB 2357 contributed a great deal to its success in the Assembly and helped us come very close to getting the bill out of committee in the Senate. This year, we hope AB 1296 can go all the way! We would certainly appreciate your support by sending letters, faxes, phone calls, etc., to the members of the Assembly and Senate Judiciary Committees, and to your own legislators (Senators and Assembly Members). Encourage them to lend their voice and their vote to the bill. Since the bill is an Assembly bill again this year, it will start in the Assembly Judiciary Committee and move to the Senate within the near future. With that in mind, you can help by generating your phone calls, letters, faxes, etc., as soon as possible. Oh yes! If you have some friends who you think will help, please encourage them to support the bill as well. A statewide grassroots effort will be needed. A copy of AB 1296 is enclosed so that you may refer to it by number when you write to your legislator and to others who you think would appreciate knowing of your support. Please send a copy of your letter to me or Assemblyman Morrow at the State Capitol. Again, thank you for supporting AB 2357 last year, we look forward to your support for AB 1296 this year. We hope that you will be with us when we present the bill in the committees of both houses of the legislature and that we can all celebrate passage of a reasonable, worthwhile piece of legislation which will help skateboarders across the state, as well as the local governments who want to give them a place to go. RGW:kb Enclosure CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE~1997-98 REG~ SESSION ASSEMBLY BILL No. 1296 ~....Introduced by .Assembly Members Morrow, Mazzoni, and Strom-Martin (,CoaUthor: Senator Thompson) February 9,8, 1997 An act to amend section 831.7 of the Government Code, relating to liability. LF. GISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 19.96, as introduced, Morrow. Liability. Existing law provides that neither public entities nor public employees are liable to any person who participates in a hazardous recreational activity. Existing law defines "hazardous reereationaJ activities" for these pUrPoses to. include various activities., This bill would revise the list of hazardous recreational activities to include skateboarding. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. State-mandated local program: no. T~e people'oF the State 0£ Califo~ do enact as £ollows: 1 SECTION 1. Section 831.7 of the Government Code 2 is amended to read: 3 831.7. (a) Neither a public entity nor a public 4 employee is liable to any person who participates in a 5 hazardous recreational activity, including any person 6 who assists the participant, or to any spectator who knew AB 12.96 -- 2 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 29 .; 3O 31 32. 33 .34~ '35 36 37' 38 . . 39 or reasonably shOuld have known that the hazardous recreational activity created a substantial risk of injury to himself or herself and was voluntarily in the place of risk, ox' having 'the ability to do so failed to leave, for.any damage or injury.to property or persons arising out of that hazardous recreational activity. (b) As used in this"'SeCti0n," ' ' · .. hazardous recreational activity" means a'.~ecreatiOnal activity conducted on property of apubiic entity which creates a substantial (as distinguished from a minor, trivial, or insignificant) risk of injury to a participant or a spectator. "Hazardous recreational activity" also means: (1) Water contact activities, except diving, in places where or at a time when lifeguards are not provided and reasonable warning thereof has been given or the injured party should reasonably have known that there was no lifeguard provided at the time. (2). Any form of diving into water from other than a diving board or diving platform, or at any place or from any structure where diving is prohibited and reasonable warning thereof has been given. (3) Animal riding, including equestrian comPetition, archer, y, bicycle racing, or jumping, mountain bicycling, boating, cross:country and dOwnhill Skiing, hang gliding, kayaking, .motorized.. vehicle- racing, off-road motorcycling or four-wheel .driving of any kind, orienteering, .pistol and .rifle shooting, rock climbing, rocketeering,' rodeo, spelunking, skateboarding, sky diving, .sport. parachUting, paragliding, body contact Sports (i.e., spOrts in which it is reasonably foreseeable that there will be rough bodily contact with one Or more participants),.surfing, trampolining,.-~tree.climbing, tree rope sWinging, 'Waterskiing,' White 'Water rafting, and windsurfing.' For the .purposes of- this subdivision, "mountain bicycling" does nOtinclude riding a bicycle.on paved . pathways, . roadways, or sideWalks.' · (c) Notwithstanding the'provisions 0fsubdivision (a), this section does not limit liability which would otherwise exist for any of the. following: : .. o '0 2 3 4 ..~ "6 ';7 "8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 · 3-- AB 1296 (1) Failure~of the public entity or employee to guard or warn of a known dangerous condition or of another hazardous recreational activity known to the public · entity or employee that is not reasonably assumed by the · ...participant. as inherently a-part-of*:the haZhrdOus · recreational activity, out of which:the:damage' 0i:inju/'y arose.'. ' ' -. ' '.:".' ., ,-..' ....... ,.:...; ,,. :~'?_: :,. ..i r ::.,.'~-,. ":, "(2)...Damage or injury suffered<in any'~'-e-ase,'~vhere permission to participate in the hazardous recreational activity was granted for a specific fee. Foi* the purpose of this paragraph, a "specific fee" does not include a fee or consideration charged for a general purpose, such as a general park admission charge, a vehicle entry or parking fee, or an .administrative or group use applicatiOn or permit fee, as distinguished from a specific fee charged for participation in the specific hazardous .recreational activity out of which the damage or injury arose. (3) Injury suffered to the extent proximately caused by the negligent failure of the public entity or public employee to properly construct or maintain in good repair any structure, recreational equipment or machinery, or substantial work of improvement utilized in the hazardous recreational activity out of which the damage or injury arose. (4) Damage or injury suffered in any case where the public entity or employee recklessly or with gross negligence promoted the participation in or observance of a hazardous recreational activity. For purposes of this paragraph, promotional literature or a public announcement or advertisement which merely describes the available facilities and services on the property does not in itself constitute a reckless or grossly negligent promotion. (5) An act of gross negligence by a public entity or a public employee which is the proximate cause of the injury. Nothing in this subdivision createS a duty of care or basis of liability for personal injury or for damage to personal property. 1 (d) Nothing in this section shall limit the liability of an 2 independent concessionaire, or any person or 3 organization other than the public entity, whether or not 4 the person or organization has a contractual relationship 5 with the public entity to use the pUblic property, for 6 injuries or damages suffered in any case asa result of the 7 operation of a hazardous recreational activity on public 8 property by the.. concessionaire, Person, or organization. .. 0 -8- MEMBERS OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE The The The The The The The The The Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable John Burton, Chair Charles Calderon Ray Haynes Barbara Lee Tim Leslie Bill Lockyer Jack O'Connell Byron Sher Cathie Wright MEMBERS OF THE ASSEMBLY JUDICIARY COMMITTEE The The The The The The The The The The The The The The The The Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Martha Escutia, Chair Bill Morrow Barbara Alby Dion Aroner Scott Baugh Louis Caldera Liz Figueroa Dick Floyd Charles Kaloogian Fred Keeley Sheila James Kuehl Tom McClintock Deborah Ortiz Rod Pacheco Kevin Shelley Antonio Villaraigosa MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS Nm *Jpen. Dqxle .......... ~.y~l~. Rub,m S. ....... Bmlte. Jam~ L ....... Banes. Jc~a .......... H.,yms. i~,yaxmd N .... Kelley, David O ....... L.~... ~ ......... L~lie, Taa ........... Mike ...... Full-nme Lgl:islamr ......... Ful~-~ime L~mr ......... Aaae~,T Puil-6me ~-~ ......... ~a~ ~ ......... ~ ~ ......... a~ ~ ............. T~~ ............. ~i~A~ ....... F~~~ ........ B~ .............. F~ ~ ......... F~ ~ ......... B~~ ..... Ci~ ~ ............. F~ ~a-~ ......... A~ at Lmv ........... Full-4ime Lelisla~' ......... Full-time ~ ..... Fuli-um¢ Le~slm~r ......... Pray D~L Te~A,~,a Comm~ 445-39~2 445-3688 445-1412 32'7-8315 44~41 445-3731 445-5953 445-7107 445-1353 445-9711 445-2104 445-583 I 445-3353 445-2407 445-55~1 445-0503 445-6577 445-57~ 445-4264 445-6671 445-96OO · 445-5{43 445-1392 . 445-2141 445-6767 445-3456 n45.6~3 445-5976 445-6747 445-1418 445-3375 445-9740 445-5215 445-~rt3 155'/Colm~ia SL, ~ ~ 92101. Pa: (619) 645.-3090. 9620 Cram' Amine, Suim 100, Ranc~ Cucamm~, 91730. (9O9) 10681 Fombill Blvd., Sm~ 325, Rancho Cucamon{n 91730. 601 Van Ness Ave.. Suite 2030, San Fmnc:imo 94102. Pa: (415) 447--1240;. 3501 Civic Cema, Room 425, San Raf~ 94903. Pa= (415) 479--6612. 400 N. Momd~lo Blvd., #101, Monmbdlo 90640. Fa: (213) 724-6175. ~ M,~-'K,,~ Ma{l, Suite 2016, Ptemo 93'721. Ph: ('20,9) 264-30'78; 901 Tower Way, ~ 202, Bakmt'w, ki 9330~ (805) 323..-O~2. 2121 Palomar A~ Rd., Suite 100, Cadaimt 92009 Ph: (619) 438-3114. 16921 S. Wemem Aw.., Suite 101, GeaNaa 90247 I~ (310) 324-4969. P.O. It~ 254646, Sm'amen~ 95125. 10951 W. Pk:o Blvd.,/f202, L,m Anle~:s 90064. 6140 ~ Aw.., S~me 275, Kivmide 92506. ~ (909) 712-4111; 431~0 Buamess Pa~ Dr.. Sei~e A-.101, T~ 92~0. Ih: (9O9) 693.-O266. I M~x:bam~ Blvd., Suite 600. ~ 90301. 11642 K.no~ SL.. Soite 8. Gen:len Grove 92141. Ph:('/14) 195-13S3. 410 Hemsmd Dr,, S~im 200. R~ 96002. Ih: (916) 224-4706. 11552 ~ Blvd.. ~ 395. irv~ne 92612. Hr:(714) 13~.--0110 1020 N St,. Suite 504. Saammemo 95114; 31 Eatt Channd St., Raem 444}. S~,latm 95202. 3711 Ltm& Bemeh Blvd, Suite I01. Leel Beach 90~OT. ha: (310) 11440 W. Bernan:lo Com~ Suite 104. San ~ 92127. Pa: ¢619) 675-1211; 73-710 Fred wann~ Dram, Same I0~ Palm Deaert 92260. Ptt: (619) 346-2099. 100~ W. Av~ M-14. Sram G, p,k,,,4.~ 93551 l~n: 274-0118; 25709 Ry~ Canym3 Kind, ~ 105. Santo CJanm 91355 Ph: (10~) 294.-.8114; 15278 Mm Sram Suua D. ia 92345 (619)244-2402. 363 El-Camiao RmL ~ 20~, Smatb San Ptmcm:o 94080. (415) 952--5666. 1970 Broadway. Saite 1030. Oak, lm~ 94612. Pa: (510) 216--1333; 1200 Mdody Lsne, ~ il0. Rmeville 95678. Ph: 969.-~232 . 713-8232; 330 Fair Lane,.. Placmrville 95667. l~: 621-3891. 1940 W. ~ Ave., Suite 106. ~ 92668. ~ (714)939-0604. Fga: (714)939.-q730 22634 Seacmd Ss.. Sui~ 104. ~ 94541. 2503 West Shaw Ave., Suite I01. Prmno 93711; 141 Motsawk St., ~ 190. Bakm6eid 93309. 701 Ch:enn SI., Room 3 ill Sam~ Cruz 95060;, 7 John Same~ Salg nas 93901. 1620 N. C. mlmem~ Rind, Suite A-4, Modemo 95351. P~ (209) 5'7'7.-6592; 7T7 W. ~ S~ S~o B. M~ 95~. ~ (2~) ~ I~! H~ ~ ~m B. ~ 93~7; ~ ~) 67~2~. 5ffi N. F~ A~ 3, ~ 91~. P~ (Ill) 19 S. ~., ~ ~ ~ 9~1 ~ (~) ~1-1~ I~ 7~ ~y ~ ~e lB. ~ ~ 91~: ~ (619) ~3. I~ MC ~B~~~~. ~(510~76. F~ ( 510~. 6i~ ~ ~ B~ ~ ~, ~ N~ 91~1 ~ (Iii) 35~3.~2~ymood Avenue, Suite 205. ~ 91105. Pa: (111) 260 Main SlmeC sling 201, ~ City 94063 Pa: (4151 364-20~0; 5519 Vlrlafield BlVd., Susl~ 102, Saa Jele 95123; ~ (401) 226-2992 4401 Santo Anisa Aveaue. 2nd Floor, El Meme 91731 Pa. (811) 44~-1271. 1040 Main SL, Suim 101 Napa 94559. Pa:(7OT) 224.-1990. 50 D S~. Suite 120A, Santa Rrna 95404. Pa: (707) 576-2771. 317 3hi St., Suim 6 F, am~ka 95501. ~ (70'7)445-6501. 100 Pss~o d~ S~n Az~mo. Su~ 209. Sm~ Jo~ 95113. Pa: (408) 286-1.111. 4401 Cmn~baw Blvd,. Saute 300, ~:~ Az~,etes 9(}043 (213L?.95-.66~. 2345 Emngna' Rd_ Suite 212. Smu ValleT. 93065 MEMBERS OF THE ASSEMBLY~CAUFORNIA LEGISLATUREt1997-98 REGULAR SESSION Ott'~ce ' Local Name Occupation Party Di.~mct No. Seat No. No. Telephone Di.~'ict Office Mailing Address Ackerman. Dick . Busines.~ Lawyer R 72 30 4167 445.7a.48 305 N. Harbor Blvd.. Suite 303. Fullenon 92632 Agmat. Fred Le$isiator/Busincssman, R 61 19 5135 445.1670 304 West F Street. Ontario 91762 Alby. Barbara Businesswoman R 5 72 3098 445-4-M5 4811 Chippendale Drive. Suite 501. Sacramento 95841 Alqm.u. Elaine Busine.~swoman/Educator D 22 32 5144 445-4253 ' 275 Saratoga Avenue. Suite 205. Santa Clara 9505(} Aroner. Dion ... State Social Services Specialist D 14 79 2163 445-7554 3923 Grand Avenue. Oakland 94610 Ashbum. Roy ~ Legislator R 32 47 4102_ 445-8498 1200 Truxton Avenue. #120. Bakersfield 93302 Baca. Joe Busine~,~man/Legi.~lator D 62 17 3120 445.7454 201 North E Street. Suite 100. San Bemardino 9240 I Baldwin. Steve Property Management R 77 43 .)002 445-3266 9584 Murray Drive. La Mesa 91942 Battin. Jim Businessman R 80 5 2179 445-5416 73..710 Fred Wanng Drive. Suite 112. Palm De~en Baugh. Scott Corporate Coun.~l R 67 70 4177 4456233 16052 Beach BoulevanL Suite 160. Huntington Beach 92647 Bordonam. Jr.. Tom J. Farmer/13usinessman R 33 25 2176 445-7795 1060 Palm Street. San L.uis Obiq~o Bowen. Debra Public Law Attorney D 53 35 4112 445-8528 18411 Cren.~aw Boulevard. Suite 280. Torrance 90.~}4 Bowler. Lan'v Reti~-,d Shehff's Lieutenant R 10 71 21 ! ! 445-7402 10370 Old Placerville Road. Suite 106. 'Sacramemo 95827 Brewer. Mar~lyn C. Manufactunng Busines.~woman . . R 70 3 2175 445-79~.2 18952 McAnhut Boulevard. Suite 2."0. [rvi~e 92715 Brown. Valene Educator/Businesswoman D 7 63 · 3013 445-8492 50 D St~et. Suite 301. Santa Rosa 9544}4 Bu.~tamante. Cruz M. Full-ume Legislator D 31 8 219 445-8514 2550 Mariposa. Suite 5006. Fresno 93721 Caldera. Louis Anomey D 46 33 6025 445-4843 304 S. Broadway. Suite 580. Lo~ Angeles 90013 Campbell. Bill Bu.,~ine.~sman/Legislator R 71 51 5126 445-2778 1940 N. Tusfin. #102. Oran~ 92665 Cardenas. Tony Bu.siness;man/Engineer D 39 58 3126 445-1616 9140 Van Nuys BoulevanL Suqe 109. Panurama City 91402 ~'ardoza. Dennis Bu.,ines.~man D 26 66 2141 445-8570 384 East Olive. Suite ~ Turiock 95380 ' ~'unneen. Jim Legislator/Small Bu~,ines~man R 24 48 2174 445-8305 901 Campisi Way. Suite 300. Campbell 95008 Davis. Su.,.an Full-time Legi~,lator . D 76 16 2013 445-7210 1010 University Avenue. Suite ~2-207. San Diego 9210.1 Ducheny. Deni~ Moreno Attorney. D 79 67 6026 445-7556 2414 Hoover Avenue. Suite A. National City 91950 Escutia. Manha M. Attorney. D 50 41 3146 445-8188 2650 Zoe Avenue. Suite 2A. Hunong~on Pa~k 90255 Figuema. Liz Busine~.~woman D 20 12 448 445-78'74 43271 Missio~ Boulevard. Fremont 94539 Fire~o~e. Brooks Farmer R 35 22 2158 ~45-8292 809 Presidio. Sanla Bartm~ 93101 Floyd. Dick L,~islatm' ... D 55 77 4016 445-3134 I Civic Plaza. Suite 320. Catso~ 90745 Frusetta. Purer Rancher R 28 2 5175 445-7380 321 first St~-t. Suite A. Holli~er 95023 3allegos. Martin Do:tm' of Chiropractic.. D 57 6-t 6005 445-7610 13177 Ramona Bouleva~xL Suite O. Irwindale 91706 ~oldsmith. Jan Full-time Legislator R 75 45 4162. 445-2484 12.307 Oak Knoll Suite A. Poway 92064 3ranlund. Brett BUSinessman R 65 50 4164 445.7552 34932 Yucalpa Boulevard. Yucaipa 92399 ~avice. Sally Legislat~ D 56 15 5150 445-6047 17100 Pioneer Boukvan:L Suite 290. Ane.~ia 90701. ~enzbe~. Robert M. Attorney/Small Businessman D 40 36 5016 445-7644 6150 Van Nuys Boulevant. Suite #305. Van Nuw 91401 ~ouda. Mike Le$islator D 23 38 5155 445-8243 100 Pasco de San Antonio. #300. San Jo~e 951 -lou~. George Farmer R 25 26 3141 445-7906 3600 Sisk Road. Suite 5-D3. Modesto 95356 ~aloogian. Howasd Tax/Trust Attorney R 74 53 4130 445-2390 701 Palomar Airport RoocL Suite 160. Carl.~:~ad 92009 ~eeley. Fred ' ~ Legi.~lator D 27 76 4139 445-8496 701 Ocean Smut. Suite. 318B. Sama Cruz 90560 ~,nox. Wally Attorney D 42 13 2196 445-7440 7461 Beverly Boulevard. Suite 400. Los Angele,~ 90036-27.'13 ~uehl. Sheila James Full-time Legislator D 41 18 3160 445-4956 16130 Venmra Boulevard. Suite 230. Encino 91436 Ru.vkendal!. Steven T. . LegislatorR3usines.~man R 54 21 5158 445.99.34 444 Wesl Ocean Boulevard. Suite 707. Long Beach 90802 .,each. Lynne C. Small Bu~ine~ Owner R 15 24 4015 445-6161 800 South Broadway. Suite 304. Walnut Creek 94596 ..empen. Ted Full-time Legislator D 21 39 2188 445-7632 4149-B El Camino Way. Paid Alto 94306 .eonatd. Bill Legislator/Businessman R 63 68 2016 445-8490 10535 Foo~ill BoulevatcL Suite 276. Rancho Cucamonga 91730 ~4achado. Mike Farmer/Businessman D 17 57 5136 4;45.7931 31 East Channel Street. Suite 306. Stockton 95202 ~ar~ett. Bob Bu.~ine~,~man R 59 52 414.4 445.72.34 55 Fast Huntington Drive. Suite 120. Arcadia 91006 vlaninez.. Diane Full-time Legi.~lator D 49 78 - 2117 445-7852 205 S. Chapel Avenue. Suite B. Alhambra 91801 ~4~.zoni. Kerry Legislator/Businesswoman D 6 9 3123 445-7783 3501 Civic Cemer Drive. Suite 335. Civic Center. San Rafael 94903 ' McClintock. Tom Migden. Carole Miller. Gary. G Mom r, sey. Jim Mort'ow. Bill Murray. Kevin Napolitano. Grace E Olbe~.. Keith Oiler. Rico Oniz. Deborah Pacheco. Rod. Papan. Louis J Perata. D~n Poochigian. Charles Premer. Robert Pringle. Curt Richter. Bernie Runner. Geo~e Sco~t. Jack Shelley. Kevin Stmm-Mamn. Virginia . Sweeney. Michael Taka.,~ugi. NaD Thompson. Bruce Thomson. Helen Torlak.~oa. Tom V~llataigo,~. Antoaio R.~ Vincent. Edward Washington. Call Wayne. I-k~ward Wildman. Sco~t Wood.~. Tom Wright. Roderick Budget Reduction Analyst Full-time Leg Developer Small Businessman Anomey Full.time Leg Full.time Legislator Businessman Businc.'~s Owner Full-time Legislator Sr. Deputy Dismct Attorney Entrepreneur/1..egl Teacher. Attorney Legislator Small Busines.,~man Full-time Leg B u.~ine.'~sman/Educator/Le Legislator/Professor Le!islator Legislator , Teacher Businessman/Lc! IntemaUonal L~ltislator/Nurse - Educator Union Representative Legislator Legislator , Prosecutor Legislator Bu~incs.~nan, ,, Legt~,lator 10727 White Oak Avenue.' Suite 124. Granada Hills 91 ~ 1700 California Street. Suite 340. San Francisco 94109 17870 Castleton Stree~ Suite 205. City of Industry. 91748 930 We.~t 17th Street. Unit C. Santa Aha 92706 27126-A Pa.~-o E.~pada. Suite 1625. San Juan Capistrano 92675 ,tO0 Corporate Pointe. Suite 725. Cuiver City 90230 12009 East Firestone Blvd.. Norwalk 90650 14011 Park Avenue. Suite 470, V'~ctorville 92392 3161 Cameron Park Drive. Suite 214. Cameron Pa,"k.956~2 1215 15th Street. Suite 102. SacramenlO 95814 68~0 Indiana Avenue. Suite 150. Riverside 92506 660 E! Camino Real. Suite 214. Millbrae 94030 299 Third Street. Suite 100. Oakland. CA 94607 4974 East Clinton Way. Suite 100. Fresno 93727 800 N. lr~in. Hartford 92320 12865 Main Street. Suite I00. Garden Grove 92640 ,460 W. East Avenue. Suite 120. Chico 95926 709 W. Lancaster Boulevard. Lancaster 93534 215 N. Marengo Avenue. Pasadena 91101 711 Van Ness. Suite #310. San Francisco 94102 510 O StreeL Suite G. Eureka 95501 22320 Foothill Blvd.. Suite 130. Hayward 94541 221 Eaat Daily Drive. Suite 7, Camanllo 93010 27555 Ynez Road. Suite 205. Temecula 9"~91 8a,a Union Avenue. Suite A. Fairfield 94533 815 Estudiilo ~treeL Martincz 94553 I I0 North Avenue 56. Los Angeles 9(X)42 I Manche.~er Boulevard. P.O. Boz 6500. lnglewood 90306 145 E. Compton Street. Comp~on 90220 1350 Front Street. Suite 6013. San D~ego 92101 300 W. Glenoaks. Suite 202. Glendale 91202 100 East Cypve. ss Avenue. Suite 100. Redding 96002 700 State Drive. Suite 103. Los Angeles 90037 OFFICERS OF THE ASSEMBLY Room Local _ . Name T~tle No. Phone District Office Mailing Address Bu.~amame. Cruz M. Speaker 219 445-8514 '2550 Manposa. Suite 5006. Fresno 93721 Kuehi. Sheila James Speaker pro Tempore 3160 445-4956 16130 Ventura Boulevard. Suite 230. Encino 91436 Baca. Joe Assiraant Speaker pro Tempore 3120 445.7454 201 North E Street. Suite 1{30. San Bemardino 92401 Villaratgosa. Antonm R. Majority Floor Leader 320 445-0703 110 No~h Avenue 56. Los Angeles 90042 Prmgle. Curt Minority Floor Leader 3104 .145-8377 12865 Main Street. Suite 100. Garden Grove 926.40 Wil,,on. E. Docson Chief Clerk 3196 445-3614 State CaP~tol. Room 3196. Sacramento 95814 Pane. Ronaldo E. . Chief Se~eant-at-Am~s 3171 4.45-2401 State Capitol. Room 3171. Sacramento 95814 Re~. 2-13-q7 ITEM NO. 6d DATE: APRIL 2, 1997 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION SUPPORTING ASSEMBLY BILL 1296 AMENDING GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 831.7 ESTABLISHING SKATEBOARDING AS A HAZARDOUS RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY Assembly Bill 1296 has been introduced into the State Legislature by Assembly Members Morrow, Mazzoni, and Strom-Martin and Senator Thompson. This bill is to amend Government Code Section 831.7 adding skateboarding as a hazardous recreational activity and is identical to AB 2357 which was considered last year. This bill will add skateboarding to the category whereby public agencies are not liable to any person who participates in a hazardous activity. Substantial support for this legislation must be demonstrated to the legislature if passage is to occur. Staff recommends adoption of the support resolution. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt resolution supporting Assembly Bill 1296 adding skateboarding as a hazardous recreational activity. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Determine legislation should be modified, identify changes, and adopt resolution with revisions recommended. 2. Determine legislation is not appropriate and do not adopt resolution. Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Appropriation Requested: N/A Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: Acct. No.: N/A N/A Michael F. Harris, AICP, Assistant City Manager Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Resolution for adoption, page 1. 2. March 17, 1997 letter from Jeff Davis, General Manager of REMIF, pages 2-11. APPROVED: mfh:asrcc97 0402SKATE Candace Horsley, City- M~ager RESOLUTION NO. 97- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH SUPPORTING ASSEMBLY BILL 1296 ADDING SKATEBOARDING AS A HAZARDOUS RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY WHEREAS, skateboarding is a recreational activity enjoyed by a significant number of individuals throughout California; and WHEREAS, the citizenry and local governments are limited in their ability to establish reasonable venues for this potentially dangerous activity because of possible liability; and WHEREAS, there currently exists in State Statutes the ability to define this activity in a manner which could place the responsibility for skateboarding upon the participants; and WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 1296 introduced by Assembly Members Morrow, Mazzoni, and Strom-Martin and Senator Thompson would amend Government Code Section 831.7 by adding skateboarding as a hazardous recreational activity thereby relieving some of the liability burden from local governments. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Ukiah strongly supports the passage of Assembly Bill 1296 by both the Assembly and Senate and signature by the Governor. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of March, 1997 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Sheridan Malone, Mayor ATTEST: Colleen B. Henderson, City Clerk mfh:resord skate F~ E IVll F F~ EDWOOD EMPIRE MUNICIPAL INSURANCE FUND March 17, 1997 Candace Horsley, City Manager 'City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Dear Candace, As I pro~mised, I am providing you with the information regarding legislation making skateboarding a hazardous recreational activity. Assembly Members Morrow, Mazzoni, and Strom-Martin, along with coauthor Senator Thompson have introduced Assembly Bill 1296. It is identical to Assembly Bill 2357 which we attempted to get passed last year. Once again, your support of this bill hopefully will result in positive action by the legislature to change Govemmem Code Section 831.7 and add skateboarding as a hazardous recreational activity. I have attached a brief narrative l~om Bob Walters, the CAJPA Legislative Advocate, along with a copy of the bill, in large, easy to read, print. The names of the members of the Assembly and Senate Judiciary Committees are also included. I request that you have your city council adopt a resolution supporting this bill and send a copy of that resolution to committee members and any other legislators you feel will help pass the bill. There is a very strong citizens' support movemem up and down Highway 101, that includes letter writing, intemeting, phone calls, and actual visits to the capitol when the committees meet. Finally, we will be receiving support l?om the skateboard industry itself along with other county and city organizations. The sole opponem of last year's bill, the Consumer Attorneys for California, need to hear very clearly l~om our legislators that the cities, the parents and the children all want this bill to pass so that skateboard parks can be planned without a threat of lawsuits. This bill simply places the responsibility for skateboarding where it belongs, with the skateboarders. ILIC ENTITY Candace Horsley March 17, 1997 Page 2 If you have any further questions, please feel free to give me a call. It is important that the resolutions be passed and sent to legislators by the 15th of April. ~r~erely,,~/q General Manager JJD:dd Enclosures Park Executive Bldg., 925 L Street, Suite 350, Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 441-5050 Fax (916) 441-5859 March 4, 1997 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM' SUBJECT: Supporters of AB 2357 (Morrow) - (1996) Bob Walters, California Advocates, Inc. AB 1296 (Morrow) -- Legislation To Make Skateboarding A Hazardous Recreational Activity Under Government Code Section 831.7. Last year, you supported AB 2357 (Morrow), which was introduced to give local governmental entities some freedom so that they would be able to offer skateboarders a reasonable venue to participate in their activity without endangering persons and property in their communities. Unfortunately, AB 2357 did not pass the Senate Judiciary Committee of the California Legislature last year. It did receive substantial bipartisan support from members of the Assembly and a certain number of Senators. The bill received overwhelming support from persons like yourself, either in behalf of cities or park districts, or other entities which are contemplating providing facilities for skateboarding. Many in the private sector, including the skateboard community, the manufacturers of skateboards and related equipment, and those who cover skateboarding in such magazines as Thrasher supported the bill. We would appreciate your support again this year, and we hope we can add to it. Your support for AB 2357 contributed a great deal to its success in the Assembly and helped us come very close to getting the bill out of committee in the Senate. This year, we hope AB 1296 can go all the way! We would certainly appreciate your support by sending letters, faxes, phone calls, etc., to the members of the Assembly and Senate Judiciary Committees, and to your own legislators (Senators and Assembly Members). Encourage them to lend their voice and their vote to the bill. Since the bill is an Assembly bill again this year, it will start in the Assembly Judiciary Committee and move to the Senate within the near future. With that in mind, you can help by generating your phone calls, letters, faxes, etc., as soon as possible. Oh yes! If you have some friends who you think will help, please encourage them to support the bill as well. A statewide grassroots effort will be needed. A copy of AB 1296 is enclosed so that you may refer to it by number when you write to your legislator and to others who you think would appreciate knowing of your support. Please send a copy of your letter to me or Assemblyman Morrow at the State Capitol. Again, thank you for supporting AB 2357 last year, we look forward to your support for AB 1296 this year. We hope that you will be with us when we present the bill in the committees of both houses of the legislature and that we can all celebrate passage of a reasonable, worthwhile piece of legislation which will help skateboarders across the state, as well as the local governments who want to give them a place to go. RGW:kb Enclosure CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE--1997-98 REGULAR SESSION ASSEMBLY BILL No. 1 96 :...I. ntroduced by Assembly Members Morrow, Mazzoni, and o.' Strom-Martin (.CoaUthor: Senator Thompson) February 9,8, 1997 An act to amend section 831.7 of the Government Code, relating to liability. LEGISLATIVE COUNSF. T.'S DIGEST AB 19~96, as introduced, Morrow. Liability. Existing law provides that neither public entities nor public employees are liable to any person who participates in a hazardous recreational activity. Exist~g law defines "hazardous recreational activities" for these purposes to include various activities.. This bill would revise the list of hazardous recreational activities to include skateboarding. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. State-mandated local program: no. Tl~e peopIe o£the State 0£ CMif-orr~ do enact as fOllows: 1 SECTION 1. Section 831.7 of the Government Code 2 is amended to read: 3 831.7. (a) Neither a public entity nor a public 4 employee is liable to any person who participates in a 5 hazardous recreational activity, including any person 6 who assists the participant, or to any spectator who knew AB 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' 29 30 31 32 '35 36 37" 38 39 or reasonably should have known that the hazardous recreational activity created a substantial risk of injury to himself or herself and was voluntarily in the place of risk, o~' having 'the ability to do so failed to leave, for.any damage or injury, to property or persons arising out of that hazardous recreational activity. (b) As used in this"'sectiOn, "hazardous recreational activity" means a:recreational activity conducted on property Of a'pubii~"~ntity Which c~;eates a substantial (as distinguished from a minor, trivial, or insignificant) risk of injury to a participant or a spectator. "Hazardous recreational activity" also means: (1) Water contact activities, except diving, in places where or at a time when lifeguards are not provided and reasonable warning thereof has been given or the injured party should reasonably have known that there was no lifeguard provided at the time. (2) Any form of diving into water from other than a diving board or diving platform, or at any place or from any structure where diving is prohibited and reasonable warning thereof has been given. (3) Animal riding, including equestrian competition, arche .ry, bicycle racing or jumping, mountain bicycling, boating, cross:country and downhill skiing, hang gliding, kayaking, .motorized.. vehicle, racing, off-road motorcycling or four-wheel driving of any kind, orienteering, pistol and rifle shooting, rock climbing, rocketeering, rodeo, spelunking, skateboarding, sky diving, .sport. parachuting, paragliding, body contact Sports (i.e., sports in which it is reasonably foreseeable that there will be rough bodily contact with one Or more participants), .surfing, trampolining, .-, tree , .climbing, tree rope swinging, 'Waterskiing,' White 'Water rafting, and windsur~g.. For the .purposes of. this ;subdivision, "mountain bicycling" doeS notinelude riding a bicycle on paved..pathways,.roadways, or sideWalks." ' ' · (C) No.twil~standing the'provisions °fsubdivisi°n (a), this section does not limit liability which would otherwise exist for anY of the. following: ¸. · i 1 2 3 4 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 25 26 27 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 --3-- AB 1296 (1) Failure'of the public entity or' employee to guard or warn of a known dangerous condition or of another hazardous recreational activity known to the public · entity or employee that is not reasonably aSsumed by the :-participant. as inherently a-part-or-:the haZ~dous re6reational activity, out of Which..the:damagb-0i-inj. arose.'.-' ' · "(2)...Damage or .inJury sufferecl.' izi any':'~e'ase~'ivhere permission to participate in the hazardous recreational activity was granted for a specific fee. Foi, the purpose of this paragraph, a "specific fee" does not include a fee or consideration charged for a general purpose, such as a general park admission charge, a vehicle entry or parking fee, or an .administrative or group use applicatiOn or permit fee, as distinguished from a specific fee charged for participation in the specific hazardous recreational activity out of which the damage or injury arose. (3) Injury suffered to the extent proximately caused by the negligent failure of the public entity or public employee to properly construct or maintain in good repair any structure, recreational equipment or machinery, or substantial work of improvement utilized in the hazardous recreational activity out of which the damage or injury arose. (4) Damage or injury suffered in any case where the public entity or employee recklessly or with gross negligence promoted the participation in or observance of a hazardous recreational activity. For purposes of this paragraph, promotional literature or a public announcement or advertisement which merely describes the available facilities and services on the property does not in itself constitute a reckless or grossly negligent promotion. (5) An act of gross negligence by a public entity or a public employee which is the proximate cause of the injury. Nothing in this subdivision creates a duty of care or basis of liability for personal injury or for damage to personal property. AB~ --4-- (d) Nothing in this section shallorlimit the liability of an 0 independent concessionaire, any person or : 3 organization other than the public entity, whether or not 4 the person or organization has a contractual relationship 5 with the public entity to use the public property, for 6 injuries or damages suffered in any ease as a result of the 7 operation of a hazardous recreational activity on public 8 property by the..eoneessionaire, Person, or organization. ,0 .. 0 -8- ME~E~ OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE The The The The The The The The The Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable John Burton, Chair Charles Calderon Ray Haynes Barbara Lee Tim Leslie Bill Lockyer Jack O'Connell Byron Sher Cathie Wright MEMBERS OF THE ASSEMBLY JUDICIARY COMMITTEE The The The The The The The The The The The The The The The The Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Martha Escutia, Chair Bill Morrow Barbara Alby Dion Aroner Scott Baugh Louis Caldera Liz Figueroa Dick Floyd Charles Kaloogian Fred Keeley Sheila James Kuehl Tom McClintock Deborah Ortiz Rod Pacheco Kevin Shelley Antonio Villaraigosa MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS ;iUlbm,. Tm ........ obmomsm, Mmmce .. FulL-om, l.~,-,,,w ......... A,m3tlJ~ ' ' Businmmn~ .............. FulJ-.umc Le~ha:~ ....... 445-3952 445-6868 445-3688 445-1412 327-1315 445-4641 445-373 ! ,bLS-5953 445-7107 445-1333 445-9~1 445-2104 445-313 I 445-3333 445-24O7 445-5311 445-6637 M5.4264 44~71 445-96O0 · 445-5843 445-1392 M5.4767 M5-~16 MS-?92J 445-3976 M5.6747 U5-1411 445-3373 445-9740 M5.3215 1357 C. ohm/m SI... S,ms DJelo 92101. IPo: (619) 44.$-3090. 9620 Cram' A~mm, S~U-. 10O. Rnfu:t~ Cucmnonl~ 91730. ¢9O9) 466-MI2 IOMI Fombiil BiwL, Suh,e 3~. ~am:bo ~ 91730. PI~ ~1 V~ ~ ,~w... S~ 20~. Sm Fm~r.o 94102. rt~ (415} 447--124~. 2501 ~ Cern=, P, mn 42~..~ ~ 9~903. ¢415) .479-6612. 44~0 N. Mmilibdlo BIvcL, II01, bimmi)dio 90640. ~ (213) 734-6173. ~ ~ ~ Suite 2016, Fmmo 93'/21. IPa: 264-.3(771; 901 Tm, mr W~y. S~itg 202. ilaJ~f,~d 93309 (~OS) 2121 PalOoW Aiqxrt Rd.. Sek 100, ~ ~ ~ (61~' 4~3~14. 1~21 S. ~ Aw.... Slim 101. C, mtlm 9(1247 ilt): (310) 324--4969. 6840 lodims Ave., Se~ 2'73. T12..-4111: 43180 b ~ ~ ~ ~101, T~ ~. ~ (~) I ~~ ~ ~. ~~1. 410 H~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ (916) ~. 11,332 MIc, Azdmr BJwL, Setill ~3. irene 92612. IIPiL:(714) 13],,,.0110 1(220 N SL. Suite 5O4, Poem 440. ~ 952a2- 3711 l. onl iJdm~ Blvd. b, 101. L.mq Bem=b 9010T. ~ (310) I1~ W. Bet,re, ldo Co~t. Sui-, 104. Sdm Diqo 92127. P'h: (619) 67~.-1211: 73-71o Fmd Warul Dnw.. 92260. ~ (619))46-2099. 1001 W. ,~v,m~ M.-14, S.m G. l,....4.b 93331 ~: (los) 274-01n: 2.S'M9 R~ C, fry~ Rind. Sm= 10S. Sma C:2mu 91255 ~ (los) 294-1114; 13271 bim,~ SeruK Sm~ D. ~B,per* il 9234~5 (610) 244-..24(12. (,413) 93]--:5666. 19"/0 lbud~y. Sei~ 1030. Od. lnd 94612. P~ (5J0)286--1333: 1200 lddod~ ~ Sa~ II0. Ro,eville 956?8. I~: 969-1:232. ~ 3:)0 FMr L.m~ Plm:rvib95667. Pb: 621-3891. 1940 W. (~ Aw.., ~ 106, ~ 92661. ha: ~14~39-0604. Fsz: (714)939,-Q'/30 2303 ~ Sbt~ Aw... ~ !01. Frmno 9371 l; t41 k4Mmwk S~., S~L 190. BIm'sf~.M 93309. ~01 Oc:am SL.. R~m 3 i1~. Sram Cfm 9506~. 7 Jcdm Sram. S41i- .u 93901. 1620 N. Cm'pmmr ibid, Slile A-4. Idodmlo 95351. !1tC (209) 577-6592: ~ W. 22nd SC., ~ B, Mmpod 953~). P~ (209) 7'Z2-49S~ 1901 HOgUl~ ~ ~ B. Mldm. 93637; ('2O9) 674-219L SO0 N. Firm A~m..~ .3. ArlMM 91~0~. ~ (liB) 221 W. ~ ~ F, ~ ~ 92101 !~ (los) ~.-2~: I~ ~. C.,M~, ~ E, ~ ~01 !~: (los) MI-15O0: 12~) 104~ ML ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ (~10~?~ F= (51~. 3$61~S~121~Rftymand Avmm~ Sui~ 2OS. Paand,~ 911OS. ~ (Ill) 260 ~ ~ S~*u: 201. I~ ~ ~ !~ (41~ ~4-208~. 3589 W-uLfieid Blvd.. ~ I~ ~ ~ 951~; ~ (~) ~ ~1 ~ ~ A~ ~ ~. ~ ~ 91~! ~ (Ill) ~1271. 1040 ~ ~ ~ 101 Nsm 94539. l~:('J~/'} 22~.1~). SO D ~ ~ 12~ h h 9~. ~: ~) J?~l. 317 3~ ~6 ~ 95~1. ~)~. i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2~, ~ ~ 95113. ~: (~8) 4401 C. mmbw BlvcL. Sm~ 300. L~ ~ 90043 (21 2345 ~,nngo' Rd. State 211. SIznJ V~Je~. 93065 MEMBERS OF THE ASSEMBLY---CAUFORNIA LEGISLATURE~1997-98 REGULAR SESSION Ofl'~e ' Local Name Octupatm~ Pin). Di~r~t No. Seat No. No. Tclepho~ Oitlt~ Office Mailin8 Addre= Ackerman. Dick Business I.~wyer R 72 ' 30 4167 4.45-7,M8 305 N. Haroor Blvd.. Suite 303. Fuilenon 926.32 Agutat. Fred . I ,"8islalof/Busmessman R 61 19 5135 445-1670 304 Wes4 F Slze~. Omano 91762 Alhy. Barbar~ Bu.~ine~swoman . R 5 72 309~ 445-4A45 4111 Chippendale Drive. Suite 501. Saer~memo 95841 A~OlSt. Etaine Businesswoe~h~lx/F.,ducolor D 'r, 32 51.t4 445-4253 275 Saratoga Avenue. Suite 205. Sant~ Clar, I 95050 Amner, Dion State Social Services Speciali.~ D 14 79 2163 445-7~54 39~ Cd'and Avenue. Oakland 94~10 ,.~l~m. Rm. L~rislatm R 32 47 4102. 4458498 !.'~30 Tru~ton Avemm. 1120. Bakersllekl 93.302 ~ Joe Bus,nessmnn/t~BUd~m D 62 17 3120 445-7454 201 North E Su'e~,. Suite IIX}. ~ Bcn~ino 92401 B~ldwin. Steve Property MannBement R TT 43 2{X32 445-3266 9514 Murray Drive. L~ Mesa 91942 Baron. Jim Bu$ines.~man . R 80 $ 2179 445-5416 73-710 Fred warm8 Drive. Suite 112. Palm De, eh BauBle. Se'mt Corpo~e Cnon~l R 67 70 .tiT'/ a45-6233 16052 Beae.~ Boulevan:L Suite 160. Hummgton Beach 9264'/ Boedonaro. Jr. Tom J Farmer/B u.~ine~man R 33 25 2176 445.-7995 1060 Palm Su~."t. San Luis Obi.q~o 9340 I Bowen. Deb~ Public I~w Attorney D 53 35 4112 445.-8528 11411 Cmm~aw Boulevard. State 280. Turrane~ Bowler. ~ , Retired Sheriff's L~utenam R 10 71 2111 445-?402 10370 Old Placerville Road. Suite 106. 'Sacramemo Brewer. Mamiya C. Manufactunn8 Bu.~nes.zwoman R 70 3 2175 4,45-'/".,'t--=2189~2 McAnhur Boulevard. State ~.-"0. ltv,ne 92715 ~ro~n. Valene Educator/Businesswoman D 7 63 · 3013 445-1492 50 D Suees. Sat,,, 301. Sama P,m,a ~u~an~sme. Cruz M. Full-trine LeBislam~ D 31 8 219 445..8.514 2550 Maripor, a. Suile 5006. Fresno 9.1721 :aldern. Loots Anomey D 46 33 6025 445-4143 30~ S. Broadway. Suite 580. Lo~ AnBele~ 90013 ,~11. Bill Bm~ine~sn'~u'i~Bidatof R 71 51 $126 445.-2'/"/8 1940 N. Turin. #102. Oran~ 9266~ :nrden,~,. Tony B'"~ine~,m.~C,nlineer . D 39 58 3126 445-1616 9140 Van Nuy% Bo~lev~cL State 109. ~ Cilv 91402 :~oz~. Dennis Bu.~inet.uvtan D ~ 66 2141 445-~/0 3~4 ~ Olive. Suite 't Tm4ock 95380 ' 'unneen. Jim Leg~.,d~or/Sm~ll Bu,one~m~ R 24 41 2174 445.-$305 gOI C,~$i Way. Suite ~0..C..,~nt~ell 950f~ ~avi~. Sus, an Pull-time ~ ,.8i~l~m D 76 16 .'q)13 445..7210 1010 University Avenue. Suim C.207. ~ D~o 92103 ~heny. Deni~ I~ Another. D 79 67 6026 445.-7556 2414 Hoover Avesme. Suite A. NnUoe~l City 91950 -~,~uti& Maria M. Auorney D 50 41 3146 445-818~ 2650 Zae Avenue. Suite 2A. Hunt,nt~on ~ qguemn. L.iz B~ine~womnn D 20 12 448 445-7r/4 432'71 Miss, ion Ba~levat~L Fremont 94539 -~re*.,~one. Brooks Fu~ner R 35 22 2158 445-8292 ~09 Pt~,idio. Santa Ba~ba~ 93101 ' :ioyd. Dick LeBisLator D :~5 7'7 .1016 445-3134 I C~vic Pt~a. Suite 320. Carson 90745 qxtsetta. Peter Rancher R 28 2 5175 445.-7380 321 First Street. Suite A. Hoili.~er 950"=.1 :~allegos. Mania Doctor of Chiropr-act~¢ .. D 57 6.1, 6005 445-7610 1317'7 ~ Boulevan:L Suite fi. irwsndale 91706 ~oldsmith. Jan Full.time Legislator .... R 75 45 4162. 445-24&4 12307 O~t Knoll Suite A. Poway 9206.4 .~=anlund. B~,t~ Bu~nessman ........ R 6.$ 50 4164 445-7552 34932 Yucaipa Boulevard. YuCaillg 92399 4avice. Sally Lefislator D 56 15 5150 445-6(M7 17100 Pioneer Boulevar~L Suite 290. Artexia 90701. 4enzberg. I(obert M Attm'ney/Smail Businessman D .tO 36 5016 445-76,M 6150 Van Nuys BoulevartL Suite #.305. Van Nuv,~ 914OI 4onda. Mike Legislato~ D 23 38 5155 .M5-$243 100 Pusno de San Amonio. #300. San Jo~e 951 ,Iou.~e. George Futmer R ~ 26 3141 445-?906 3600 Sisk I~ Suite 5-D3. Mode~o ~aloogian. Howard Ta.z/Tru..d Attorney R 74 53 4130 445-2590 701 Pakm~ Airlx~ RoacL Suite leO. Cadsbad 92~ ~eeley. Fred ~ Legislator D 27 76 4139 445-8496 7OI Ocean StmeL Suite 318B. Sama Cruz 90560 ~nox. Warty Attorney D 42 13 2196 445-7,&x0 7461 Beverly BoulevarcL Suite 400. ~ Angele~ 9OO3~2733 ~uehl. Sheila James .. Full-time Legislator D 41 18 3160 445-4956 16130 Venmra B4mlevard. Suite 230. Encmo 91436 ~uykendal!. Steven T. L.eg~slator/Busmes.~man R 54 21 5158 445-9'~_34 d,44 Wesl Ocean Boulevard. Suite 707. Long Beach 90802 .each. Lynne C. Small Busine.x.~ C~'ner R 15 24 4015 a,45-6161 8(10 South Broadway. Suite 304. Walnut Creek 94596 .empe~ Ted Full-time LeBistator D 21 39 2188 445.-7632 4149-B El C. amino Way. Palo Alto 94306 .eonatcL Bill Le.ei,dator/Businessman R 63 68 2016 445..1490 10~35 Foothill Boulevnn:L Suite 276. Rancho Cueamonga 91730 ~lachado. Mike Farmer/Businessman D 17 57 5136 445..7931 31 Eaz, t Channel Street. Suite 306. Stockton 95202 ~gett. Bob Bu.,,ine~zman R 59 52 4144 445.-7234 55 East Huntington Drive. Suite 120. A~udia 91006 4nnmez. Diane Full-time L.~gisl~lor D 49 78 · 2117 445-7~2 20~ S. C~I Avenue. Suite B. Aihan~a 91801 4~toni. Kent I~"lislame/Businesswoman D 6 9 3123 445.-7'/g_3 3501 Civ~ C~nmt I~'we. Sram .335. Civic C.~nm~'. ~ I~f~.l 94903 · McClimeck. Tom Migden. Carole Miller. Gary. G. Mom~s~y. Jim Mm'row. Bill Murray. Kevin Napolitano. Grace F. Olbe~. Keith Oiler. Rico Oni- Deborah Pacheco. Rod. Pupan. Lo, is J Budget Reduction Analyst.~ Full-trine Developer Small B u.~inessman Anm'ney Full-time LeS Full-time Businessman Business Owner Full-lime Le$isiator Sr. Depm? Disu'~ Attoeney Poochigian. ~ Premer. Robeet. Pringle. Cu~ Richter. Berme Runner. Geoqe Sc~l. ,lack Shelley. Kevin Storm-Maim. Sweeney. Michael TakasuBi. Nan ~ Bruce Todak.,,on. Tom Villrat gol~ Amonio Wa~h,ngton. Cad Wayne. I'k~,lrd Wnod.~ Tom Wright. Roder~ck Teacher ' Attorney Lesislat'or Small Bu.~ines.~man Full-time L.~ LeBislalor/Profe~or LeBisla~or LeBislam~ .. Teacher Businessman/Le~ Imemauonal Businessman ~ Lelislamr/Nurse .- Legislator Bu,.dnettman 1072.7 White Oak AvenK.'Suite 124. Granada Hills 9i3-1,4 1700 California Stzeet. Suite 3,40. San Francisco 94109 17870 Castleton Stme~. Suite 205. City of Industry. 91748 930 Wera 17th SU'~:L Unit C. Santa Aaa 92706 27126=A Pa.~.~ E.q~:ta. Suite 16~. San Juan Cal~su-.mo 92675 4(}0 Corporate Poime. Suite 725. Culver City 90230 12009 East Fi~.stone Blvd.. Norwalk 14011 Park Avenue. Suite 470. Vicmrville 92592 3161 C. ame~ Putk D~ve. Suite 214. Cameron Park.95682 1215 15th Street. Suite IU~ Sacramento 95814 6&40 indiana Avenue. Suite 150. Riverside 92506 660 El Camino Real. Suite 214. Millbrae 94030 299 Third Street. Suite 100. Oakland. CA 94607 4974 ~ Clinto~ Way. Suite 100. Fresno 93727 800 N. Irwin. Hartford 92.320 12865 Main SU~L Suite I00. Ga~len Grove 926,10 · 160 W. ~ Avenue. Suite 120. Chico 95926 709 W. I.~noa~er BoulevanL Lanca~r 93534 215 N. Marenlo Avenue. Pasadena 91 I01 71 I Van ~ Suite #310. San Ft-aneisco 94102 ~10 O S~reet. Suite G. Eureka 95501 ~-2.72.0 Foothill Blvd.. Suite 130. Hayward 94541 221 Ea~ D~ily Dave. Suite 7. Camarillo 93010 27555 Ynez Road. Suite 205. Temecula 92.~91 8,~ Union Avemae. Suite A. Fairfield I I ~ Esmdiilo Street. Mardnez 94553 110 North Avenue 56. Los Angeles 90042 I Manche~er Bo~ievarcL P.O. Bo~ 6500. lnBlewood 90306 145 E. Coml~on Stme~ Common 90220 1350 r-n~u Street. Suite 6013. San D~elto 92101 300 W. Glenoaks. Suite 202. Glenaale §1202 100 Eusa Cypress Avenue. Suite IIX}. Reddint 96002. 700 Sine Drive. Suite 103. Los Articles OFFICERS OF THE ASSEMBLY Room Local Name T~tle No. Phone Dist~ct Office Mailin! Address Buraamame. Cruz M. S~ 219 ~5.8514 ~ Mm~. Suite ~. ~ 93721 K~hl. S~ila Ja~ .... S~er ~ Tem~ 31~ ~9~ 161~ Ventu~ ~kv~ State 2~. ~t~ 914.~ B~ J~ Assa~ant S~ ~ T~.. 31~ ~5-74~ 201 N~h E S~L Suite I~. ~ Be~i~ 92~t ~l~l~ An~m R. Malty ~ L~ 3~ ~5~3 I I0 N~h A~ ~. ~ Angeles ~2 ~gk. Curt M~ty ~ ~ 31~ ~5-83~ 12~5 Main S~t. Su,e I~. Gain Grove 92~ ~1~ ~ ~ Chef C~ 31~ ~14 S~ C~tol. R~ 31~. S~nto 95814 Pa~. R~I~ ~ .... Chief ~m-a-A~s 3171 ~5-2~1 ~e C~ml. R~ 3171. S~mo 95814 Re~. '. I .~.97 ITEM NO. :6e DATE: March 27, 1997 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE AMENDING THE AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW"DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANTS" IN THE AREA DESIGNATED "HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL" SUMMARY: On March 19, 1997, the City Council voted 3-1 to introduce an ordinance amending the Airport Industrial Park Planned Development (AlP PD) ordinance. The amended text simply includes "drive-thru" restaurants as an allowed use in the AlP PD's "Highway Commercial" land use designation, whereas beforehand such restaurants were prohibited. The amended text may be found in the attached ordinance (see Section Nine, C, 1). It should be noted that the introduction of the ordinance amendment was accompanied by a Site Development Permit (#97-03) which included a Shell Oil Co. service station and a Jack in the Box restaurant for the property located at the northeast corner of the Talmage Road and Airport Park Boulevard. As with the ordinance amendment, the Council voted 3-1 to approve the accompanying Site Development Permit, with additional conditions of approval, and this project is not a part of the subject ordinance adoption action. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt the attached revised Planned Development Ordinance for the Airport Industrial Park to allow drive-thru restaurants in the Highway Commercial land use designation. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY ACTION: Do not adopt the Ordinance and provide direction to staff. Citizen Advised: Publicly noticed pursuant to provisions of Ukiah Municipal Code Requested by: PMB Development Prepared by: Dave Lohse, Associate Planner Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager and Bob Sawyer, Planning Director Attachments: 1. Ordinance amending Airport Industrial Park Planned Development Candace Horsley, City ~lanager ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH AMENDING THE AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK PLANNED DEVELOPMENT The City Council of the City of Ukiah hereby ordains as follows: Section One The purpose of this amendment to the Airport Industrial Park (ALP) Planned Development Ordinance is to provide for a coordinated development of compatible industrial, office, and commercial land uses. It details both allowed and permitted uses within each land use category, regulates nuisances, and provides development standards and design guidelines. It changes the land use designation terminology using clearer more concise terms to more accurately characterize existing development, and provide well-defined land use categories for future development in the Airport Industrial Park. The changes to land use designations are as follows: 1) Office Commercial to Professional Offices; 2) Industrial/Commercial to Retail Commercial; 3) Highway Oriented Commercial/General Commercial to Highway Oriented Commercial. No change to the Industrial designation term has been made. A new designation termed Industrial/Automotive Commercial has been added. Section Two This ordinance also formally amends the Land Use Map that illustrates which land uses designations are assigned to the various properties throughout the Airport Industrial Park. The land use designations apply to the Airport Industrial Park in the following manner: 1 Professional Office: Applies to the northwest portion of the site, bounded by Talmage Road on the north, Airport Park Boulevard on the east, and Commerce Drive on the south (approximately 8 acres). Highway Commercial: Applies only to the northeastern portion of the site, bounded by Talmage Road to the north, Airport Park Boulevard to the west, Highway 101 to the east, and the existing large commercial retail store property to the south (approximately 1.4 acres). 3. Retail Commercial: Applies to 14.83 acres north of Commerce Drive, and approximately 22 acres south of Commerce Drive, bounded by Airport Park Boulevard on the west, and Highway 101 on the east approximately (approximately 36.83 acres). 4. Industrial: Applies to the remainder of the Airport Industrial Park (approximately 61.4 acres). 5. Industrial/Automotive Commercial: Applies to the approximate 16 acres of the southern portion of the Redwood Business Park, south of the existing Friedman Brothers Home Improvement Center property, east of Airport Park Boulevard, and fronting Highway 101. Section Three The Airport Industrial Park Planned Development was originally approved by City Council Resolution No. 81-59 on March 3, 1981, embodied in Use Permit No. 81-39. It was amended and further articulated in 1991 when the City Council adopted Resolution No. 91-4. In 1993, the City Council amended the ordinance to allow "General Commercial" in addition to the approved "Highway Oriented Commercial" land uses in the area bounded by Talmage Road on the north, Highway 101 on the east, Commerce Drive on the south, and Airport Park Boulevard on the west. Section Four Airport Industrial Park Planned Development, as amended herein, provides a mixture of industrial, commercial, and office land uses within a Planned Development (PD), consistent with the City of Ukiah General Plan. Section Five The Development Map (Generalized Land Use Map) for this Planned Development, as required by the Ukiah Municipal Code, and attached as Exhibit "A", is approved. The Traffic Circulation Plan for this Planned Development is discussed in Section "D" on page 15, and the Circulation Map is attached as Exhibit "B". Section Six Development standards not addressed in the Planned Development regulations shall be those specified in the City of Ukiah Zoning Code. Section Seven Amendment to this ordinance requires City Council action. All Use and Site Development Permits for proposed developments within the Airport Industrial Park require City Planning Commission review and action. Decisions on Site Development and Use Permits made by the City Planning Commission are appealable to the City Council by any interested party. Section Eight Some small commercial land uses may be permitted on the Industrial designated land if they are primarily intended to provide commercial type services to employees within the Airport Industrial Park. Section Nine The regulations for this Planned Development, as prescribed in Ukiah City Code Sections 9167(b) and 9166, and as amended, are as follows: A. INDUSTRIAL DESIGNATION 1. Allowed Uses The following industrial uses are allowed in the Industrial designation with the securing of a Site Development Permit. a. Manufacturing - activities or operations involving the processing, assembling, blending, packaging, compounding, or fabrication of previously prepared materials or substances into new products. b. Warehouse and Distribution Activities -includes warehousing, and storage not available to the general public; warehousing and distribution activities associated with manufacturing, wholesaling, or business uses; delivery and transfer services; freight forwarding; moving and storage; distribution terminals for the assembly and breakdown of freight; or other similar use involving shipping, warehousing, and distribution activities. c. Wholesaling and Related Uses - establishments engaged in wholesale trade or warehousing activities including maintaining inventories of goods; assembling, sorting, and grading goods into large lots; breaking bulk and redistribution in smaller lots; selling merchandise to retailers, industrial, commercial, institutional, or business users, or other wholesalers; d. Contractor's offices - business office for building, plumbing, electrical, roofing, heating, air conditioning, and painting contractors including storage of incidental equipment and supplies. e. Agricultural: Allowed as a continuation of the existing land use, including all necessary structures and appurtenances. f. Research and development laboratories, and computer and data ., processing. g. Accessory Uses and Structures: Activities such as administrative offices and warehouses which are related and ancillary to an allowed use. Ancillary structures containing ancillary uses shall be located on the same parcel as the primary use/structure, and shall not exceed 25% of the gross floor area of structure(s) containing the primary use. Permitted Uses The following small commercial, business support, and repair service land uses may be permitted in the Industrial land use designation with the securing of a Use Permit, provided they are situated on a parcel no larger than one-half acre in size: a. Delicatessen, sandwich shop, or small sit-down restaurant (no drive-thru restaurants shall be permitted). b. Small grocery or convenience store. c. Banking facility. d. Child day-care facility. e. Industrial and business support services - establishments primarily engaged in providing services to business and industry, such as blueprinting and photocopying, janitorial and building maintenance, equipment rental and leasing, medical labs, commercial testing laboratories, and answering services. f. Public Facilities - includes all public and quasi-public facilities such as utility substations, post offices, fire station, and government offices. g. Repair Services - includes repair services such as radio and Bm h. television, furniture, automotive repair, body and fender shops. Communication Installations -includes radio and television stations, telegraph and telephone offices, cable T.V., and micro- wave stations. Mini-storage facility. PROFESSIONAL OFFICE DESIGNATION 1. Allowed Uses The following uses are allowed in the Professional Office designation with the securing of a Site Development Permit: a. Professional and business offices such as accountants, engineers, architects, landscape architects, surveyors, attorneys, advertising, consultants, bookkeeping, medical and dental offices, and other similar activities. b. Business and office support services -includes services such as branch banks, savings and loan, credit unions, insurance brokers, real estate sales, blueprinting and photocopying and answering services. c. Child day-care facility. d. Retail commercial (in the built-out northwest portion of this area outside the boundaries of the Redwood Business Park). 2. Permitted Uses The following uses are permitted in the Professional Office Designation with the securing of a Use Permit: a. Delicatessen, sandwich shop, or small sit-down restaurant (no drive-thru restaurants). Gl D. El b. Small grocery or convenience store. HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION 1. Allowed Uses The following uses are allowed in the Highway Commercial designation with the securing of a Site Development Permit: a. Businesses such as motels, sit-down and drive-thru restaurants, service stations, and other similar uses that provide services and merchandise primarily to highway travelers. b. Retail commercial stores. RETAIL COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION 1. Allowed Uses The following uses are allowed in the Retail Commercial designation with the securing of a Site Development Permit: a. Retail commercial stores. b. Child day-care facility. c. Automobile Dealerships and related uses. 2. Permitted Uses The following uses are permitted in the Retail Commercial designation with the securing of a Use Permit: a. Delicatessen, sandwich shop, or small sit-down restaurant (no drive-thru restaurants). b. Small grocery or convenience store. c. Banking facility. INDUSTRIAL/AUTOMOTIVE COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION 1. Allowed Uses Fi m The following uses are allowed in the Industrial/Automotive Commercial Land Use Designation with the securing of a Site Development Permit: a. All the allowed industrial uses listed in Item A (1) above. b. Automobile dealerships, except for those that exclusively sell used vehicles. Permitted Uses The following uses are allowed in the Industrial/Automotive Commercial Land Use Designation with the securing of a Use Permit: a. All the permitted industrial land uses listed in Item A (2) above. b. Delicatessen, sandwich shop, or small sit-down restaurant (no drive-thru restaurants). c. Automotive service (gas) station d. Small grocery store, mini-market, or convenience store e. Uses related to automobile dealerships such as tire stores, auto parts stores, car washing facilities, automobile repair business, etc. NUISANCES No lot shall be used in such a manner as to create a nuisance to adjacent parcels. Proposed uses shall comply with the performance criteria outlined below. a. All activities involving the storage of inflammable and explosive materials shall be provided with adequate safety devices against the hazard of fire and explosion by adequate fire-fighting and fire suppression equipment and devices standard in industry. All incineration is prohibited. b. Devices which radiate radio-frequency energy shall be so operated as not to cause interference with any activity carried on beyond the boundary line of the property upon which the device is located. c. The maximum sound level radiated by any use of facility, when measured at the boundary line of the property upon which the sound is generated, shall not be obnoxious by reason of its intensity or pitch, as determined by Standards prescribed in the Ukiah City Code and/or City General Plan. d. No vibration shall be permitted so as to cause a noticeable tremor beyond the property line. e. Any use producing emissions shall comply with all the requirement of the Mendocino County Air Quality Management District. f. Projects involving the use of toxic materials or hazardous substances shall comply with all Federal, State, and Ukiah Municipal Code regulations. 2, Prohibited Uses or Operations Industrial uses such as petroleum bulk stations, cement batching plants, pulp and paper mills, lumber mills, refineries, smelting plants, rendering plants, junk yards, auto wrecking, and similar "heavy industrial" uses which typically create external and environmental effects are specifically prohibited due to the detrimental effect the use may have upon the general appearance, function, and environmental quality of nearby uses. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The following standards have been established to ensure compatibility among uses and consistency in the appearance and character of development. These standards are intended to guide the planning, design, and development of both individual lots and the entire Airport Industrial Park. Projects shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis for high quality design, efficient function, and overall compatibility with surrounding land uses. 1. Minimum Lot Requirement The minimum lot area shall be 20,000 square feet. Each lot shall have a minimum frontage of 100 feet on a public street. Except for lots fronting on Airport Park Boulevard, or other public streets shown on the Land Use Map, access easements to a public street may be authorized in lieu of public street frontage in the discretion of the appropriate decision-maker and with the approval of the City Engineer. Proposed access easements shall be consistent with the standards contained in Table 4-1. The Planning Commission may approve a public street frontage of less than 100 feet for lots located on cul-de-sacs, street curves, or having other extraordinary characteristics. 2. Maximum Lot Coverage No more than 45 percent of the lot shall be covered by a building or structure. Parking lots and landscaping areas shall not be included in the calculation of lot coverage. 3. Minimum Building Setbacks All buildings and structures shall be setback from the property line a minimum of 25 feet along the entire street frontage. Lots abutting U.S. Highway 101 shall maintain a 40 foot setback from the property line adjacent to the freeway. Side yard setbacks shall be determined in the Site Development Permit review process. 4. Maximum Building Height The maximum height of any building or structure shall be 50 feet. Mechanical penthouse and equipment may extend an additional 10 feet beyond the maximum building height. Additionally, all development within the Airport Industrial Park shall comply with the Federal Aviation Administration side slope criteria. Screening Storage areas, loading docks and ramps, transformers, storage tanks, refuse collection areas, mechanical equipment, and other appurtenant items of poor visual quality shall be screened by the use of masonry walls, landscaping materials, or decorative fencing. All roof mounted electrical and mechanical equipment and/or ductwork shall be screened from view by an enclosure which is consistent with the building design. Fences exceeding six (6) feet in height may be appropriate for some commercial and industrial uses to screen the outdoor storage of building materials, supplies, construction equipment, etc. The Planning Commission may consider fences exceeding six (6) on a case-by-case basis during the review of Site Development and Use Permit applications. Public Utility Easement All lots shall provide a 5-foot easement in the required front setback for the provision of utilities. Sidewalk Requirements Lots with frontages along the primary street shall provide a 5-foot curvalinear sidewalk located within the required front setback. The sidewalk may be located over the public utility easement. Every effort shall be made to link developments with attractive and accessible pedestrian facilities. Bicycle Lanes Class III Bicycle lanes shall be provided on all streets according to CalTrans standards. Development Integration Every effort shall be made to "master plan" development within the Airport 10. Industrial Park. Applicants shall be encouraged to coordinate development proposals to ensure compatible architectural themes, high quality site planning, efficient and functional traffic circulation, coordinated pedestrian circulation, and compatible land uses. Required Public Streets Lot line adjustments, parcel maps, tentative and final subdivision maps, and site development and use permits shall not be approved, unless public streets identified on the Land Use Map serving the parcels covered by the lot line adjustment, map or permit have been or will be dedicated to the City of Ukiah upon approval of the lot line adjustment, map or permit. 11. Street Width Standards The following street standards have been established by the Ukiah Department of Public Works. All primary and secondary streets shall be designed and constructed in accordance with these standards: Table 4-1: Minimum Street Standards Airport Park Boulevard and Commerce Drive Primary Secondary Access Easement o . Right-of-way Pavement a. travel lanes (2) b. left turn lane Curbs (both sides) Cul-de-sac (turn-arounds) Curb Returns Radius 66 feet 44 feet 64 feet 40 feet 14 feet 20 feet 12 feet 12 feet 1 foot 1 foot 100 feet diameter 35 feet 35 feet 32 feet 30 feet 15 feet 12. Access Driveways and Deceleration Lanes a, b, co do Every effort shall be made to minimize access driveways along Airport Park Boulevard. All driveway and intersection radii shall be designed to accommodate heavy truck turning movements, consistent with the requirements of the City Engineer. Every effort shall be made to design common driveways for individual developments. No Talmage Road access shall be permitted for Parcel A1A. All major driveways, as determined by the City Engineer, shall have left turn pockets in the median area where feasible. 13. e. Deceleration and acceleration lanes shall not be required unless the City Engineer determines they are necessary to ensure safety and efficient traffic flow. Minimum Parking and Loadinq Requirements a. No loading or unloading shall be permitted on the street in front of the building. A sufficient number of off-street loading spaces shall be provided to meet the needs of the provided use. Adequate apron and dock space also shall be provided for truck maneuvering on individual lots. b. The number of entrance/exit driveways shall be limited to one per every 100 feet of street frontage with a maximum curb cut of 40 feet. The Planning Commission may relax these standards when a comprehensive plan for an entire block has been prepared and presented to the City Planning Commission for review and approval. c. Adequate off-street parking shall be provided to accommodate the parking do needs of employees, visitors, and company vehicles. The minimum number of off-street parking spaces shall generally be provided according to the requirements of the Ukiah Municipal Code. The Planning Commission may deviate from the parking requirements contained in the Ukiah Municipal Code on a case-by-case basis. Any deviation must be supported by findings related to a unique use, such as a mixed use development, or use not specifically described in the Ukiah Municipal Code, and findings that otherwise demonstrate no on-street parking congestion will result. Hi 14. Si_~na_cle Except as indicated below, building identification and other signs shall generally comply with the sign regulations for industrial, commercial and office land uses contained in the Ukiah Municipal Code. a. All proposed development projects shall include a detailed sign program. DESIGN GUIDELINES The following guidelines shall be used by the Planning Commission when approving a Site Development or Use Permit to ensure high quality design, and the coordination and consistency of development. 1. Landscaping and Open Space a. A comprehensive landscape plan shall be submitted for review and approval as a part of the Site Development or Use Permit process. b. Existing trees shall be retained whenever possible. 1 c. A variety of tree species shall be used that provides diversity in form, texture, and color. d. Landscaping at corners should be arranged to maintain traffic visibility. e. Landscaping along an entire street frontage should be coordinated to achieve a uniform appearance. f. Landscaping shall be used to screen parking lots, loading docks, and storage areas. g. Landscaping in parking lots shall include a variety of tree species that will provide sufficient shading in the summer. The majority of parking lot trees shall be deciduous and fast growing. h. The exact number of parking lot trees shall depend upon the size of the parking facility, the type of land use, and the species of tree used. The Planning Director shall determine the appropriate number of trees for parking lots on a project-by-project basis. i. At a minimum, fifteen percent (15%) of the entire parcel shall be landscaped with planting materials. The Planning Commission may reduce this requirement if special circumstances applicable to the size or configuration of the property exists, or if unique circumstances associated with the use would preclude a fifteen percent (15%) landscaping coverage. j. Landscaping plans shall focus on drought tolerant plant species with varied flowering patterns. k. Large turf/lawn areas shall be discouraged in the overall landscaping plan. I. All landscaping shall be properly maintained. Orientation and Location of Buildings a. The location of buildings shall be coordinated with other buildings and 1 open space on adjacent lots, and should include design elements, oriented to pedestrian usage, such as, linked walkways and sidewalks. b. Buildings should be sited to preserve solar access opportunities, and should include passive and active solar design elements. c. Buildings should be oriented to minimize heating and cooling costs. d. Buildings should be creatively sited to provide open views of the site and surrounding environment. e. Buildings shall not be sited in the middle of large parking lots. Architectural Design a. Individual projects shall exhibit a thoughtful and creative approach to site planning and architecture. b. Projects shall be designed to avoid the cumulative collection of large structures with similar building elevations and facades. 4, 1 c. Buildings shall be limited in height, bulk, and mass, and shall be designed to avoid a box-like appearance. Building Exteriors a. Colors and building materials shall be carefully selected, and must be compatible with surrounding developments, and shall be finalized during the Site Development or Use Permit process. b. The Planning Commission may permit exterior walls of architectural metal where it is compatible with adjacent structures, and the overall appearance and character of the Airport Industrial Park. Liqhtinq a. A lighting plan shall be submitted for review and approval with all Site Jm Development and Use Permit applications. b. Lighting for developments shall include shielded, non-glare types of lights. c. Lighting shall not be directed towards Highway 101, the Ukiah Municipal Airport, or adjacent properties. 6. Design Amenities a. Bicycle parking facilities shall be provided near the entrance to buildings. One (1) bicycle space shall be provided for every ten (10) employees, plus one (1) space for every fifty (50) automobile parking spaces. b. Fountains, kiosks, unique landscape islands, outdoor sitting areas, and other quality design amenities are encouraged. CIRCULATION PLAN The Circulation Plan for the Airport Industrial Park is illustrated on the attached Exhibit "B". As shown, the plan includes points of access at Talmage Road at the north, Hastings Avenue at the northwest, and an emergency access provided through the airport to a gated encroachment along the southern portion of Airport Road. Internal access includes an extension of Airport Road from the west into the southern portion of the site; Airport Park Boulevard from Talmage Road on the north, extending south to intersect with the Airport Road extension; and Commerce Drive from west to east in the northern portion of the AlP. All streets within the AlP shall be public. The southern access road concept, as envisioned in the original Specific Plan for the Airport Industrial Park is retained, but exact design and routing is neither implied nor specifically assumed. DISCRETIONARY REVIEW The discretionary permit review process for development projects within the Airport Industrial Park (ALP) is the same as for discretionary permits elsewhere in the City. As articulated in Section 9 of this ordinance, a Site Development permit or Use Permit is required for development projects proposed in the AlP. 1. Site Development Permits and Use Permits a. As articulated in Section Nine above, development projects within the Airport Industrial Park are subject to the Site Development or Use Permit process, depending upon the proposed use and its location. A Site Development Permit shall not be required for any development proposal requiring a Use Permit. Within the Use Permit review process, all site development issues and concerns shall be appropriately analyzed. b. All Use and Site Development Permits for proposed developments within the Airport Industrial Park require City Planning Commission review and action. c. Decisions on Site Development and Use Permits made by the City Planning Commission are appealable to the City Council by any interested party. do e, Major modifications to approved Site Development Permits and Use Permits, as determined by the Planning Director, shall require the filing of a new application, payment of fees, and a duly noticed public hearing before the Planning Commission. Minor modifications to approved Site Development Permits and Use Permits, as determined by the Planning Director, shall require the filing of a new application, payment of processing fees and a duly noticed public hearing before the City Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Administrator's decision on minor modifications to an approved Site Development Permit or Use Permit is appealable directly to the City Council. The Planning Commission's decision on major modifications to an approved Site Development Permit or Use Permit is appealable to the City Council. 2. Building Modifications a. Exterior modifications to existing buildings shall be designed to complement and harmonize with the design of the existing structure and surrounding developments. b. A Site Development Permit shall be approved by the Planning Commission for all exterior modifications to existing structures, site design, and landscaping within the Airport Industrial Park. The application procedure shall be that prescribed in the Ukiah City Code. Section Ten This Ordinance shall be published as required by law and shall become effective thirty (30) days after it is adopted. Introduced by title only on March 191 1997 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Chavez, Ashiku, and Mayor Malone NOES: Councilmember Kelly ABSENT: Councilmember Mastin ABSTAIN: None Passed and adopted on April 21 1997, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Sheridan Malone, Mayor Colleen B. Henderson, City Clerk MEMORANDUM DATE: April 2, 1997 TO: City Council Members FROM: Candace Horsley, City Manager SUBJECT: Air Quality Issue Background Information It has come to my attention that additional clarification is needed regarding the air quality issue that was discussed during the Jack-in-the-Box / Shell Gas Station project public hearing at the last Council meeting. Accordingly, at my request, the Planning Department staff has prepared important background information that will help put the air quality issue in its proper context. This information is attached for the Council's consideration. AIR QUALITY ISSUE . . . AUGUST, 1992: WalMart Mitigation Monitoring Program Resolution (93-20) Item No. 34, entitled "Cumulative Air Quality Assessment" (attachment #1) required "the City to notify the General Plan consultant as soon as possible to provide an estimate of the cost of conducting an air quality study to assess the air quality impacts on existing conditions in the Ukiah Valley of the future growth contemplated by the plan..." The scope was to be refined based upon available funds and the data reasonably available. The consultant was also directed to retain the necessary experts to complete the study, and incorporate it into the General Plan. Status: It was determined that the additional cost to hire an independent air quality specialist would be prohibitive. The City and the Air Quality Management District decided to have the District write the air quality chapter in the General Plan, which they did. Presumably, they considered the population projections and growth contemplated in the Plan and designed the goals, objectives, policies, and implementation measures accordingly. The General Plan was adopted in December of 1995. MAY, 1994: KMart Use Permit Approval The KMart Use Permit was conditionally approved after considerable concern was expressed regarding air quality impacts. Even though there was no ordinance in place to legally require an air quality impact fee, KMart agreed to pay $36,250 into an "air quality impact off-set fund." This unusual exaction, along with KMart's willingness to pay, did not formally establish a "program" for exacting air quality development impact fee's on other projects. FEBRUARY, 1995: Air Quality Impact Offset Fund In response to the City Council's direction to explore the concept of developing an ordinance or other legal tool to assess fees for offsetting new motor vehicle emissions, staff met on several occasions with the Air Quality Management District to discuss alternative strategies and approaches. In March, staff drafted a letter to the District (attachment #2) outlining our discussions, and the information we felt we needed to proceed with the "program." A follow-up meeting in April revealed that the District agreed to put together the background information to "build their case" that there is an air quality problem in the valley, and that impact fees are the most appropriate way to solve the problem. In an April, 1995 letter to the District (attachment #3), staff stated the following: '~A/e strongly value your efforts to compile and provide the City with the quantitative foundational information we need to justify pursuing the concept of an air quality impact fee program. Having a clear understanding of the current state of air quality in the valley, the apparent trends concerning various pollutant levels, your projections for the future, and a definitive statement of the air quality "problem", are crucial for the program. Additionally, your views concerning possible solutions to the problem, and if appropriate, a well-defined rational nexus between the problem and impact fees will be critical for the viability of the program." In a follow-up April letter from the District to staff (attachment #.4), the District indicated that they would provide five (5) major components of the quantitative foundational information for the program. They indicated that this information would be provided by the end of the summer, 1995. Additionally, they indicated that the District's current (1995) budget provided for the development of an Air Quality Plan, and that District staff had been given the "go-ahead" to develop Request For Proposal's for this work product. To date, we have not received any of this crucial technical information that is needed to move forward with the program, nor has the District completed their "Air Quality Plan." 4. AUGUST, 1995: AlP EIR Certified In August of 1995, the City Council certified the EIR for the build-out of the Airport Industrial Park. The EIR included a chapter on air quality, which David Faulkner, Air Pollution Control Officer for the District scrutinized and commented on in a letter, dated May 31, 1995 (attachment #5). In that correspondence, the Mr. Faulkner stated the following: "The District commends the City on preparing a generally complete and thorough EIR .... proposed mitigations appear reasonable and complete..." The letter goes on to state, "The Draft EIR for the Business and Industrial Park provides concise analysis of local air quality and provides good conceptual mitigations." No suggestion was made to include a mitigation measure requiring the payment of air quality impact fees. City staff has worked very closely with the District staff to assure that the mitigations contained in the certified EIR have been consistently imposed on development projects throughout the Airport Industrial Park. We are dismayed that the District now is questioning the effectiveness of the mitigation program that they helped develop, and found so "reasonable and complete." CONCLUSIONS: The City has developed a strong working relationship with the Air Quality Management District over the past several years. In our view, the City honored and fulfilled the commitment made during the WalMart approval process by allowing the Distdct to write the Air Quality chapter of the General Plan. There may be some individuals who believe that the Air Quality Chapter does not "go far enough" in its policy statements and implementation strategy. However, there are others members of the community who believe that it goes too far. City staff has also been cooperative and open to developing an air quality impact fee ordinance, if the supporting technical documentation is prepared to support it, and provide a rational nexus between the "problem" and the fee. We have been waiting for this technical information for nearly two (2) years, and if and when it is produced by the District, we will continue to explore the concept of developing an ordinance or other legal tool to assess fees for offsetting new motor vehicle emissions. In the meantime, we will continue to work with the District to develop reasonable and feasible mitigation measures for projects to off-set the short-term and cumulative degradation of our local air quality. 33. Znerqy zfficienc¥. 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 shall 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 300 UKIAH, CA 95482-5400 · ,AZ)MIN. 707/463-6200 · PUBUC SAFE'rf 463-6242/6274 · · FAX # 707/463-6204 David Faulkner, Air Pollution Control Officer Mendocino County Air Quality Management Distdct 306 East Gobbi Street Ukiah, CA 95482 ,,'- March 6, 1995 Subject: Air Quality Off-Set Fund Dear Mr. Faulkner: Thank you for your recent correspondence offering assistance to the City as we explore the concept of preparing an Ordinance that would legally establish an Air Quality Impact Offset Fund. We regard the Mendocino County Air Quality Management District (MCAQMD) as a padner in this effort, and intend to work closely with you and your staff as the program evolves. We also intend to seek assistance from the State Air Resources Board, and appreciate the list of contacts you provided in your letter. During initial brainstorming and preliminary research exercises, we discovered a number of significant issues, that if left unresolved, may impact our ability to adequately prepare lhe Ordinance. Any information or clarification you can provide concerning the following topical areas will be greatly appreciated: Significance Thresholds It is our understanding that the MCAQMD uses "thresholds of significance" for determining dangerous levels of pollutants related to emissions. These thresholds are found .in District Regulalion 1, Rule 130s2 (definitions). We are concemed that these significance thresholds specifically refer to new facilities that are direct emitters (i.e., pointsources such as a factory) and do not apply to projects with non-point source production (i.e., emissions from vehicles). Technically, it could be argued that these significance thresholds used by the district to evaluate non-point sources have no legal status. We need the MCAQMD to clarify this issue. How has the distdct evaluated non-point emission sources in the past? When did the district decide to begin using the thresholds contained in Rule 130s2 to evaluate non-point emission sources? Was Regulation No. 1 - Air Quality Control Rules, formally amended to provide the authority to begin using Rule 130s2 to evaluate both point and non-point emission sources? In your opinion, is the use of these thresholds of significance for evaluating non-point emission sources legal? If so, please explain why? Are Here To Serve" · David Faulkner March 2, 1995 If the thresholds have not been formally adopted or legally established as a tool for evaluating non-point emission sources, it seems appropriate that the MCAQMD immediately pursue this matler. Without legally defensible significance thresholds, it would be folly to expect adoption of an air quality impact fee ordinance that requires developers to pay feeb if their project would exceed the thresholds. Background Information Concerninq Local Air Quality Problem We believe that in order for the City to successfully and legally adopt a development impact fee ordinance, the program must have a sound basis, be well organized, and a clear administrative record must be maintained. As the couds continue to. grow increasingly conservative about impact fees, land dedications, and the "takings" issue in general, it becomes extremely impodant and obvious that a detailed study be prepared to rationalize and support the need for an air quality impact fee. The discussions of both air quality and circulation in the Draft Ukiah Valley General Plan provides some very useful information, but does not suggest or recommend that an air quality impact fee program is necessary to effectively address current or future air quality problems. We note that the MCAQMD's recent correspondence to the Cily Planning Commission, dated February 9, 1995 concerning the Draft General Plan, suggests that an Implementation Measure be added that would require the payment of development impact fees to fund transportation projects. However, there does not appear to be the type of suppodive documentation that is required to substantiate a program o[ monelary exaction for air quality prese[vation. We understand that during the summer months, ozone levels in the Ukiah Valley can reach a level at or just below the state standard. We understand further that if the state standard is exceeded for any length of time, the State Air Resources Board can designate the area non- attainment. Everyone seems to agree that if the county receives this designation, it would not only signal potential health hazards, but would also have sedous repercussions for local businesses, agricultural operations and the citizens of the area. While no one wants polluted air, or to suffer the ramifications of'a non-attainment designation, quantifying the cumulative impacts associated with ozone has never really been accomplished. For example, the findings supporting the WalMart conditional approval stated that, "This impact is speculative and cannot feasibly be quantified with any degree of accuracy." The findings supporting the KMART conditional approval reiterated that, "the uncertainty with respect to this cumulative impact and infeasibility of studying or reliably predicting its significance remains." David Faulkner March 2, 1995 We need the MCAQMD to provide a detailed description of the local air quality problem, suppoded by technical data revealing the sevedty of the situation, and most importantly, a statement as Io why the problem necessilates the adoption and implementation of an air quality impact fee program. This information will provide the foundation anG.basis for pursuing the ordinance. City-County Participation Air quality in Mendocino County is a regional issue. Obviously, any effort at developing an ordinance to exact fees from developers to mitigate air quality impacts resulting from projects must be adopted by both the City and County. Is the MCAQMD prepared to interact with the County Board of Supervisors in pursuit of adoption of an air quality impact fee ordinance for the unincorporated territory in Mendocino County? Conclusions If significant thresholds for non-point emission sources are appropriately established, and a detailed study is prepared and adopted that leads to the conclusion that lhere is a serious air quality problem in the Ukiah Valley, then there may be a legitimate reason for local jurisdictions to exercise their police power and adopt an ordinance or regulation imposing developmer~t impact fees for air quality preservation. Thank you for considering these preliminary issues. We are available to meet and discuss this program wilh you at your convenience. i~~c~~,'ely, ~.~/~nior Planner CC: Charles L. Rough Jr., City Manager Robert Sawyer, Planning Director LEI~ERk%rAULK4.LTR 300 S~.M,I .NA. RY-,,5,VE., UKIAH, CA 95482-5400 · .RI)MIN. 7071463-6200 · PUBLIC SAFETY 463-6242/6274 · · FAX I1' 707/463-6204 April 12, 1995 David Faulkner, Air Pollution Control Officer Mendocino County Air Quality Managemenl Dislrict 306 East Gobbi Slreet Ukiah, CA 95482 Subject: General Plan Revision Program and KMART Air Qualily Off-Set Fund Dear David: Bob and I would like to lhank you for meeting wilh us last week Io discuss our ongoing working relationship, as well lhe stale of air quality in the Ukiah Valley Air basin. We appreciate your effofls to maintain a strong and consistent communication between the MCAQMD and the City Planning Department, and we share your view thai air qualily management is an inlegral component of our local land use and environmental planning activities. We strongly value your effods Io compile and provide the City with the quanlitalive foundational information we need to justify pursuing the concepl of an air quality impacl fee program. Having a clear understanding of lhe current slate of air qualily in lhe valley, lhe apparent trends concerning various pollulanl levels, your projeclions for the future, and a definilive statement of the air quality "problem", are crucial for the program. Addilionally, your views concerning possible solulions Io lhe problem, and if appropriale, a well-defined ralional nexus belween lhe problem and impacl lees will be crilical for Ihe viabilily of lhe program. We are available al your convenience Io meet and discuss Ihe needs of lhe program. Addilionally, we are available to assist your elfods in compiling lhe necessary informalion Io construct lhe foundalion for developing solutions lo currenl and future air quality problems. Enclosed for your review and use is a copy of lhe City Council General Plan hearing schedule, please feel free lo contact us if you have any questions. Bob Sawyer, Planning Director Encl. LETr ERgUrAULK-~.L? R .............. ~'~v_c_._,_,~__e..He. re To Serve" DAVID FAULKNER Air Pollution Control Officer PHILIP W. TOWLE Air Pollution Conlrol Inlpeclor April 19, 1995 COUNTY OF MENDOCINO AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT COURTHOUSE UKIAH, CALIFORNIA 95482 Mr. Charley Stump, Senior Planner City of Ukiah 300 Seminary St. Ukiah, CA 95482 OFFICE LOCATION: 306 East Gobbl Street Ukleh, Calilornla (707) 463-4354 RECEIVED APR 0TY 0F ?KIA PLANNING DER'. SUBJECT: Information needed for preparation of air quality offset program Dear Mr. Stump; You and I met for several hours on April 4, 1995 to discuss structure and function of an air quality offset program, which could be adopted and administered by the City and County. You expressed concern that a solid base of supporting air quality data is required to make the program legally valid, especially in light of recent court decisions. I believe that both entities could adopt such an offset program under existing statutory authority (e.g., A.B. 1600), and in no way would property development be denied or limited by an offset program, hence the "takings" issue is moot. I previously sent you several examples of offset fee programs, legally adopted and in use in the Sacramento area for transit development, and in Ventura County for air quality. I have worked on a similar program for the Nipomo Mesa area of San Luis Obispo County, where county engineering collected fees from many small housing projects to build five transit shelters and a large park-and-ride lot. In that county, the Board of Supervisors also allocated 5 % of the county engineering department's budget to complete the approved system of bikeways. The 5 % figure was chosen because the Clean Air Plan's goal was to increase biking to 5 % of all trips, and it was reasoned that providing facilities county-wide will bring use. We agreed the District will try to provide you with the following data: , A more detailed explanation of current ozone air pollution levels, including tables and graphs of hourly averages at and just below the state standard plotted over the period of record (1988 to present, with some gaps when equipment was not in operation). , Information about what regulatory actions will occur if the District is designated non-attainment for the state ozone standard (written in concise manner for inclusion in a staff report to the City Council). Mr. Stump ozone offset progam page 2 , Ideas for using impact fees, with a relative ranking of effectiveness. I think that this portion should draw upon information already developed during the meetings on KMart offset money. However, we should consider projects outside the City limits, such as park-and-ride lots which would help reduce emissions (and congestion) from commuters coming into Ukiah from Willits and outlying areas. , A projection of future emission levels, what we call an "emission inventory". This should look at levels in the recent past (which could be directly tied to high ozone levels) and projections into the near future (year 2000). Se An examination of meteorological conditions and regional ozone levels during periods when high pollution was monitored in Ukiah. This study would resolve so- called "transport" issues, (i.e., who is responsible for local high pollution; local sources or those outside the county). I think that we can easily provide you with the first three items listed above simply by expanding information already available. The last two issues will required detailed examination by qualified experts. The District's current budget provides for developing an air quality plan, and David Faulkner has given me the go-ahead to develop consultant RFPs for a refined emission inventory and to examine transport. However, I don't think that we could have final work products until the end of this summer. The District believes that discussion of further action should start with the City Council and management. Then we should probably work to develop a coordinated offset program with the County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. Please think this over, and give me a call to discuss. Sincerely, Air Quality Planner c: Ray Hall, Co. Planning RECEIVED APR 1 9 1995 L]]'Y OF tlKIitl lg. MtHING DEPT. dm..mcndo.cors.ukiah.stum-ofs.doc DAVID FAUL~(NER r Pollution Control Officer PHILIP W. TOWLE Pollution Control Inspector May 31, 1995 COUNTY OF MENDOCINO AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT COURTHOUSE UKIAH, CALIFORNIA 95482 Charley Stump, Senior Planner City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah CA, 95482-5400 OFFICE LOCATION: 3{:)6 East GobbJ Street Uktah, California (707) 463-43S4 SUBJECT: Airport Business Park - Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Rer~or~ Clearinghouse No. 9003099~ Dear Mr. Stump: The District has reviewed the documents you provided assessing likely environmental impacts of the eventual buildout of about 138 acres in the southern part of Ukiah for industrial uses. The report reviewed here is a contemporary analysis of a specific plan approved about 15 years ago by the Ukiah City Council. Subsequent to that approval, there have been a number of changes to the original use permit, with a mix of retail, restaurant, office and industrial uses permitted requiring varying levels of approval. Our comments here focus on motor vehicle emissions and their likely impacts on local air quality. However, some industrial uses could require a District permit, (e.g., boilers). Therefore, the City should have applicants whose projects entail activities which would emit air contaminants contact the District for more information. #1 General Comments The District commends the City on preparing a generally complete and thorough EIR. The air quality section is easy to read and provides the public with adequate information to assess the project. Proposed mitigations appear reasonable and complete, but their timing and specific implementation should receive more attention. This matter, along with other minor specifics, is addressed below. Ozone Attainment On page 16, referring to projected motor vehicle emissions, the EI:R states that there "... is no evidence that generation of these pollutants will result in regional air quality exceeding State or'Federal air quality standards". For the air pollutants carbon monoxide and respirable particulate matter PM10, this is probably true. The District 23 Mr. Stump Airport Business Park DEIR page 2 agrees because ambient levels of carbon monoxide are low year round, (the highest levels seen in Ukiah are only 30% of the standard), and PM10 violations routinely occur in winter months. However, for ozone precursors (reactive organic gases and nitrogen oxides), the sfiatement cannot be verified. As shown in the air quality element of the Ukiah Valley General Plan, each summer the valley's air degrades to levels at or just below the state ozone standard, (e.g., reaching 0.09 ppm in 1994, the state one hour standard). For more discussion of this please refer to Appendix A, attached. Although the Ukiah Valley is relatively rural, its unique geography and weather patterns allow formation of high ozone levels. This phenomena is described in the attached article, M. B6hm, et. al. Ozone Regimes in or near Forests of the Western United States' I. Regional Patterns. #2 While the District cannot state that emissions from motor vehicles driving to this project will cause exceedance of state ozone standards, these emissions will add substantially more pollution to an air basin verging on non-attainment of the ozone standard. Therefore, while the statement that "... there is no legal basis forfinding that the project significantly affects local air quality" (through violation of a state or federal standard) is technically tree by CEQA definition, the project's expected emissions do exceed the standards of District rule 130 s2 (as noted in the draft EIR). Thus, application of feasible mitigation measures is appropriate (Pub. Res. Code {}{} 21001, subd. Co), 21002, 21002.1, subd.0a)). Given that non-attainment will impose significant costs on motor vehicle owners county-wide for "smog checks" (about $4.5 million annually), and Would require the District to adopt more stringent regulation of many industries and businesses, it seems prudent to apply all practical mitigations to this project. Adequate mitigation will allow the area to grow while still maintaining healthy and desirable air quality. Air Quality Mitigation Measures The measures described on pages 74 - 77 outline almost all feasible ways to reduce motor vehicle and other emissions associated with the Business Park. The following comments relate to the specifics of the mitigations: O. xafl~ The document states that "Measures Nos. 1 and 2 shall be monitored by the MCA QMD." The first measure, controlling wind-blown dust, is not usually regulated by the District, but by the permitting agency, in this case the City of Ukiah. Because the City normally monitors all grading operations anyway to ensure that proper base materials are used, adequate compaction occurs, and conducts other inspections, we prefer that the City also monitor the dust control measures. If the District receiveg'complaints about dust or other emissions during the course of construction, our inspectors would immediately contact the City Building 24 #3 Mr. Stump Airport Business Park DEIR page 3 Department as a matter of courtesy and inter-agency cooperation. The District will .review all submissions for new industrial uses for poss. ible permit requirements. Transportation Management Association Measures Nos. 3 through 8 will likely reduce traffic congestion (especially at peak hour) as well as air pollution. Therefore, they can serve to reduce several problems at once and deserve full attention. We recommend that the Transportation Management Association (TMA) (Mitigation No. 3) be formed after reaching a reasonable employee threshold, e.g., 100 workers on-site from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. The conceptual regulations for this association should be developed soon, so that necessary facilities which could serve workers for the entire project be developed (e.g., bicycle storage and shower facilities). In many cases, smaller businesses may balk at requirements to provide showers and lockers, yet by working together through the TMA excellent facilities can be constructed at reasonable cost. Master Plan Designating a small portion of the site for services (described in Mitigation No. 7) which would serve the workers on site could reduce many mid- day trips into town. Ideally, workers could easily walk to this area. A Master Plan would help these small businesses flourish by locating them in an optimum area on this large site. The District is not suggesting a rigid plan, but we do believe it essential to consider how to make walking within the Business Park practical and appealing. This Master Plan would also allow logical design of the walking and bike paths to Talmage Road (described in Mitigation No. 4). Summary The Draft EIR for the Business and Industrial Park provides a concise-analysis of local air quality and provides good conceptual mitigations. The District recommends that the City assure effectiveness of these mitigations by setting up a schedule for forming the Transportation Management Association and adopting a master site plan. These two actions will provide adequate assurance that the proposed mitigations will go forward and reduce air quality impacts as much as feasible for a project of this type. Thank you for the oppommity to comment on this project. If you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact David Morrow at 463-4354. ' David Fa' Air PollutiorI'C-4ntrol Officer cc: Ray Hall, AICP Mendocino Co. Planning and Building Dept. Leonard Charles, Ph.D. Leonard Charles and Associates 25 ITEM NO. 6f DATE: April 2: ]997_ A G E N D A S U M M A R Y R E P O R_~ SUBJECT: NOTIFICATION OF AWARD OF BID FOR DISPOSAL OF TRANSFORMERS Requests for Quotation (RFQ) for the transportation and disposal of · thirty-eight (38) transformers were mailed ~to five (5) companJ_es. Only two (2) bids were returned with quotes and a third was returned after the bid opening indicating a change of address. Low bidder is H.E.L.P.E.R., Inc., with a bid of $7,786.50. The other bid was received from TCI, Inc. for an amount of $13,010.07. Since the City of Ukiah has not done business with the low bidder, two referral, companies were called and confirmed satisfactory service was received from their dealings with H.E.L.P.E.R. Inc. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Notify Council of Award of bid to H.E.L.P.E.R., INC., for $7,786.50. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: None Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Acct. No.: 800-3642-250 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: None Candace Horsley, C~ty Manager ITEM NO. 8a DATE: APRIL 2, 1997 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) APPLICATION -UKIAH COMMUNITY CENTER As noted at the March 19 public hearing the Ukiah Community Center was evaluating the feasibility of purchasing their property to reduce long term costs for providing services to very Iow, Iow, and moderate income persons. The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program has been identified as the primary source for financial assistance in this endeavor. The grant application requests a total of $ 499,647 for building and property acquisition, on-site improvements, refinancing an existing bank loan, additional delivery services, and grant administration (project detail is identified on page 14 of the attachments). These activities meet the eligible project standards for the program and will enhance UCC's ability to furnish necessary services for the targeted population. The City has a long term alliance with UCC and staff believes this grant will be a significant benefit to the entire community. There are no City funds obligated in this program, though staff services, public notices, and the City Council's consideration represent a small portion of the City's commitment to this endeavor. Staff recommends adoption of the resolution approving the grant application and authorizing the City Manager to act on behalf of the City for all CDBG application matters. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adoption of Resolution Approving Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Application -Ukiah Community' Center ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Determine application should be modified, identify changes, and adopt resolution with revisions recommended. 2. Determine application is not to be submitted and do not adopt resolution. Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Appropriation Requested: N/A Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: Acct. No.: N/A N/A Ukiah Community Center Michael F. Harris, AICP, Assistant City Manager~~t'~ Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Resolution for adoption, page 1. 2. Draft grant application, pages 2-March 17, 1997 letter from Jeff Davis, General Manager of REMIF, pages 2-11. APPROVED: mfh:asrcc97 0402SKATE Candac~ Horsley, City Manager RESOLUTION NO. 97- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH APPROVING AN APPLICATION AND CONTRACT EXECUTION FOR FUNDING FROM THE GENERAL/NATIVE AMERICAN ALLOCATION OF THE STATE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A GRANT AGREEMENT AND ANY AMENDMENTS THERETO WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS GRANT WHEREAS, the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program will assist local entities in providing assistance to very Iow, Iow, and moderate income persons (Targeted Income Group); and WHEREAS, the Ukiah Community Center has proposed a project which will enhance its ability to provide services to the Targeted Income Group and the City of Ukiah desires to participate in this activity through the CDBG process. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Ukiah as follows: 1) The City Council has reviewed and hereby approves a CDBG application for up to: Ukiah Community Center building acquisition: Ukiah Community Center property on-site construction: Refinance existing Ukiah Community Center bank loan Ukiah Community Center activity delivery General administration $352,000 28,050 50,000 32,097 37,500 2) 3) the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to act on the City of Ukiah's behalf in all matters pertaining to this application. if the application is approved, the City Manager is authorized to enter into and sign the grant agreement and any amendments thereto with the State of California for the purposes of this grant PASSED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of April, 1997 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Sheridan Malone, Mayor Colleen B. Henderson, City Clerk mfh:resord 97cdbg · -- L "- APPLICATION FOR FUNDI. NG CITY OF UKIAH CDBG .APPLICATION U'KIAH COMMUNITY CENTER April 11, 1997 03/'29 1997 G/NA CheclClist,~f Attachments ., , . NOTE: All the attachments listed here are part of ti.is application. Not'all documents will' apply to alt act/v/tics. Enter jurisdiction name at top of each page. . . ,.. Make a checkmark for each item on the list. Do not leave any item blank--cheek either "included" or "not applicable." . . Enclose and mark each attachment. Incomplete applications will not be' considered for funding. Return a copy of this Checklist with your application. Check if Included Not ,~pplicable. 'page# .Location in your. TABLE OF CONTENTS TO APPLICATION · . . APPLICATION SUMMARY FORM .. Signature page is complete ACTIV'iTY DESCRIPTION FORMS Site control documentation (New Construction, Community Fac./Publie Svcs., and Public Works) Waiting list information Housing element pages for Rehabilitation need data [] [] El N/A N/A Documentation of need for Community Fac./Public Svcs. Documentation of need for Public Works Supplemental information (New Construction and 73 [] [] ., Checklist Of Attachments Rehabilitation only) TIG benefit documentation Resumes, duty statements, letters of interest Resolutions and letters of commitment for local and private leverage and regulatory relief Census Tables H21 & H25 DOCUMENTATION AND CERTIFICATION FORMS Ii Growth Control and Housing Element status form = Maps · · · ,, Housing Element self-certification , Ethnie/TIG concentration mat> [] Native American population IXl Location map [] Project site map ~ Citizen Participation form Statement of Assurances Resolution of the Governing Body 74 -q- 6. Joint Powers Agreement .. , ,CH'EC~IST OF ATTACHMENTS 'Be Sure to send a copy of this Checklist with your applieation. D .El D ,D M~R-27-97 ?HU 12:22 PM P, 06/29 PART A. . . 1 5~ Application Summary Form APPLICANT AND PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant: City'of Uk~.ah Cowry of__. located in the County'of, ~endocino Total amouat of funds requested: $_~ 99,64 7" -- Official authorized to sign the Orant Agreement per the Resolution: Name: H_.___or sley , Candace ('Last) Street address of, person authorized in the resolution to sign the grant agreement: Address: 300 ,Sem~.na .. ~ CA 95482-5400 (City) (State) ~ (Zip Code) Itemized.I/st,of CDBG funds requested. The total on line i. Should match the total amount requested in line 2. above. C, · Activity General Administration. Activity Delivery Costs Housing-New Construction , Housing--Rehabilitation Complementary Activity Set-aside Community Facilities Public Services ' Public Works ' TOTAL Requested Amount $ 37,500 Owner/Occupied $, , Renter/Occupied $' ' Total ' -- Owner/Occupied $~.____ Renter/Occupied $_. Total $ 1997 G/NA Applicati0u summary Form 6. Census Data a. Proposed activity is (check one): jurisdiction wide [] ~ target ar~a El : . , you checked target area, check which data source you used (see Instructions re: Census Group numbers). Census Tract data; enter Census Tract numbers: ,, -- Census Block Group da~a; enter Census Block Group numbers. -,, .. , , ._ . . Block . ., Activity . · ' Construction # ofo~/cr.. occupied~, #oft,nt~r.. ' ' ~icd ' . Housing-- Rchabilltali0n #'of owner-. oc~upied~. Proposed Activity(ies) and Beneficiaries by Income Group: A, 81% and Above (Non-TIG) (1) Total # of hou.sehold.~mjects Total # ofpersons to benefit B, Between 5 I% - 80% (riO) (l) To~ # of households/projects o_.~cupie, d ;;. / , Community ' ~ ~ Facili'ties '?' ~ 6 3 2 ..---.--.-_ : ~' ~ubnc worn ~ ' · *'Sae,."Bene£1ciary ~lechodol. ogy _ next; page. .., ]3-1 - ~) Total # of~rao~ C, Below..$0% , .O,.no) ('l"h¢m m~ not be a zcm in th{: 'a~tion,) . ({,) Tota/#.of hot~eholds./pmj¢~.s. 5,691 (2) Total # ofpetson~ ,,lo bel~llt . ' 16,876 ~R-27-97 ?HU 12',23 METHODOLOGY Determination of Benefi¢iarcies P, 07/29 . The reason the Ukiah Community Center wishes to buy its building and refinance.'t'he'10an is to increase staff services and provide more stability for the organization. After "".' completing a careful review of services provided in 1.996 and determining how much..~ additional staff time would be available, we have determined that the Ukiah Community Center will be able to increase services to its elients by about 20%. The table below.. shows aetuaI service figures in 1996 and calculates the 20% increase in households and. people. We have shown that.the increase in beneficiaries will last tbr at least'three Years, the lif~ of the County contracts, but we expect that the increase in. beneficiareies Will. be permanent and increasing over time. ".'. We have shown that 10% of our beneficiaries are between 5 I% and 80% o£TIG 'and 90% are below 50% TIG. Applicants are required to fill out intake forms to receive help in the Temporary Assistance Program and the Food Bank programs which indieate source and amount of income and these figures are well substantiated. There is no memas' test for people using the crisis line, but the data on calls received clearly indicates that over 95% of all callers were either seeking temporary shelter, food or 'were members of a designated TIG group -- the elderly, children, peoplewith mental health problems, and dmg and alcohol abusers. Estimated Beneficiaries FY 1997 - 1999 Households Current New TAP 233 47 Food Bank 2,052 410 Crisis Line 2,991 598 Totals " 5,276 1,055 People Current 699 5,952 8,975 ' 15,626 New~ 140 . 1,190' 1',795 ,. 3,1'2'5. C. Line Stats 2/15/93 '~'707 462 0654 ITl~I,~ co~f~ Agency Summary P, 08/29 ~oo~ 3126/97 ,i i ii .-. 1996 Calendar Year Total Calls Children's Prolectlve ServJce~ Adult Protective Serv. (elderly) Food/Shelter (homeleas/out of food) Mental Health Public HeaIth/HIV-AIDS Youth Project (under 18 years old) Project Sanctuary (dom. violence) Ford Street Project (drug/alcohol) OtherlMlac, iii .. ii T . Percent 8,97S ,.i ' 15.05% 1,351 1.58% 142 ' [ 39.47% 3,$42 10.22% 91,7..[ 42 0.47% 826 9 '~8.o~% '~,6~8 ,l. zo?,,/. . '~86 i __.s.~%,,. 3,s'~ /' ' 100%- 8,975. ' . ' 09/'29 · 1997 G/NA Application Summary Form Program Income. ,, Will Program Income be used with this grant for a different activity than the one proposed in this' application?. 'No; stop here and go 'on to #9. Yes; enter amount you expect to u~e: $ . . Check which National Objective will 'be met by this activity and give a brief description in the spa~e.below; ' Targeted Income Group benefit [] Slums and blight Urgent need BHefly describe the activin(its) proposed to be funded by',Pmgrarn Income: . Applicant's staff Contact Information: Mailing Address: City: a. ~<~, Telephone ii: Area Code: I0. State: Zip: q ,"3'4 ~ Z. (7~7) 4/6 ,.~ .- ~ 2 1.5 Fax #: Consultant/Other Public Agency Contact Information: Area Code: Last: .~_.______~Eudd' First: ~ MI: Title: Executive Director, Ukfah Communi~__Center Mailing Address: 8'88 N' 'State Street City: l. rk. iahState: CAZip: 95482-3410 ______ , .. Telephone #: ' Area Code: (7..07) 4.62-6 I83 Fax #: Area Code: (70) 662-0656 . , , I4 -I 0 - Application Summary Form PAItT B. TYPE OF APPLICATION 1. [] On Applicant's Own Behalf 2. '~ .Joint Application: 3. ~1 For One Funding Cycle, 4. 12 For Two Funding Cycles .PART C. .LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVES '5. For Funding fi.om the: General Allocation Native American Allocation ~ Name of non-Fcdea-ally recognized tribe _ C] The Native American population w/th{u the ~arget area exceeds 51% of the ~'~et a~,.~, wh/ch is knowu as -" (Enter the name of the rancheria or neighborhood .) Member of the A~sembly 1. . District No. I '~Vlrg~.qi.a Scrota-Mar ~ ,L. 3.. ,C~ipitol Room #: 4098 1... District No. 2. Name: . . 3. Capitol Room #: State Senator- . 1. DislriCt No. 2 2. Name: Mike Thompson 3. Capitol Room #: " 3056 District No. Capitol Room #: I. o . Member of CongreSs District No. i Name: Frank Office Bldg. And address: · , Longworth Building 17 District No. Maine; Office Bldg. and address: 15 M~R-27-97 THU 12',26 PM P, 12/29 _ ' ! 997 G/NA APPlication Summary Form PART D. OFFICIAL(S) AUTHORIZED TO SUBMIT AppLIcATION Name Candace Hor$1e Title c~ty Manager Siguau.u-c Date ' "'. Title_ Signaturc 16 P, i 3/29 Activity Description Form for Community Facilities/Public Services -- ' -- .... . J' ' r . ' . , ' . Applicant NEED FOR THE ACT~TY What will the CDBG dollars be used for? , Community Facilities ~ Public Services IZI Acquisition' l~l Salary 12l Construction !=1 Other (describe) CDI~¢ General.Admi.u. ltl' Rehabilitation --' ..._ 1~ Other(describe) Lo,,an reSin,ante Project description, site control, and environmental clearance. a. Briefly describe the project and/or the service to be provided. If you are proposing a combinati°n activity or multi-year grant, explain all aspects of these activities. If multi-year, eXPlai why..the activity cannot be accomplished in one year. If the project involves activities that will involve various user groups, describe the uses of the building/facility and include estimates for percentages of time projected for use by each user group.' b. Site control. If the proposed project involves site acquisition, please answer the following' question. NOTE: Site acquisition costs incurred pri°r to the award of a grant, execution of a' grant agreement, and satisfaction of any special conditions are n. ot rei. mbursable from the grant: ' , . Do you have site control in place for at least 4 to 6 mont~ beyond the anticipated CDBG award dat. ', ~ Yes. Attach documentation, (itl:achmenl: B) [:! N~. 'Explain stares in ~he space provided below. Environmental clearance. Describe the anticipated level of environmental clearance for Not Applicable . a. What basic problem will this activity address? 47 See Item A2a above. I , I ii ii m .mm~m~-- -- ,. A.2.a. Project N~trrative The Ukiah Community Center was originally incorporated in 1971 as a 501 (c)(3) corporation. Over. the years it has deVeloped a wide variety of programs to meet the health and safety needs.of the low income residents of Ukiah. These services include a 24 hour crisis line; a supportive housing program and homeless prevention program; a ,,': temporary assistance program which provides emergency housing vouchers; a food bank and emergency food closet; a holiday sharing project; and an emergency services network and voIunteer center. (A detailed description of the UCC activities is included as Attachment A.) In 1995, the Center moved to its current location, which combines staff offices, meeting and counseling rooms for clients, and. a large and very busy food bank. CDBG funds will be used to purchase the building (which is currently under a lease option, See Attachmem B) refinance an existing bank loan .(see Attachment C), make needed repairs and improvements to the facility and meet ADA requirements, and provide staff services for an expected increased client caseload. A detailed breakdown of proposed uses follows: I, Purchase Site Closing Costs $320,000 3_,2_,.Q_0 Q_0.. 352,000 II. Refinance Existing Bank Loan .50,000 IIi. Repairs and Improvements' Paving and Striping Create 6 handicapped access stoops, landing areas Improve refrigeration in food bank Repair roof, Scuppers, 'facade and. overhang Obtain container for dry fbod storage Security Lights 10% Fees and Contingencies 12,000 1,500 9.,000 8,400 1,200 400 2,500 28,050 IV. Staffing and Admini'stration CDBG General, Administration Improve computer capacity General Administration staffing UCC Casework Staff TOTAL CDBG B.UDGET 4,339 33,161 3~,.097 69,597 $499,647 ~ '5/'29 .. Need for CDBG Funds Impacts of Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 On August 22, 1996, President Clinton signed a bill which drastically altered the Country's Welfare System. Called the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program, the new system imposes strict limits on the amount of'time' a 'family may receive public assistance, limits 'the number of individuals who can receive SSI/SSP assistance and drastically curtails food stamp eligibility. These cuts are going into effect at different times throughout the year, but the first wave of benefit reductions has already taken place. As is noted in the 'attached newspaper articles (Attachment E), up to 570 single, able-bodied individuals between the.ages of 18 and 50 will be cut off food stamps on September 1, 1977 in Mendocino County. Another group of individuals who are slated to be cut from welfare rolls are people currently receiving SSI/SSP payments for drug and alcohol addiction and legal immigrants to the United States. The state requires counties to provide General AssiStance to individuals who' do not qualify' for any other type of aid, and those numbers Will increase by about 200 by the end of 1997. The County may have to reduce individual benefits to provide a minimal level of care for these new clients, which will also increase the need for the health and safety services provided by the Ukiah Community Center. The State of California' expects to have its program in operation by January, 1998. The program.includes several elements which will affect low income people in. Ukiah, and Ihe services provided.by UCC. Once the time limits for public assistance go into effect, the need for temporary shelter vouchers will increase dramatically, since certain groups of welfare recipients will be cut off assistance and will be unable to pay rent. Without housing, other problems'will emerge for families and individuals requiring the' caseworker services 'provided by UCC and its volunteers. Attachment F, prepared by the Mendocino Department of Social Services, estimates the impacts of Welfare Reform on Mendocino County. Over ig,000 families will be affected by the changes in the state program. :In all 4,443 households will be affected.by food stamp reductions,, and over 1,400 legal immigrants will be affected. It is clear that the Crisis Hotline, Food Bank and Shelter Programs operated by UCC will be ov. envhelmed with new requests 'for help. Adding a part-time staffer to expand the volunteer program is a small but critical' step in partially addressing these needs. Community ServiceYWork Experience Program The expected, impacts.'on Mendocino County residents and the UCC have been briefly described above, on the other side of the equation is the opportunity for the UCC to P, 16/29 preserve some of their benefits bY becoming designated as a Community Services/Work Experience site. ~ ' ., ,, ,, One of the main elements of the weir'are reform program is the work requirement which requires all public assistance recipients to find work or be involved in a Community. Services or Work Experience .program in order to continue to receive aid. The. Ukiah" Conm~unity Center ha, long been used by t'he Court System as a community service. alte.mative to jail time. It has 'also been used by the Department of Social Services.as a job site for the General Assistance Program and the GAIN program. Participants in'both of these programs have worked in. the .Food Bank, and as volunteer and office help~in Other programs offered at UCC. The needed repairs and improvements spelled Out in the proposed budget above would make UCC a premier Community Service site' and'Would allow welfare recipients participating in the program to keep at least a Portion of their grants by meeting the Community Service requirements. Summary- Need for CDBO Funds 'Ukiah Community Cemer has provided twenty-five years of services to City and County residents, but the need for their services has never been as great as it will be 'when the .' Welfare Reform Programs and Aid Reductions are fully implemented..As the DirectOr 'of the Department of Social Services notes in her letter, the Cemer will.bec0me a trUe ".safety net" for those affected by the changes in. the programs. UCC needs' to purchase, and ' ' repair its building, upgrade its food bank equipment and modernize its service delivery, with a new computers if it is going to even partially meet the demands created by. the. '. "localization" of public assistance. It also needs to refinance an existing loan and. redirect those funds to increased staffing and prudent reserves for the Center's operation. . Without. the stabilization and improvement ofUCCs building and services, the pOOrest'of the poor in Mendocino County -- those affected by the reductions in welfare assistance -- will .have. one less resource on wlfich to rely. It is imperative that the CDBG program steP:f°rward' to partially replace those resources. A. 5.a. Services to Be Provided and/or Continued FOOD BANK AND EMERGENCY FOOD PROGRAM a. Services to Be Provided Food Bank services and Emergency Food (limited to one to four times in twelve months) b. Location of Services The UCC is currently the only food bank serving the City of Ukiah and small., surrounding communities. Supplementary food programs are also provided by UCC's Food Bank' sub- sites at senior nutrition centers and in outlying small communities. Emergency food is only available at UCC. " d. There are no special impediments to access this service. However, South Ukiah ". residents would benefit from a sub-site, as would Hopland residents. .. , SUPPORTIVE HOUSING PROG~ AND HOMELESS PREVENTION PRO'GR~ a. Services to be provided and continued. UCC has been a provider of shelter vouchers and assistance for many years, it' provides support', advocacy and training to the homeless, along with intensive collaborati0n among agencies, to help the homeless become self-sufficient. The Temporary _A~s.i.stance,', P_rogram has provided emergency sheIter vouchers and other emergency services'since 1982. The demand tbr this assistance is expected to increase with the decline of public .. assistance in the County. b. Location of Services [;ICC houses SI-IP/HPP, as well as outreach for FoCd Street drug and alcohol treatment,. which is an important part of the collaborative effort. In addition to services .provided' at UCC, vouchers are sometimes available from volunteers after UCC is closed, through. . ' UCC's crisis line. c. N/A ' ,. '. d. There are no special impediments for TIG households in obtaining these 'service,, CRISIS LiNE a. Services to be Provided and Continued MAR-27-97 THU 12:29 PM, P, 18/29 The Crisis Line has 'been in operation since March of 1980. Because of the anticipated increaso in the need for services 'triggered by the reduction of public assistance, the Crisis Line and the Volunteer Program both need to be enhanced. A portion of the staff budget will be allocated to expanding these two programs. ' : b. Location of Services. The Crisis Line is operated from the 'Center and serves the entire county. c. N/A d. 'rhere are no 'special. impediments for TIG. households in obtaining these serviceSl VOLUNTEER CENTER a. Services to be provided b. Location of Services The Volunteer Center is located in the UCC building. c. N/A . d. There are no Special impediments for TIG households in obtaining these servicesi 2'30 Pit" P, i9/29 ~1 i - · , Activity Descrfption Form for Community Facilities/Public Services b, . . '. Explain how and to what extent the proposed project will solve this problem. See Item A.2.a. ' ' How was this ,problem determined? a. Survey of existing service levels? ffi Yes ' El, No b. Survey of intended beneficiaries? [] Yes K! No c. Letters describing the d/rect !13 Yes El' No health' and safety impact? , a, Please describe below and on additional sheets, if necessary; each service to be provided or continued. If multiple services are proposed, answer the following questions for each service. .. ~ ·, ,, Service(s) to be provided or continued. See narrative. :' d. Is each service currently available locally? , '. If not locally available, where is the nearest ~hcility currently pr°Viding the proposed service? Are there any special impediments for TIG households to access this service? 6. What ~ternmives did you consider, if this is an ADA accessibility issue and why 'is this ~tern~ive the be~ . , solution? Although meeting ADA requirements is not the primary.goal of. this grant, some of the repairs 1. isted in the program budge~ will. be' t° create six handicapped access stoops, and striping to indicate handicapped parking and access areas. ~ .,~.~.-~7-97 T~IIj 12:30 P, 20/29 ii A. $.a, Services to Be Provided and/or Continued FOOD BANK AND EMERGENCY FOOD PROGRAM a. Services to Be Provided Food Bank services and Emergency Food (limited to one tO four times m twelve'months) b. Location of Services .'. The UCC is currently the only food bank serving the City of Ukiah and small surrounding communities. Supplementary food programs are also provided by UCC's Food'Bank sub- ,ites at sen/or nutrition centers and in outlying small communities. Emergency food is only available at UCC, c. N/A d. There are no special impediments to access this service. However, South ukiah residents would benefit from a sub-site, as would HoPland residents. SUPPORTIVE HOUSING PROGRAM AND HOMELESS PREVENTION PROGRAM a. Services to be provided and continued. UCC has been a provider of shelter vouchers and assistance for:many years. 'It provides support, advocacy and training to the homeless, along with intensive collaboration among agencies, to help the homeless become self-sufficient. The T..emPorary.'...2M~j~ta~_c_e Program_ has provided emergency shelter vouchers and other emergency services. since 1982. The demand for this assistance is expected to increase with the deciine of Public assistance in the County. " b, Location of Services UCC houses sI-n)/HPp, as weI! as outreach for Foi-d Street drug' and alcohol treatment, which is an important part of the collaborative effort. In addition to. services' provided at UCC, vouchers are sometimes available from volunteers after UCC ·is closed, through 'UCC's crisis line, ... c. N/A d. There are no special impediments for TIG households in obtaining these services CKISIS LINE a. Services to be Provided and Continued X~-27-97 T~U 12~31 PI~, P, 21/29 -_ The Crisis. Line has been in operation since March of 1980. Because of the anticipated increase in the need for services triggered by the reduction of public assistance, the Crisis Line and the Volunteer Program both need to be enhanced. A portion of the staff budget will be allocated to expanding these two programs. b. ,Location of Services. The Crisis Line is operated from the Center and serves the entir~ county. c. N/A d. There are no special impediments for TIG households in obtaining these services. · VOLUNTEER CENTER a. Services to be provided b. Location of Services The Volunteer Center is located in the UCC btfilding. c. N/A · d. There are no special impediments for TIG households in obtaining these services. I~R-27-97 THU 12:32 PI~ P, 22/29 Activity Description Form for Community Facilities/Public Services 7. Documentation of roblern and commitment to to.vide services. In the column.marked ,,Documentation,,, indicate thc type of documentation (e.g., letter, resolution, newspaper Clipping,' rep°rt, etc.) and attach a copy of the documentation. In 'the column marked "Comm/trnent to provide services, indicate, the service(s) committed by funding or provider source. SOURCE Dept. of ' Health Services County Health D~ar~e/It F~re Department Law Enforcemen Departm~t of Social Services Engine~-ing Firms Board of Supervisors Ot~er . DOCUMENTATIO N OF PRORLgM COMbIITMENT TO PROVIDE SERVICF.~ See Attached TARGETED INCOME GROUP BENEFIT ' 1. Whht percent of households' benefiting from this proposed activity'are TIG" households? 1 oo % .. TIG benefit-how was it determined? a. Income restriction? b. Income survey of existing beneficiaries? c. Income survey of potential beneficiaries? d. Limited Clientele? I[I Yes C] No" IZI Yes ID No [3 'Yes El No E] Yes [] No e. Other? Please attach documentation fi>r the TIG benefit. You are not required to have done a survey to estabIish benefit under Community Services/Public Services J-,,,,e ;4". ..... I: .I .... ,... 4. ,.+- ........ , M~tR-27-97 THU 12:32 P, 23/29 SOURCE Mendocino County Department of Social Serv/ees FEMA North Coast Opportunities EHAP HI Federal Emergency Shelter Grant Program County Agencies ~r~ ~ r~i ~ ['3 Mendocino County Department of Social Services (see above) Mendocino County Department of Mental Health Mendocino County Department. of Public Health DOCUME, NTATION Letter, Contracts Letter MOU Contract Contract Contract Contract COMMITMENT TO PROVIDE SERVICES _ .. $415,879 0 years) $20,604 $16,301 $2,800 $183,936 $5,040 $2,880 $1,680 OTHER Private Non-Profits on Crisis Line* Mendocino County Family and Youth Services Project Sanctuary Ford Street Project Mendocino Food and Nutrition Program Contract Contract Contract Contract $1,320 $780 $600 $720 *Plus a share of long distance. Please see attached contract, pages. ~flR-27-97 THU 12:33 PN' · .. Survey date Total # of anticipated beneficiar/es Number of households or persons surveyed Number of responses Number of TIO respondents PERFORMANCE/CAPACiTY P, 24/29 Activity Description Form for Community Facilities/Pu blic Services . Apphcant ... _. l, Does the applicant have any CDBG General Allocation grants for,the years 1993 1994 or 19957 ' El Yes. Stop here and go on to Part D., Leverage No. Continue to question #2 below. . . , If funded from this application, how will you administer the grant? All .apPlicants who respond to this question must attach supporting documentation with this application. '. E] With in-house staff only · , Attach resumes and duty statements of staff who will be performing the work. With consultant services only "' Attach a letter of interest from a consultant that includes brief resumes of experience administering CDBO projects.. Neighboring jurisdictions who have previously administered a CDBO project may be considered consultants for purposes of this question. Some combination of in-house and consultant services. Describe The. City will subcontract,.: with ..the 'UC~ in :the.' administration . thi.s,._ gran,,t:. . .... __Attach resumes, duty smte'ments, letter, etc. as indicated above. Attached are resumes of the AssiStant City Manager and Executive Director',o£ UCC. '3. Is this alfplieation for the pu'/'pose of assisting a non-profit corporation to carry our a CDBG eligible activity? Yesj__~ No__. , ,, LEVERAGE. This section of the applichtion ha~ two parts--l, information aboUt'other funding commitments ".for thc proposed project and 2. information about how all the funds will be u~ed. Part I consists of three separate information blocks. 1. O_ther_funding_commitrnents. List the amounts and sources of Contributions other than CDBG (local, private, and local regulatory relief). Attach documentation of commitments..... ':Local Leverage. If any of the local contributions are from the Redevelopment Agency, please attach a separate .Resolution from the R. DA. Identify the original source of the local funds (i.e., some'local' funds may have originated as Federal or state funding passed on to the locality. If such is the case,' the funds will no__At be counted as a local contribution for scoring purposes). so - 'z,t-_ " . NflR-27-97 THU 12:33 PI~' ?, 25/29 Activity Description Form for Community Facilities/Public Services Local Leverage S~ i (attach a copy of the .. . .. _ . [ Resolution Resolution) Mendocino County Department _ . of Social' Service~ ~l $441,523 Contracts Attached ]. b. P__Hvate L~vera~. If labor and materials are being contributed, assign a dollar value on this chart and be sure the dollar value is included in the letters of commitment. Private Leverage Source Private Contributions UCC Member:ship Dues Office Space Rent UW/SML Community Fund Allocation Agency Con=facts - Crisis Line Amount in Dollars in ,Letter from Source $48,366 ,:3,863 . 3,399 53,704 Date of Commitment Letter (attach the letter) See atta'ched United Wa Bud er 7., 980 See contracts L__ocaI Regulatory Relief. If the applicant is committing some form of regulatory relief, pleaze make a notation of what is being committed. ' Local Regulatory Relief ,,, , Description Resolution Number (attach Resolution) 5I ~IflR-27-97 THU 12:34 PPI, P, 26/29 PRIVATE LEVERAGE SOURCE !n-Ki~ Shelter Vouchers In-Kind Facade/Overhang 64O Letter from UCC Axt and Mitchell Arch. 135 West Gobbi Street Ukiah CA 95482-5465 M~R-27-97 THU 12:34 PM' P, 27/29 OTHER SOURCES OF FUNDING , . Although the following sources of funding cannot be used as leverage for the proposed project, they are an important part Of the fhbric of financing which has kept UCC alive fbr 25 years. Federal Emergency Shelter Grant Program Letter $16, 301 Comract $183,936 M~R-27-97 THU 12:35 ~,, ~ .~' · , · ' .'~ · ', ~ P, 28/29 M/~R-27-97 THU 12:35 PM u~,, -'-u,, a ~ zo: O~ '4~,"7U7 462 06~4 UKIAH CO~ C~R P, 29/29 ITEM NO.: 8b DATE: March 27, 1997 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF USE PERMIT NO. 97-06 SUMMARY: On February 26, 1997, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to deny, without prejudice, a Use Permit application submitted by Ms. Tori Brown on the behalf of the Little Friends Preschool and Daycare Center, which is currently operating at the project site. Approval of the proposed application, as modified by the applicant, would permit the maximum number of children allowed to use existing playground facilities at any one time to be increased from fourteen children to twenty-four children during permitted outdoor play periods. It would also allow all of the forty-eight children enrolled at the center to use the outdoor play areas during lunch (10:45 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.) and an afternoon break period (2:45 p.m. to 3:30 p.m). The approval of the Use Permit would also allow the 6,000 square foot area located west of the permitted playground area to be developed with playground equipment that has already been installed on the site. This area has been used for ball games and running activities. (continued on Page 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Support the Planning Commission's action and deny the appeal. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY ACTION: Approve 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 Appeal from Ms. Tori Brown (dated March 10, 1997), including Neighborhood Survey results and letters of support. 2. Letter of Opposition from Ms. Marlene Werra (received March 24, 1997). 3. Letter of Opposition from Wayne and Cinda Fackrell (dated March 26, 1997). 4. Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting on February 26, 1997. 5. Planning Report for Use Permit No. 97-06, including attached letters/petitions opposing the project. 6. Applicant Submittal to Planning Commission, including petition supporting the project. Candace Horsley, City I~anager Background The existing preschool/daycare facility was originally allowed after the Planning Commission's approval of a Use Permit application (#94-28) on October 26, 1994. This permit was approved subject to Conditions of Approval, which included Standard Conditions 1-24 and requirements for a parking plan and a maximum occupancy of 50 students and 7 instructors at the center. Special Condition No. 4 also required that the operation of playground facilities at the center be restricted to the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, and that the maximum number of children permitted on this playground area be restricted to fourteen. This condition was required to mitigate the nuisance-level noise impacts associated with children playing in the playground, as discussed in the Initial Study/Negative Declaration and Planning Report prepared by the Planning Department. The original application submitted for this Use Permit modification proposed that Condition No. 4 for Use Permit No. 94-28 be changed to allow thirty children to use the existing and proposed playground areas between the specified hours of playground operation. It also included a request to allow forty-eight children in the playground areas during meals and "special group activities." This request has since been modified by the applicant to allow twenty-four children on the playground during permitted hours of playground operation, and forty-eight children allowed on the playground during specified lunch and afternoon break. These changes were made in response to the concerns expressed by the Planning Commission and opponents of the project at the Planning Commission hearing on February 26 of this year. The applicant has also requested that permitted playground areas be expanded to include the play structure and other facilities that have been installed in the 6,000 square foot area located to the west of the existing playground for the daycare center. This area was designated as lawn area on the site plans submitted with the original use permit application, and has been used by the daycare staff for running activities and organized ball games. However, it is the opinion of staff that the playground equipment that has been installed represents an expansion of the permitted playground facilities since it establishes semi-permanent equipment in an area that was not previously designated for regular playground activities. Planninq Commission Action The Planning Commission did not include specific findings to support their decision to deny the proposed Use Permit modifications, although individual Commissioners did express their rationale for voting to deny the project. These reasons, which are articulated more fully in the attached Planning Commission Minutes for the February 26, 1997, meeting, include noise impacts, the number of children located at the daycare center, and the opposition of neighborhood residents, as expressed in letters and a petition. The Commission also indicated that its action to deny the project without prejudice would allow the applicant to work with neighbors on a solution to noise impacts, and return to the Commission within six months, at no cost, for further action. The applicant has chosen instead to modify the project, and appeal the Planning Commission action, for the reasons listed in the attached appeal letter (Attachment #1). Staff Analysis The Planning Department's analysis of the original preschool/daycare project is contained in the Initial Study and Planning Report prepared for Use Permit No. 94-28. Based on this review, Planning staff recommended approval of the preschool/daycare center, subject to conditions designed to mitigate the nuisance-level noise impacts projected in the Initial Study. The Planning Department, however, recommended denial of Use Permit No. 97-06, based on its determination that the proposed increase in the number of children that would be permitted to use existing and proposed playground facilities would cause an increase in both ambient and incidental noise levels. Planning staff acknowledged that these noise levels would not expose persons to injury or health problems, but staff concluded that the increase in noise would increase the occurrences of nuisance impacts that could affect neighboring residents. This determination is articulated in staff's analysis and Finding for the project, which are included in the attached Planning Report for Use Permit No. 97-06. Planning staff have also reviewed the modified application submitted with the letter of appeal. Approval of this request would allow twenty-four children to use the playground during the regular outdoor use hours, and forty-eight children to use the playground areas during designated lunch and snack periods. Planning Department staff does not support the modified request for the same reasons that it could not support the initial proposal. Planning staff also reviewed the issues that the applicant calls out in her letter of appeal, including the use of the play structure that has been constructed in the area west of the existing playground area, which was permitted by the approval of Use Permit No. 94-28. The applicant expresses the opinion that this area was permitted as part of the approval for Use Permit No. 94-28. Staff reviewed the original application packet and the minutes for the Planning Commission hearing at which the project was acted on, and can find nothing to indicate that this area had been proposed for an expansion of the playground area that was shown on site plans. In fact, this area is designated for "lawn area" on the site plans submitted with the application. Therefore, Planning staff does not concur with the applicant's contention that this area has already been permitted for use as a fully-developed playground area and the use of this playground area as an expansion of the play areas permitted the existing Use Permit. The Planning Department does recommend that such an expansion be permitted, provided the number of children permitted to use the existing and proposed playground areas is not increased. This recommendation is based on staff's determination that, while the expansion of playground areas could cause noise impacts to be carried to other areas of the site, the noise levels on the entire site would not be increased. Therefore, it is probable that the nuisances created by such noise levels would not be increased in a substantial manner. Planning staff also reviewed the applicant's concern that the analysis of the project by Planning staff and the Planning Commission did not adequately address some persons' conception that the project included an expansion of the number of children permitted at the daycare center. Staff notes that some confusion concerning the project proposal had been expressed by persons who inquired about the project, but that a full explanation had been provided to anyone who contacted staff prior to the hearing. Staff also included a full description of the project in its presentation to the Planning Commission, and stressed in their comments that the project did not include a proposal to expand the total number of children permitted to use the daycare center. Therefore, it is the opinion of Planning Department staff that this issue was addressed early and fully in the hearing process, and that the applicant had been permitted ample opportunities to clarify this and other issues during the public comment period. In conclusion, the Planning Department concurs with the decision of the Planning Commission to recommend the denial of the proposed modifications to the existing daycare center. This concurrence, however, is based solely on the issue of noise impacts that could be caused by additional children using the playground facilities. The Planning Department also notes that its recommendation for denial of the proposed project is not predicated by citizen-generated complaints concerning the operation of the existing daycare facility. The City Code Enforcement Officer has made numerous, unnoticed visits to the site to ensure that the daycare center is being operated in compliance with the requirements of Use Permit No. 94-28, and has noted no instances of noncompliance during these visits. LITTLE FRIENDS PRESCHOOL AND DAY CARE CENTER 465 LUCE AVE. UKIAH, CA 95482 (707) 463-2273 March 10, 1997 ECEIVED CITY OF UKIAH NAR 1 0 1997 City of Ukiah Collene Henderson, City Clerk 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah, Ca 95482 CITY CLERK DEPARTMENT RE: APPEALING RECENT DECISION ON USE PERMIT NO. 97-06 AND DISCIPLINARY ACTION TO BE TAKEN AGAINST JUDY PRUDEN. Dear Ms. Henderson: I am appealing the recent decision regarding my Use Permit Application No. 97-06 submitted by myself, Tod Brown. The heating on February 26, 1997 was represented incorrectly by the wording on the project summary. People and neighbors were confused on what I was requesting. On the day of the heating I had written up and had Dave Lohse give a copy of the following to the Planning Commissioners to try to restate what I was asking for. Here was the letter presented but did no good! ARGUMENTS SUBMITTED BY TORI BROWN FOR APPROVAL OF USE PERMIT #97-06 The project summary prepared by the City of Ukiah is confusing and inaccurate. The requests made by me are two separate issues. First is the play structure. I believe as I read my original use permit file # 94-28, I already included in my outside facility sketch the play ground area in question now- the 6,017 ft expansion. My original drawing showed a lawn area, which we used for ball games and other running activities. I pointed out to Carl Tuliback that I already had approval for this area and after reading the report he said ok, but you still need to modify your permit because you've change the way you play in the area now. I'm frustrated because at the time we were planning to put up the structure I called to see if I needed a building permit and I was told I didn't. Nothing was said about modifying the area. I put up the structure late in June of '96 and then after constant harassment from the neighbor Fackrell family, it wasn't until I called the city that someone said I needed to modify the permit. Second issue is to increase my outside capacity for playground use. Not increase my overall enrollment which neighbors are confused on and sent in letters. I ALREADY HAVE A PERMIT AND AM LICENSED FOR 48 CHILDREN! I am requesting that 24 children be allowed outside in the play areas and up to all the children present that day be allowed to be out for lunch (10:45am - 11:30am) and afternoon snack (2:45pm - 3:30pm) If I can't have more that 14 children out at one time and with an enrollment of 48, it will take all day from 9 to 5 for all groups to have a morning and afternoon recess. To me this would be more of a burden on the neighbors, than if we could allow more at one time verses fewer and all day long. I would be willing to compromise with 24 children outside and agree on a time schedule. During my heating these issues did not get addressed. The planning commission never got passed trying to stop me from getting an increase to 48 children that I am already licensed for. If you read the letters that came in from opposing neighbors they too thought they would stop an enrollment increase. I have contacted many of the surrounding neighbors directly affected by my project (plot map attached) and NOT ONE has every contacted me or Little Friends with a complaint about me not being a good neighbor. When asked if the noise was a problem they all replied "no" and when asked if increasing my outside capacity to 24 children at one time and up to 48 children outside for lunch and snack if that would be a problem for them only one thought the increased number might be a problem. By doing the following survey I feel I have completed one of my options according to my two choices: appealing, or going around to the neighbors and working out an agreement. I found no compromising on a time schedule necessary with any of the neighbors. Also regarding the petition sent around by the opposing neighbors, they were implying and communicating wrong information. One neighbor told me she was told there would be "150" children. Others thought 48 children all day long, and what ever area that was closest to their house, that is where they would all be playing! In addition to the above appeal I would also like to discuss what actions will be taken against Judy Pruden. The draft minutes did not accurately state what Judy Pruden said after the public heating was closed at 7:40pm. I will attempted to paraphrase what she said. The first words out of her mouth was that she was on the Planning Commission two years ago, and voted no for the project, and this is the reason why: Tori Brown is a liar, not good for her word, and should have her license revoked. Chadie Stump interrupted her to say I was never in violation and that would take written up violations to even try to revoke my permit. Judy preceded to say that 3 pages of petitions signed is proof that I was not good for my word. "The petition was 3 half pages by many duplicate household members, some were addresses that were not even in the immediate project area". To this date I have never had anyone complain about anything regarding the preschool and day care, with exception of the Fackrell Family. Judy Pruden should of never been on the heating for this matter. Her mind was made up before even hearing the issues, and she tried to taint the rest of the panel by stopping Joe Chiles from speaking first. Judy's comments were not only inappropriate but slanderous as well. As I explore my options on how best respond to Judy and the City of Ukiah, I would like to hear what actions the City will be taking against Ms. Pruden. A few suggestions would include a public apology to me in the Ukiah Daily Journal, removal from the Planning Commission, and removal of involvement from the Pumkinfest Parade. Enclosed is some information I thought might be helpful to you, as you review the tape and the minutes and other information on file at your offices. I look forward to hearing from your offices for my next hearing with the City Council and what actions you will take against Judy Pruden. Sincerely, Toff A. Brown Little Friends Preschool cc: Bob Sawyer cc: Candace Horsley i® ~C£ NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY TAKEN ON MARCII 5, 1997 NAME ADDRESS_ JJ.' ('~ ~-' '/('.C {if' it.." Has anyone at this address ev~5,}nade a complaint to Tori Brown or Little Friends Preschool? no /A. yes If yes, was it resolved satisfactorily? Are you home between the hours of 9:00am and 5:3 Opm? no _yes , hours ~(.~.~ NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY TAKEN ON MARCIt 5, 1997 ADDRESS Has anyone at this address ever.., made a complaint to Tori Brown or Little Friends Preschool? no ,¥'/, yes If yes, was it resolved satisfactorily? Are you home between the hours of 9:00am and 5:30pm? no yes , hours NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY TAKEN ON MARCI I 5, 1997 A~OPmSS/6~ ! Has anyone at this address ever made a complaint to Tori Brown or Little Friends Preschool? no ,~. yes If yes, was it resolved satisfactorily? Are you home between the hours of 9:00am and 5:30pm? no yes X , hours NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY TAKEN ON MARC11 5, 1997 ADDRESS Has anyone at this address ever made a complaint to Tori Brown or Little Friends Preschool? no ~ yes If yes, was it resolved satisfactorily? Are you home between the hours of 9:00am and 5:30pm? no yes ~ , hours NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY TAKEN ON MARCII 5, 1997 NAME ',...._jcl ADDRESS f- Has anyone at this address e'~,y,,made a complaint to Tod Brown or Little Friends Preschool? no /x.. yes / If yes, was it resolved satisfactorily? Are you home between the hours of 9:00am and 5:30pm? no yes ~ , hours Additional remarks: · NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY TAKEN ON MARCH 5, 1997 NAME ;..~,q ADDRESS Has anyone at this address ever made a complaint to Toff Brown or Little Friends no''X' yes Preschool? If yes, ~vas it resolved satisfactorily? Are you home between the hours of 9:00am and 5:30pm? no ~' yes .: hours ?.~ &.,c~'~trT(_;''. (, h J Cl.,~ ?t,~:~- i'-'C¥~ !xI '[~tc)~l,¢. NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY TAKEN ON MARCIt 5, 1997 ADDRESS /(,.~l,/ / /ty'"{.*' Has anyone at this address ever. made a complaint to Toff Brown or Little Friends Preschool? no X yes If yes, was it resolved satisfactorily? Are you home between the hours of 9:00am and 5:30pm? no yes ..~ , hours NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY TAKEN ON MARCH 5, 1997 Has anyone at this address e4'~r made a complaint to Tori Brown or Little Friends Preschool? no/vX, yes If yes, was it reSolved satisfactorily? Are you home between the hours of 9:00am and 5'30pm? no yes 2( , hours Rosalinda Martinez 1154 W. Standley Street Ukiah, CA 95482 (707) 462-5092 March 4, 1997 RE: LITTLE FRIENDS DAYCARE / PRE-SCHOOL To Whom It May Concern: I am a parent of a child who attends Little Friends' after school program. My son is eight years old whom I look to for information as to how he enjoys going to Little Friends. He has had only one complaint to date, and that is not being able to "play" on the new swing set / play area. To deny these children of playing and enjoying themselves is a shame and it's a situation they don't understand, nor should they have to. I am saddened at the fact that this situation has come to this and that there are such people in our community who would inadvertently punish the children for wanting to play! I personally think that the sounds of children laughing and playing is one of the most wonderful sounds to hear. I find Little Friends to be a blessing to both myself personally and to our community. I, an ex-licensed Day Care Provider, find that responsible, kind and loving childcare is not easy to come by. I have only experienced positive things with this facility whom I f'md to be great with the children and very professional and informative with parents. My most comforting proof is that my son feels safe and happy at Little Friends which means the world to me. Should you have any questions or would like any other information please contact me at the phone number stated overhead. I thank you in advance for the opportunity of hearing my opinions on this matter. SincerelT, /// 385 Pomo Drive Ukiah, Ca 95482 February 28, 1997 Tori Brown Little Friends Pre School & Day Care Dear Tori: Please accept this letter as my support for the continued operation of Little Friends Pre School & Day Care. When I originally moved to Ukiah in 1995, my first concern was experienced, professional child care for my two small children (18 months and 5 at the time). I preferred a day care.facility as opposed to a home day care. When I saw your ad in the Home Town Shopper I was thrilled. I visited your facilities and was impressed with your operation. I was looking for quality care where my children would be well cared for as well as a structured learning environment. Your child care center met my needs and continues to. I believe the renovations you have made to the facility are outstanding. The remodeling work to the interior and the new toys and play equipment are wonderful additions. Both of my children love coming to school and I feel secure knowing that they are well cared for. I feel the noise levels at the school are well within normal ranges given the scope of your business. I do not believe the noise levels are any greater than what are experienced during the normal day with the children walking to and from Yokayo Elementary School. I find it unbelievable that anyone would object to small children using outside play equipment. How self centered and selfish to deny small children the right to outdoor time simply because they happen to make noise. I have to ask the occupation of the folks who have lodged complaints. Do they work all night and sleep during the day? Only then would a complaint be legitimate. I believe your staff is well trained and qualified to care for the numbers of children currently enrolled at Little Friends. I believe Little Friends is a wonderful addition to a community which lacks adequate child care facilities. Ukiah has sufficient numbers of home care providers, but is sorely lacking in child care facilities. Your staff are kind and I believe they are truly concerned with my children's well being. My children enjoy participating in the many activities outside of the normal school day, your school takes part in. My children have participated both years in the Pumpkin Fest Parades. They enjoy the field trips and the arts and crafts, as well as the bible story time. As a Christian, it is important that my children attend a school which promotes morals and values similar to my own. This is another reason I chose to enroll my children in Little Friends. I appreciate all the hard work of yourself and your staff. Sincerely, 'Fo whmn it may concern, I am writing this letter in support of my daycare center Linle Friends on Lucc Ave. We have been using Little Friends for about eighteen months. It provides me with a safe, Christian, educational enviommcnt to leave my children when I am at work. It also provides jobs for 6-7 regular employees (jobs which are badly needed in our community.) My job requires that I work varying shifts- sometimes picking up the kids as early as 2p.m. and I have never noticed the noise level being abnormally loud. I live on a busy street and deal with the noise of fast cars, honking horns, sirens etc. on a daily basis. The sound of laughing, playing children doesn't Bother me. I believe that the days of living on a 'quiet shady lane' are gone, giving way to two income families, more daycare centers, honking horns, lots of playing children and generally faster paced lifestyles. More noise is the consequence of these times. Thank-you for letting me have my say. Sincerely, · uw, OD?' {,./¥\ Co.,'~"x c.x~k,'v'x Ct.{ 721 S. Dora Ukiah, Ca 95482 March 24, 1997 Ukiah City Council 300 Seminary Ave Ukiah, Ca. Dear Sir: RE: Use Permit 97-06 As a property owner directly adjacent to 465 Luce... the south boundry, I wou ld be severely affected by the increase of children from 14 to 48. This is over a three time increase over the present number. The peace and quiet of our residential neighborhood would be substantially changed. Perhaps some compromise could be reached. Either decrease the number of children or construct some sound proof fences along that immediate boundary. Hours should also be limited to 8:00 AM to 5'00 PM, Monday through Friday. Unfortunately, I have another meeting to attend, so I cannot present th~se comments in person. Please present this to all members of the Ukiah city council by giving copies of this letter to them. Thank you. MarleneWerra ECEIIVED C!TY OF UKIAH 2,4 lc)97 CITY CLERK DEPAitl-MENT To Whom It May Concern: I have had my son enrolled in Little Friends Preschool for appx. two years. This has been nothing more than a very positive experience for my child and I. I like to take my child to Little Friends because of the activitys, Positive learning experiences, and the wonderful staff. I feel that this is a very much needed facility in Ukiah. I had looked into many different schools before enrolling my child, and I felt that this one had the best program. My child has went from not even knowing his ABC's to being a very bright child. I owe all of this to Tori and her wonderful staff. He has also advanced alot in being socialable. This also has to do with the interaction that the staff provides for the children. I feel that it is very important that the children be able to have this interaction. I also feel that it is important that the children have time to play with each other in the playground. I have arrived many times when the children were outside playing and the noise level was very much under control. They do not allow the children to scream and be loud. Alot of the children are the same age group, and enjoy having time to play with their friends. I feel by not allowing the children to go out 24 at a time you would be doing unjustice to them. It would not be fair for Tori and the staff to only allow some of the children to play outside. If she is only allowed to take out 14 at a time there will not be enough time for all the children to have a chance to play. The equiptment was built for the enjoyment of the children, and I don't feel that it is right to take this away from the children. It is not like the children are out there playing at ten o'clock at night. This is only brief periods in the day. By allowing the children to play out there in two groups you are cutting the time down that there will be noise. Finally when making your decision about this matter I hope you think of what is best for the children, and the friendship~ that they developed with each other. Thankyou.~ S incere~y,~ -- Shannon Smith March 26, 1997 Ukiah City Council Civic Center 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah, CA 95482 RECEI¥E I,'IA~ ?-§ 1997 OT~ 01: UKI~tl 1~111#6 DEIq. Re: Appeal of Planning Commission's Denial of Use Permit Application No. 97-06, as submitted by Tori Brown (Little Friends Preschool) Dear Council Members, We are the "back-door" neighbors to the parcel of land owned by the Calvary Baptist Church. The back of our lot runs along a portion of the back of their property. We are directly behind the field that has the new playground structure. We would like to explain to you why we object to the use permit given to Tori Brown for the purpose of running a preschool, to the application that was denied, and to the changes to that application that come before you at this time in the form of an appeal. We feel that it is inappropriate to have a business of this nature in a residential area. The noise and traffic created by a preschool is a great inconvenience to the neighbors. We are particularly concerned with the noise. Even in the best of circumstances, children make noise. That must be expected. That is why the original use permit outlined certain limitations. Limitations on the size of the playground, the time it could be used, and the number of children to use it at a given time. But these are not the best of circumstances. Mrs. Brown has not complied with any of these limitations. She built a huge playground structure on an area that was not approved in the original use permit. This particular violation created much more noise for us because the structure is so close to our home. There have been occasions where there were children playing in the playground as early as 6:30 a.m. Because the church also has access to the playground, there is not a day of the week that we don't have noise. As the noise escalated, and we began to complain, we learned that the original use permit allowed only 14 children in the playground at one time. This has never been the case. On most days, the count was around 22, and on a few occasions, even as many as 29. You can't believe how much noise is created by this number of children. The noise makes it hard to concentrate and impossible to sleep. Only recently (after the planning commission meeting in February) has she complied with the permit and had only 14 children in the playground. We object to increasing that number. We have already experienced the noise level when 20-25 children are playing, and it is unbearable. It would certainly be unacceptable to have 48 children outside at any time of the day. We also object to increasing the size of the playground. In all directions, increasing the size would bring the noise closer to people's homes. Iq CITY OF PLANHittG DEPT. We are also very concerned by the changes made in this appeal. She is asking for up to 30 children in the playground all day and up to 48 children in the playground during lunch and "special" periods. Who is to determine what "special" is? Who would enforce it? The city code enforcement officer certainly does not have time to check on this business on a regular basis to see if it is in compliance. Mrs. Brown has not proven that she can govern herself, and any attempt by neighbors to intervene has been met with hostility and even name-calling. We strongly feel that the needs and concerns of the homeowners should outweigh the needs of a business that is renting space. When we bought our home, we looked forward to living in a nice, quiet neighborhood. That was the case until this preschool entered the picture. If this business is allowed to expand, it will continue to aggravate the homeowners in the area and create contention. We urge you to deny this appeal and allow the neighbors some peace and quiet. Sincerely, Wayne and Cinda Fackrell 474 Observatory Ave. Ukiah, CA 95482 Discussion followed regarding the next to the last sentence in Paragraph 8, Page 17, wherein it was determined that although Mr. Dolan "noted the Commission's actions to upzone Empire Gardens to an R-2 are not going to help the affordable housing, especially in areas that can easily be accessed by walking and handicap access," Mr. Dolan mispoke and the action was not actually taken by the Planning Commission. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Larson, Chiles, Puser, Correll, and Chairman Pruden. None. None. None. Chairman Pruden explained that beginning with this meeting, there would be an informational packet regarding agendized items available for use by the audience, to allow for a more complete understanding of the issues being discussed. This packet will be located, with additional copies of the agenda and "draft" minutes, in the plastic holders to the right of the Council Chamber's entrance, and is to remain for use in the Chamber only. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS No one came forward. 6. APPEAL PROCESS Chairman Pruden read the appeal process. For matters heard at this meeting, the final date for appeal is March 10, 1997. e PROJECT REVIEW Use Permit Application No. 97-06, as submitted by Tori Brown, to allow an expansion of an existing _playground at a preschool/daycare facility by 6,017 square feet and to allow the number of children permitted to use the playground to be increased from 14 to 48, on a parcel located in the R-'I (Single Family Residential) Zoning District, at 465 Luce Avenue (Assessor Parcel No. 003-061-04 & 22). Associate Planner Lohse provided an overview of the written staff report, including a synopsis of the history for Use Permit No. 94-28 for the Little Friends Preschool and Day Care Center, approved by the Planning Commission on October 26, 1994. The Conditions of Approval for this permit required the approval of a parking plan for school use, a maximum occupancy of 50 children and seven e~nployees, and a maximum of 14 children at one time using the playground between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Mondays through Fridays. The proposed Use Permit has been applied for to allow the center to use a second playground area that was installed in violation of the original Use Permit's conditions. This playground currently contains a playset and open areas, and the site plan submitted with the application indicates that a large lawn area surrounded by a bike path would be installed in the future. The applicant has also requested that Condition No. 4 of Use Permit No. 94-28 be modified to allow the minimum number of children that are permitted to use the playground to be increased from 14 to 30 children during regular school operations, and from 14 to 48 children during meals and special group activities. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 2 February 26, 1997 Mr. Lohse further advised that staff reviewed the project and determined that the proposed minor expansion of the playground facilities would be consistent with the use and development standards that could be applied to preschool/daycare uses in the R-1 Zoning District. Staff also reviewed other potential impacts examined in its analysis for the previously approved use permit and determined that potential impacts associated with traffic and parking would not be exacerbated by the approval of this project. Planning staff is, however, concerned with the potential for increased noise levels on the site, particularly those caused by children using the playground facilities. Although there is no evidence that the increased noise levels would cause persons injury or other health problems, it is the opinion of Planning staff that the anticipated noise increases from additional children using existing and proposed playground areas would cause substantial nuisance impacts for residents on adjoining parcels. It is possible that solid sound walls or other noise attenuation measures could be constructed by the applicant to mitigate these impacts, but it is likely that the required height and bulk of these structures would be inconsistent with development standards for the R-1 Zoning District. Therefore, the Planning Department recommends that the proposed playground expansion and allowance for additional children on playground areas be denied. Commissioner Larson commented regarding the accuracy of the traffic analysis performed for the project, clarified that the enrollment would be 48 children and 7 staff on the premises at any one time, and inquired if the possibility existed that the total enrollment of 50 could actually be 100 part- time children. Discussion followed wherein it was noted the current Use Permit states "50 children," and there is no increase projected. Theoretically there could be more than 50 children enrolled if some were part-time; Ms. Brown is licensed for 50 children. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 7:15 p.m. Wayne Fackrell, 474 Observatory Avenue, stated the playground was not on the original use permit, and that he was not opposed to day care facilities, but was opposed to having them in an R-1 residential neighborhood. He further stated that having 48 children in his back yard was unacceptable to him, and that he had previously counted 27 children on the playground at one time. The neighbors are in opposition to the increased noise level, and with the activities at the church, there is no peace and quiet at any time. He wants it stopped. Mike Heaney, 476 Observatory Avenue, stated he resided adjacent to the new playground area. There are never only 14 children on the playground, they are still there after 5:30 p.m., and create constant noise. The rules must be adhered to. Glen Donalson, 463 Luce Avenue, referenced his letter, and stated his preperty was next to and in front of the church property. He noted there is a lot of traffic during the noon hour and in the late afternoon, and reiterated the previous speakers' comments. The day care has gone as far as it should go in an R-1 neighborhood. Warren Sawyers, 1081 Helen Avenue, stated originally the real injustice of the situation was perpetrated by the Planning Commissioners; there is no buffer zone between people's private MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 3 February 26, 1997 property and the playground area. The noise factor is a major criteria, and the Planning Commission should never have approved the use permit to begin with. Although he does not disagree with the day care venture, he opposes the expansion because of the noise factor. Sue Nomura, 3800 North State Street, #94, stated she was a parent who utilized the day care center, and that usually her children are the last to be picked up. She has often found them waiting for her inside the building when she comes to get them at 5:00 p.m. Tom Brown, '1345 Laurel Avenue, representing his wife, applicant Tod Brown, stated that the day care is a non-profit organization. They are attempting to eliminate having 14 children on the playground on a rotating basis for the entire day, and instead allow all of the children outside at one time. Thus there will be minimal times when there is noise, rather than constant noise all day long. It was his understanding they had use of the lawn area previously; if an additional use permit is necessary, they will get it. They are not asking for more enrollment; the set volume is fine for them. They simply want to have all the Children out at one time, with peace and quiet in between. The Commissioners queried the applicant regarding the structure on the map by the lawn area, how they limit the number of children to 14 on the playground at one time, whether the expansion would mean a reduction in the number of hours children would be outside, and if the use permit limited enrollment to 50 children and 7 staff. Mr. Brown replied the structure in question is a piece of wooden playground equipment with slides and bars. The children are limited by their class structure, and staff has resolved the playground control issues that existed. He reiterated they are attempting to create a good, safe place for children, with all of them on the playground at the same time, similar to regular school recesses. He further stated that people are misunderstanding that they want to increase their enrollment from 14 to 48 children; they already have the 48 children and simply want to consolidate the time they are outside. The children are presently supervised under a rotating staff of 5 people, with 3 typically present at any one time. The Commissioners continued to query the applicant regarding playground schedules, the number of actual hours per day the children would be outside, other groups who use the facility, and the number of preschoolers at the center during normal school hours of 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Mr. Brown replied there was no set schedule yet planned for the increased number of children on the playground, but that they would be outside approximately 4 hours a day, including lunch, snack and play times. After 5:30 p.m., the church, which houses the facility, has their own activities. There are approximately 20 to 25 preschoolers in attendance during school hours, with 15 children returning to the facility after school. Pastor Dean Thornquist, representing Calvary Baptist Church, asked for clarification of the issue they were addressing. Mr. Lohse replied the Commission was addressing the expansion of the facilities, and whether the number of children that can use the playground at any one time can be increased. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 4 February 26, 1997 Pastor Thornquist stated the church owns property that protrudes toward Helen Avenue which they use for parking for approximately 100 vehicles and a traffic turnaround; much of the traffic does not come through the church area. On the plot plan the parking spaces numbered 21 to 32, between the buildings, are blocked with cones so the preschoolers can ride their bikes in that area. This will cut down considerably on the back noise. Commissioner Larson clarified that the game square painted on the driveway was used by the church. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:40 p.m. Chairman Pruden stated she was on the Planning Commission in 1994 when the original use permit was approved, and that the neighborhood voiced no objections at that time. Ms. Brown made a great many promises to the Planning Commission, one of them being that she would be a good neighbor and work out all problems with the neighborhood regarding the day care. Although there was no negative input two years ago, in the space of 28 months Ms. Brown has managed to alienate several blocks of neighbors. Chairman Pruden expressed her concern and stated she felt Ms. Brown had not kept her word to the Planning Commission that she gave 2 years ago, and is uncertain why. She takes the 4 pages of petition signatures from the neighbors seriously. Upon visiting the site recently at 7:45 a.m., she found the entire neighborhood awake from this activity; there were cars going, doors slamming, and dogs barking. This is not a quiet project, and that is why there are use permits. Use permits are conditional upon being a good neighbor. The promises given to staff and the Planning Commission at the time of the original use permit have not been honored. Commissioner Chiles stated the type of facilities Ms. Brown uses are usually limited to 12 children in a residential area, and he would not have approved the original use permit if he had been on the Commission at that time. He does not support the expansion, although he understands her need to have the children together at the lunch hour. What Chairman Pruden has said regarding the day care's impact on the neighborhood causes him to believe the situation should not become any worse. Commissioner Puser stated she sympathized with the applicant, but that it seems as if a significant number of the neighbors are impacted by the noise, and that the location of the day care center for that number of children appears to present a problem in this particular residential area. Commissioner Correll commented he thought the facilities were wonderful, but were in the wrong location in an R-1 zoning area. Commissioner Larson stated he tended to agree with Commissioner Chiles in that day care facilities in residential areas should be limited to a small number of children. However, it was not limited previously, and the Browns have invested a lot of time and money in this center that is not compatible with their neighbors. He recommended the Commissioners act to "deny without prejudice," which would allow the applicant to work out a solution that is acceptable to the neighborhood, instead of involving the City at this point. If they can find a way to impact the neighborhood less intensely with a specific plan for mitigations of the noise problem, the MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 5 February 26, 1997 Commission could reconsider this application. If the Commissioners act to deny the project, the only option open to the applicant is to appeal to the City Council. Chairman Pruden addressed the audience, stating that a use permit is conditional upon being a good neighbor. The people have made their feelings very clear that this project is a problem in their neighborhood, and it would behoove the applicant to resolve the problems. This petition is extensive and far-reaching. If the neighborhood continues to have problems, they have the legal right to come forward for a revocation hearing, which revokes the use permit and removes the ability to do this business in this location. That is one of the things that can occur when the use has demonstrated that it is not compatible to the neighborhood. Senior Planner Stump stated that revocation of the use permit would be predicated on a violation of said permit, and that to date staff has been unable to identify actual violations. Revocation would require detailed work and clear, documentable violation of the use permit. Chairman Pruden stated the neighborhood has made the intent clear that if they have to do that to solve the problem, they will. It was her hope that the applicant understands the seriousness of the neighbors' concerns. ON A MOTION by Commissioner Larson, seconded by Commissioner Pruden, it was carried by the following roll call vote, to deny without prejudice Use Permit Application No. 97-06, as submitted by Tori Brown, and that within a 6 month time frame the applicant can return, at no financial cost, with a potential solution before the Planning Commission. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Larson, Chiles, Puser, Correll, and Chairman Pruden. None. None. None. 7B. Ordinance Amendment Application No. 97-02, as submitted by Robert H. Lee and Associates, to allow the Airport Industrial Park Planned Development Ordinance (No. 979) to be amended by the deletion of language that excludes drive-thru restaurants from the list of allowed uses for properties designated as Highway Commercial, on property located at 1105 Airport Park Boulevard (Assessor Parcel No. 180-070-36. Associate Planner Lohse reviewed the written staff report, and advised that Tentative Minor Subdivision Map No. 97-04 had been approved by the City Engineer; however, the parcel map has not been received and as of this date the site still remains as one parcel. Discussion followed regarding C-2 zoning, and the assumption that a sit-down and a drive-thru restaurant would have the same traffic numbers and thus the same impact fees. Staff noted that a drive-thru restaurant would generate more traffic, but that the fee structures for the capital improvement program for the Airport Industrial Park had not been established because the fee had not been determined by the City Council. In buildout of the Park, a drive-thru restaurant would not erode the levels of service at the intersection any more than a sit-down restaurant. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 6 February 26, 1997 CITY OF UKIAH PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: February 26, 1997 TO: City of Ukiah Planning Commission FROM: City of Ukiah Planning Department SUBJECT: Use Permit (#97-06) APPLICANT: Tori Brown (for Little Friends Preschool & Day Care Center) PROJECT SUMMARY: The approval of the proposed Use Permit would allow a 6,017 square foot expansion of the area of a playground at an existing preschool/daycare center and the expansion of the number of children permitted to use the playground area to a maximum of 48 children. The discretionary action associated with this project is quasi-judicial in nature; therefore each decision-maker must physically and personally visit the site prior to participating in the vote to approve, disapprove, or modify the proposed project. LOCATION: The proposed site is located at 465 Luce Avenue, on the south side of Luce Avenue, approximately 250 feet east of Helen Avenue (Assessor Parcel No. 003- 061-04 & 22). DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department recommends DENIAL of Use Permit No. 96-06 on the grounds that the proposed expansion of the existing preschool/daycare center creates a substantial increase in the levels of nuisance impacts to adjoining properties. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: The existing preschool/daycare center operation on the site was allowed by the Planning Commission approval of Use Permit No. 94-28 in 1994 after the adoption of a Negative Declaration that determined that no significant adverse environmental impacts would be created by the project. The City of Ukiah as Lead Agency has determined that this project constitutes a minor expansion of this previously approved use and that the proposed physical expansion and modification of conditions will generate no significant environmental effects that were not analyzed in the Initial Study prepared for the Negative Declaration previously adopted. The City has further determined that this document is applicable to this project with no revisions and it is hereby adopted by reference. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: LDR (Low Density Residential) ZONING DISTRICT: R-1 (Single Family Residential) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project site currently contains two buildings used by a church that is located on the site as a legal, nonconforming use. The smaller of these buildings is jointly used by a preschool/daycare center (Little Friends) that was permitted to operate on the site by Planning Commission approval of Use Permit #94-28 on October 26, 1994. The Conditions of Approval (attached) for this permit required the approval of a parking plan for school use, a maximum occupancy of 50 children and seven employees, and a maximum of fourteen children using the playground, which may only be used by the preschool/daycare center between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. on Mondays through Friday. The site consists of two parcels with a total area of approximately 1.15 acres, and has been developed with two structures, including a 6,000 square foot building housing the sanctuary and support rooms, and a 2,610 square foot "education building". The latter structure is used by the church on Sundays and nighttimes for religious studies and other classes, and on weekdays by the preschool/daycare center. Surrounding areas between the structures and on the east, west and north sides of the sanctuary building are paved and used for access and parking. The areas to the east and west of the education building are used for lawns, but the area directly south of this structure has been fenced and is in use as a playground area used by both the church and the preschool/daycare center. This playground is 66.5 feet wide and 75 feet long (4,987.5 square feet), and extends from the southern entrance of the building to the southern property line of the site. Fencing consists of chain link fencing on the eastern and southern sides and a six-foot high wood fence on the southern property line. The proposed Use Permit has been applied for to allow the preschool/daycare center to use a second playground area that was installed in violation of the original Use Permit's conditions. This expanded area extends from the west side of the existing playground, along the southern property line to the eastern property line. It is 63 feet wide by 95.5 feet long, or 6,016.5 square feet in area. This playground currently contains a playset and open areas, and the site plan submitted with the application indicates that a large lawn area surrounded by a bike path would be installed in the future. The applicant has also requested that Condition No. 4 of Use Permit No. 94-28 be modified to allow the minimum number of children that are permitted to use the playground to be increased from fourteen to thirty children during regular school operations, and from fourteen to forty-eight children during meals and special group activities. STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff reviewed the proposed project and determined that the proposed minor expansion of the playground facilities would be consistent with the use and development standards that could be applied to preschool/daycare uses in the R-1 Zoning District, including building heights, setbacks and yard areas and parking. Planning Department staff also reviewed other potential impacts examined in its analysis for the previously approved use permit and determined that potential impacts associated with traffic and parking would not be exacerbated by the approval of this project. Planning staff is, however, concerned with the potential for increased noise levels on the site, particularly those caused by children using the playground facilities. Approval of this application would not only permit a substantial increase in the number of children using the playground, but it would substantially increase the area used by these children. It is anticipated that these changes in the existing facilities could double or triple the occurrences of incidental noise from children using the playground area, and that the increased group size would also increase ambient noise levels. In addition to increasing the number of ambient and incidental noise sources, the expansion of facilities would increase the exposure of residents on adjacent single family properties to these noise levels. There is no evidence that the increased noise levels would expose persons to severe noise levels that would cause injury or other health problems. It is, however, the opinion of Planning staff that the anticipated noise increases from additional children using existing and proposed playground areas would cause substantial nuisance impacts for residents on adjoining parcels. It is possible that solid sound walls or other noise attenuation measures could be constructed by the applicant to mitigate these impacts, but it is likely that the height and bulk that these structures would require would be inconsistent with development standards for the R-1 Zoning District. Therefore, the Planning Department does recommend that the proposed playground expansion and allowance for additional children on playground areas be denied. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed playground expansion and increased number of children permitted to use these playground areas would constitute a substantial nuisance impact due to the increase in ambient and incidental noise caused by larger groups of children using the playgrounds. FINDINGS: The Planning Department's recommendation for denial of this project is based, in part, on the following finding: . The expansion of the proposed playground areas and the numbers of children permitted to use these areas will be detrimental to the peace and comfort of persons working or residing in the neighborhood due to the increased ambient and incidental noise impacts that would be caused by the larger groups of children and the additional residential units that would be exposed more directly to these noise sources by the expansion of the playground. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Site Plan 3. Facility Sketch (Floor Plan) 4. Negative Declaration/Initial Study No. 94-28 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: The following personnel prepared and reviewed this Planning Report, respectively: Dave Lohse, Associate Planner Bob Sawyer, Planning Director 2:PRCMIN\COMMENT LOCATION MAP USE PERMIT NO. 97-06: Tori Brown 465 Luce Avenue {Assessor Parcel Nos. 003-061-04 & 22) ¥OKA¥O scHOOL NOKOMIS I I I I I I I 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 FT. SCALE: 1 inch = 500 feet N , .. FACILITY SKETCH (Floor Plan) DI:PARTId~NT OF $OCLAL SERV~Lr$ ¢O, JdJ~N,~ITY CAF~ LICE N.S~NG Applicants are required to provide a sketch of the floor plan of the home or lacility and outside yard· The Floor Sketch musl label rooms such as the kitchen, bath, living room, etc. Circle the names of the rooms thai will be used by clients/children. Door and wlndow exils from the rooms musl be shown in case of an emergency (see Emergency Disasler Plan). Show room sizes (e.g. 8.5 x 12). Keep close to scale. Use the space below. See back for yard Sketch. : · i . : · .! , : : !'"5 ~ : ARGUMENTS SUBMITTED BY TORI BROWN FOR APPROVAL OF USE PERMIT #97-06 The project summary prepared by the City of Ukiah is confusing and inaccurate. The requests made by me are two separate issues. First is the play structure. I believe as I read my original use permit file # 94-28, I already included in my outside facility sketch the play ground area in question now- the 6,017 ft expansion. My original drawing showed a lawn area, which we used for ball games and other running activities. I pointed out to Carl Tuliback that I already had approval for this area and after reading the report he said ok, but you still need to modify your permit because you've change the way you play in the area now. I'm frustrated because at the time we were planning to put up the structure I called to see ifI needed a building permit and I was told I didn't. Nothing was said about modifying the area. I put up the structure late in June of'96 and then after constant harassment for the neighbor Fackrell family, it wasn't until I called the city that someone said I needed to modify the permit. Second issue is to increase my outside capacity for plaveround use. Not increase my overall enrollment which neighbors are confused on and sent in letters. I ALREADY HAVE A PERMIT AND AM LICENSED FOR 48 CHILDREN! I am requesting that 24 children be allowed outside in the play areas and up to all the children present that day be allowed to be out for lunch (10:45am - 1 l:30am) and afternoon snack (2:45pm - 3:30pm) If I can't have more that 14 children out at one time and with an enrollment of 48, it will take all day from 9 to 5 for all groups to have a morning and afternoon recess. To me this would be more of a burden on the neighbors, than if we could allow more at one time verses fewer and all day long. I would be willing to compromise with 24 children outside and agree on a time schedule. CITY OF UKIAH PLANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: ii 7 A DATE: ~to~r 26, 1994 u DATE: September 21, 1994 TO: City of Ukiah Planning Commission FROM: City of Ukiah Planning Department SUBJECT: Use Permit (#94-28) APPLICANT: Tori Brown PROJECT SUMMARY: Approval of the proposed Use Permit would allow a preschool for up to fifty (50) students and seven (7) instructors to be located in a portion of an existing church complex in the R-l, Single Family Residential District. LOCATION. The proposed project site is located at 465 Luce Avenue, on the southerly side of Luce, approximately 300 feet east of its intersection with Helen Avenue (Assessor Parcel No. 003-061-04 & 22). DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department recommends APPROVAL of Use Permit # 94-28 on the grounds that the proposed day care use is allowed with the securement of a use permit in the R-l, Single Family Residential District; that the existing structures comply with the Zoning Code's development standards that can be applied to nonresidential uses in the R-1 Zone (e.g. building heights, setbacks,etc.); and that the proposed use is similar in nature to its intended use (bible school); and that the proposed daycare center will provide a service to the community without additional development on the site or in the neighborhood. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: The City of Ukiah as Lead Agency for this project has completed an Initial Study, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and determined that no significant adverse environmental effects that cann(:;t be mitigated are associated with the proposal. Accordingly, a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for the project has been prepared. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Low Density Residential ZONING DISTRICT: R-l, Single Family Residential PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed use permit would allow a preschool for fifty (50) children and seven (7) employees on Mondays through Fridays only, between the hours of 6:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. The preschool would be located within an existing church facility, in a building that is currently utilized for Sunday school classes and bible studies. No additional development has been requested as part of this project. The project site is a relatively flat parcel that contains the existing church facility, including a "sanctuary" structure with support rooms (approximately 6000 square feet) near the center of the site, and the 'education building' proposed by the applicant for the preschool use. The site also contains extensive parking areas striped for 53 parking spaces located near the perimeters of the site. There are lawn areas on the .southerly portion of the site, and landscaped trees and bushes along the perimeters of the property, primarily between the parking areas and a six-foot high wooden fences that runs along the property lines of adjacent residential properties. Access to the project site is from a 116 foot long driveway that is located within a 60 foot wide portion of the property that connects the northern portion of the property with Luce Avenue. The building to be used for the proposed preschool is approximately 2160 square feet in area, and contains three classrooms, two bathrooms, an office, and another smaller support room. There is a fenced playground area located between the building and the property line to the south of the structure. Surrounding uses consist primarily of single family residences in R-1 zoning on all sides of the project site, with a 0.6 acre vacant parcel along the western property line. This parcel is under the same ownership as the church, but has not been included as part of this application since it will not be utilized in any capacity by the preschool. STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff reviewed the project for compliance with the development standards that could be applied to a nonresidential use in the R-1 Zone in an effort to identify potential conflicts with surrounding residential uses. This review indicated that the parcel has been developed in compliance with the R-1 standards for building height, front setback lines, and yards required. Other relevant issues of concern and staff's analysis of these issues are discussed below: Noise The project site is surrounded by single family residences that may be affected by increases in the levels of ambient and incidental noise that are common to preschool uses. The highest level of noise anticipated would probably come from the playground area located on the southern side of the proposed preschool building, and directly adjacent to the rear yards of neighboring residences. It is anticipated that the introduction of children into this a.rea throughout the day may generate a minor nuisance factor for the nearest neighbors, and staff recommends that this play area be limited to groups of five to ten children at a time to limit noise, and that the playground use be restricted to preschool use during hours when the majority of adjacent neighbors will be at work. Parkinq Zoning Code Section 9198(D)(5) requires that a church use provide parking spaces equal in number to 33 percent of the capacity in persons including related office space and classrooms plus a minimum of three (3) parking spaces for buses. Based-on this requirement, staff calculates that the church should have a minimum of 60 parking spaces _ s MY CHILD(KEN) ATTENDS LITTLE FRIENDS PRESCHOOL AND IT'S BEEN VERY UNFAIR TO THE CHILDREN AND THEIR PARENTS WHO RAISED MONEY FROM CANDY BAR SELLS IN ADDITION TO THE CHURCH PAYING FOR HALF OF THE STRUCTURE FOR LITTLE FRIENDS NOT TO BE ABLE TO USE THIS STRUCTURE. LITTLE FRIENDS PROVIDES A MUCH NEEDED SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY BY OFFERING CHILD CARE AT AFFORDABLE PRICES FOR CHILDREN BETWEEN THE AGES OF 2 - 12. THIS WIDE AGE RANGE BENEFITS THE WORKING PARENTS WHO HAVE PRESCHOOL CHILDREN AS WELL AS SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN. LITTLE FRIENDS ALSO PROVIDES JOBS IN THE COMMUNITY. I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW MY SUPPORT FOR ALLOWING BACK THE PLAY STRUCTURE AND INCREASING THE OUTSIDE CAPACITY FOR AT LEAST 24 CHII.DKEN. CHILD'S NAME & AGE ENROLLMENT DATE PA ~I~NT'S SIGNATURI~ MY CHILD(REN) ATTENDS LITTLE FRIENDS PRESCHOOL AND IT'S BEEN VERY UNFAIR TO THE CHILDREN AND THEIR PARENTS WHO RAISED MONEY FROM CANDY BAR SELLS IN ADDITION TO THE CHURCH PAYING FOR HALF OF THE STRUCTURE FOR LITTLE FRIENDS NOT TO BE ABLE TO USE TI-IlS STRUCTURE. LITTLE FRIENDS PROVIDES A MUCH NEEDED SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY BY OFFERING CHILD CARE AT AFFORDABLE PRICES FOR CHILDREN BETWEEN THE AGES OF 2 - 12. THIS WIDE AGE RANGE BENEFITS THE WORKING PARENTS WHO HAVE PRESCHOOL CHTLDREN AS WELL AS SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN. LITTLE FRIENDS ALSO PROVIDES JOBS IN THE COMMUNITY. I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW MY SUPPORT FOR ALLOWING BACK THE PLAY STRUCTURE AND INCREASING THE OUTSIDE CAPACITY FOR AT LEAST 24 CHILDREN. CHILD'S NAME & AGE ENROLLMENT DATE PARENT'S SIGNATURE ECE VEE CITY' OF UKIAH APR 0 2 1997 CITY CLERK OErAN i fViEt~ i Glen Donalson 463 Luee Ave. Ukiah, Ca. 95482 April 2, 1997 Ukiah City Council. 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah, Ca. 95482 Gentlemen: Re: Appeal of Use Permit Application No, 97-06. No reasor~ have been offered for allowing more than 14 children outside at one time. They would have more access to playground equipment if they were in small ~roups. Last week about 16 supervised children were playing at a"game circle" 30' beyond my back fence. It was about 6:00 - 7:00 P.M. on Wednesday. I had to close the sliding door, windows and drapes so we could read, talk, and watch T.V. without being disturbed. These were not "Little Friends" children, but were within their age range. Sixteen children can certainly make a lot of noise with their voices. This is the 3rd attempt within 2½ years to increase the number of children playing outside. Nothing has changed physically except the addi- tion of unauthorized equipment. When does "no" mean "no"? Yours Truly, Glen Donalson We the undersigned, neighbors of Calvary Baptist Church, do request DENIAL of the apoeal of Planning Commission's denial of Use Permit Application No. 97-06 on the basis that additional children using the playground at one time would result in too much noise in the area. SIGNATURE NANE P EI lglIED ADDRESS RECEIVED APR 0 2 1997 ITEM NO.8c DATE: April 2, 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 2) 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. 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 3. Several environmental documents and traffic reports have been prepared to 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. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Not adopt the resolution establishing capital improvement fees and return to staff for development of alternative measures. Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Acct. No.: Appropriation Requested: N/A (if budgeted) Citizen Advised: N/A /1// Requested by: Rick Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer. Prepared by: Rick Seanor, Deputy Director of Public Works Coordinated with' Candace Horsley, City Manager Rick Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Attachments: 1. Resolution for adoption 2. Revised Engineering Report 3. Excerpt from Municipal Code 4. W-Trans Airport/Redwood Business Park - Traffic Analysis, March 19, 1997 5. W-Trans letted March 25, 1997 APPROVED: ,~ 1-~,~.'~\ ~ Ca"~dace Horsiey, Ci'~y ~anager RJS:AGCFEE7.SUM Page 2 Adoption of Resolution Establishing Capital Development Within the Airport Industrial Park April 2, 1997 Improvement Fees to Be Imposed on 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 2. 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 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 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 CIF 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 March 19, 1997 (Attachment 4) 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. This data is shown in Table 4, page 11, of Attachment 4. Page 3 Adoption of Resolution Establishing Capital Development Within the Airport Industrial Park April 2, 1997 Improvement Fees to Be Imposed on 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 March 19, 1997 (Attachment 4). In addition, W-Trans responded directly to questions raised in its letter dated March 25, 1997 (Attachment 5). As identified in the W-Trans Traffic Analysis dated March 19, 1997 (Attachment 4), 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 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 for the CIF 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 CIF report identifies improvement fees per acre based on the land use and corresponding traffic generation indicated in the W-Trans, Airport/Redwood Business Park - Traffic Analysis dated March 19, 1997. The fees per acre of developable land based on proposed land use are as follows: Restaurant $13,294.99; Office/Retail $7,797.74; Retail $11,494.26; Industrial $3,780.59; Auto Dealership $8,012.77; and Auto Parts/Auto Care $12,197.75. The fees identified in this CIF 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 has entered into a prior agreement with the City and therefore is the only existing development which will be assessed the fees indicated in this CIF report. Attachment "L" of the CIF 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. Page 4 Adoption of Resolution Establishing Capital Development Within the Airport Industrial Park April 2, 1997 Improvement Fees to Be Imposed on In preparing the CIF report, staff utilized projected traffic volumes from the W-Trans, Airport/Redwood Business Park - Traffic Analysis dated March 19, 1997. Traffic volumes for the PM Peak Hour for each of the six land uses were divided by the total PM Peak Hour traffic volume to obtain a percentage of the total traffic volume per land use. This percentage was then multiplied by the total improvement cost to obtain the required improvement cost per land use. Please refer to Attachment "1" of the CIF report for a comparison of the required capital improvement fees per land use. Please refer to Attachment "L" of the CIF report for a listing of the capital improvement fees to be assessed to each parcel within the Airport Industrial Park. Staff recommends that the AlP developments fund the entire offsite capital improvements at the three locations identified in the CIF report. Since the three locations identified for improvements all operated with satisfactory levels of service under existing traffic prior to development of the AlP, staff does not recommend that existing development be required to pay for the improvements. In addition, the improvements presented in the CIF report will not restore the levels of service at the three locations to the levels enjoyed prior to the addition of project traffic from the AlP. Please refer to Attachment "B" of the CIF report for a comparison of the levels of service. Also please note page 16 of Attachment 4 which indicate the levels of service after construction of the proposed improvements Public notice for the CIF report and resolution was printed in the Ukiah Daily Journal on March 23 and 30, 1997. In addition, staff mailed copies of the public notice and the Report to all AlP property owners on March 20, 1997. SUMMARY With the adoption of the attached resolution, 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. The three locations discussed in the CIF report would most likely see an increased level of driver frustration resulting in a greater vehicle accident rate. 2' 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 18 19 ~.? RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF TIIE CITY COUNCIl., OF TIIE CITY OF UKIAII ESTABLISIIING TilE 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 (ALP); and WIIEREAS, 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 March 19, 1997, and is attached herein 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, the City Council finds as follows: a. The purpose of these fees is to finance off-site capital improvements as 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 1 2 3 4 $ 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 18 19 20 ~4 b. Ce d, eo f. 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 herein. After considering the Report and the testimony received at the public hearing, 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 development will not exceed the total of these costs. 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 by the City Council of the City of Ukiah 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" Code Section 9543. except as otherwise specifically provided in Ukiah City 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 except as otherwise specifically provided in Ukiah City Code Section 9543. 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: Restaurant $13,294.99; Office/Retail $7,797.74; Retail $11,494.26; Industrial $3,780.59; Auto Dealership $8,012.77; and Auto Parts/~uto Care $12,197.75. . 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 reilnburse other developers who have constructed public T T Pr H E IU T 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 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. 4. 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. 5. Judicial action to Challenge this Resolution. Any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul this resolution shall be brought within 120 days from the date this resolution is adopted. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1997, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Sheridan Malone Mayor ATTEST: Colleen Henderson City Clerk \RI/St ;KK IM PFEE.S.AIP P ¢E .4 REVISED ENGINEERING REPORT FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FEES March 19, 1997 Executive Summary 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. The fees are required to provide necessary off-site capital improvements resulting exclusively from the development of the Airport Industrial Park (^IP) as shown within the boundary on Attachment "A." The fees will be assessed to those properties within the AlP 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/VVashington Avenue/Hastings Avenue. As each parcel within the AlP is developed, fees will be assessed and collected at the time the building permits are applied for. Since each parcel developed within the AlP will generate additional traffic, the City will see a corresponding impact in traffic conditions at the three intersections identified in this report for improvement. At this time, City staff does not propose that fees be collected for the construction of off- site improvements to the US 101 Northbound exit ramp to Talmage Road and the US 101 Southbound exit ramp to Talmage Road. City staff does not believe work on these ramps will be warranted within the projected 5-year build out of the AlP. If warranted City staff will propose an assessment district to obtain funds necessary to construct improvements to the ramps. 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). Staff has, however, included improvements to Talmage Road in the vicinity of the southbound US 101 exit ramp. 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 Southbound off ramp for US Highway 101 at Talmage Road until a traffic signal is constructed. Ms. Evans indicates that standard practice for traffic signal construction involves meeting signal warrants. Ms. Evans also stated that selection of a traffic signal for an intersection should also be based on the net overall impact of the signal to the intersection. Traffic signals may, in fact, increase the overall delay at an intersection as well as certain types of accidents. Page 2 Revised Engineering Report for the Establishment of Airport Industrial Park Capital Improvement Fees March 19, 1997 The Capital Improvement Fees to be charged development within the AlP have been calculated based on the addition of project traffic only. Level of Service Evaluation Table 5 of the W-Trans Airport/Redwood Business Park, Traffic Analysis dated March' 19, 1997, page 14, Attachment "B," specifies the Level's of Service (LOS) for the intersections affected by project traffic. With existing traffic volumes, the intersection ~' South State Street and Talmage Road operates at an LOS of C. With the addition of project traffic, this intersection is projected to operate at LOS D. Although the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) recommends mitigations for the South State Street/Talmage Road intersection, the City has subsequently adopted its Revised General Plan which accepts LOS D (as a minimum) for intersections. With existing traffic volumes, the intersection of Talmage Road and Airport Park Boulevard operates at LOS of B. With the addition of project traffic, this intersection is projected to operate at LOS F with the northbound left turn lane operating at LOS F and the westbound left turn lane operating at LOS F. With existing traffic volumes, the intersection of South State Street and Washington Avenue/Hastings Avenue operates at an LOS of B. With the addition of project traffic, this intersection is projected to operate at LOS F with the westbound and eastbound approaches operating at LOS F. Although the US 101 southbound exit ramp at Talmage Road currently operates (with existing traffic) at a LOS B for right turn movements, the southbound right turn lane from this ramp is projected to operate at a LOS D with the addition of project traffic. As such, the City is proposing the widening of Talmage Road on the northbound side to allow a "free" right turn from this ramp as recommended in the mitigations found on page 15 of the W-Trans Airport/Redwood Business Park, Traffic Analysis dated March 19, 1997. 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. The City did not experience a reduction in service levels at the two intersections prior to Page 3 Revised Engineering Report for the Establishment of Airport Industrial Park Capital Improvement Fees March 19, 1997 initial development of the AlP and all improvements recommended in this report will only benefit the AlP traffic. For this reason City staff has recommended that the developers of the AlP shall be the sole contributors of funds needed to improve the three identified intersections. The AlP developments generate the traffic which causes the impacts identified in the SEIR to the City's existing intersections. City staff does not propose to require the developers to pay for improvements resulting from cumulative traffic impacts. 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 compared 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 $730,436. 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 March 1'9, 1997 identifies mitigations beginning on page 15 for the impacted intersections. Staff has determined that at present the identified mitigations for the US 101 northbound exit ramp/Talmage Road and the traffic signal with the second left turn lane for the US 101 southbound exit ramp at Talmage Road as mentioned in the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report will not need to be constructed within the next five years. The three locations requiring improvements are: Talmage Road/US 101 Southbound Exit Ramp. Improvements at this location will involve the widening of Talmage Road on the north side for a length of 320 feet west of the intersection of Talmage Road/US 101 Southbound Exit Ramp. This improvement will enhance traffic flows by allowing a free right turn from the exit ramp onto Talmage Road. In addition this proposed work will address safety issues related to sight distance for vehicles turning west from the ramp onto Talmage Road. Please refer to Attachment "C" for the proposed layout of the intersection. This will mitigate the Page 4 Revised Engineering Report for the Establishment of Airport Industrial Park Capital Improvement Fees March 19, 1997 projected LOS D (with project traffic) for the right turn movement at this intersection. Talmage Road/Airport Park Boulevard This intersection will be modified to provide two westbound left turn lanes. The northbound lanes will be restriped to allow three separate lanes: a single left turn, a combined through-left turn lane, and a right turn. Please refer to Attachment "E" for the proposed layout of the intersection. South State StreetNVashington Avenue/Hastings Avenue. Improvements to this '" intersection would require the construction of a separate left turn lane, a separate through lane and a combined through-right turn lane on the northbound approaches on South State Street. A separate right turn only lane, a separate through lane, and a separate left turn lane will be constructed on the Hastings Avenue westbound approach. Construction of the right turn lane would require land and structure acquisition and demolition of a structure located at the northeast corner of this intersection. The curb return at the southeast corner will be reconstructed to allow for truck turning movements. The Washington Avenue approach would be restriped to allow for a combined through-right turn lane and a separate left turn lane. Please refer to Attachment "G" for the proposed layout of the intersection. 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 $382,135 $122,283 $ 76,427 $580,845 Calculated amount needed for construction in the year 2002 An average annual inflation rate of 4% for 5 years will be utilized to account for the unknown 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. Page 5 Revised Engineering Report for the Establishment of Airport Industrial Park Capital Improvement Fees March 19, 1997 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 $ 10,000 Add $ 10,000 Add $ 3,750 Total Fee $ 730,436 (Traffic Studies, Oct. 1996 to Mar. 1997) ($2,000 per year traffic volume counts & intersection LOS analysis) (annual administration fee) Application of Fee These capital improvement fees shall be applied to all development within the AlP excluding the existing Walmart, the US Geological Survey (lot id #19), the Redwood Coast Regional Center (lot id #8), the Talmage Professional Center (lot id #2), the Talmage Office Park (lot id #3), and North Cai Wood Products (lot id ~,). The Talmage Professional Center, the Talmage Office Park, and North Cai Wood Products have been previously developed and do not contribute to project traffic. The US Geological Survey and the Redwood Coast Regional Center were developed prior to the traffic counts which were taken for the revised traffic study and are already included in existing traffic volumes and will not add to project traffic volumes. The total cost of the capital improvements will be distributed according to six land uses in the AlP. Please refer to Attachment "1" for the percent distribution based on land use. This distribution is based on data from Tables 4 and 6 of the W-Trans, Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis dated March 19, 1997, pages 11 and 16, Attachment "J" and Attachment "K", respectively. The fee totals per land use from Attachment "1" were divided by the total acreage for each land use to obtain a fee per acre for the respective land use. On Attachment "L" the parcel's within the AlP have been identified with their respective fees. The fees have been calculated based on "developable" acreage. This is defined as that land which can be developed and utilized by prospective land owners including any proposed roadways other than Airport Park Boulevard and Commerce Drive from Page 6 Revised Engineering Report for the Establishment of Airport Industrial Park Capital Improvement Fees March 19, 1997 Airport Road to its terminus at US Highway 101. Attachment "L" lists "developable" land acreage by Assessor's Parcel Number for each of the properties within the AlP. The acreages identified are those which can be developed. The Environmental Impact Reports for the AlP indicate some "wetland" and "riparian" areas. For the purposes of this report, staff has assumed that there is a total of 3.0 acres of wet meadow/riparian habitat, a total of 1.05 acres of pond area, and a total of 1.38 acres for the extension of Airport Park Boulevard as currently approved and under construction within a portion'(~{" lot number 30 identified on Attachment "A." The acreage of lot number 30 for purposes of this report is 19.62 acres minus (3.0 acres + 1.05 acres + 1.38 acres) = 14.19 acres. In order to determine the traffic generation of the Airport Business Park and Norgard area of the AlP staff made the following calculations. ABP (28.62 acres) plus Norgard property (7 acres) equals 35.62 acres. The total buildable area equals 35.62 acres minus (9.0 acres [Brewery site] plus 3.0 acres [wet meadow/riparian] plus 1.05 acres [pond area] plus 1.38 acres [Blvd. extension])equals 21.19 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. Since the Brewery is already constructed, add its building footprint (68,269 square feet) to 276,911 square feet to obtain 345,180 square feet or 345.18 ksf. For purposes of traffic generation for this industrial property, 345.2 ksf was used. Summary As identified on pages three and four of this report, the capital improvements recommended for construction will only mitigate the traffic impacts created by the addition of project related traffic. The proposed improvements at each of the three locations do not restore the LOS to the existing LOS prior to construction of the AlP. Therefore, the existing traffic (not project traffic) will not see a return to the LOS at the respective locations prior to project construction at the AlP. ATTACHMENT "B" Table S Summary of Intersection Operations (W~kday P.M. Peak I-loutI Intersection Existing Existing plus Delay LOS Delay LOS 1, South State Str~eVTahnage Road :Z~.5' C ~ 12 Northbound Through/Right 17.7 C 18.9 C Southbound. Leflflltrough 25.5 D 36.9 D Westbound Left 26,7 D 26.7 D Westbound Right 16,3 C 20,2 C 2. South State Street/Hastings Avenue 8.9 13 **~* F Northbound Left 18.0 C 18.0 C Northbound Through/Right 7.9 B 9.4 B Southbound Left 17.9 C 20.5 C Southbound Through/Right 6.6 B 6.4 B Eastbound Approach 15.0 B *** F Wes tbound Approach 15.4 C ***. F 3. Airport Park Boulevard/Taimage Road 12.5 15 98.0 F Northbound Left 21.8 C 106.2 F Northbound Through/Right 15.4 C 31.9 D Southbound Left 24.3 C 24.3 C Southbound ThrouglvtRight 18.0 C 18.3 C Eastbound Left 23.7 . C 23.7 C Eastbound Through/Right 10.9 B 11.5 B Westbound Left 24.8 C *** F Westbound Through/Right 7.2 B 7.1 B 4. U.S. 101 SB-Ramps/Tnlmage Road 3.1 A ~ 15 Southbound Right 9.5 B 25.$ D s I I Ill Notes: Delay = average d~lay per vehicle in neconds LOS = level of service xxx = overall intersection level ofsawic~ *** = delay exceeds reasonable pnxameters for methodology iii Ill II I Airport/Redwood Buslness Park Traffic Analysis Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. Page 14 ~[ty of Uldah M~ch 19, 1997 . V .... ' ATTACHMENT "C" t' I' -:~ .... · .. /, , ' APPROX. S~£: 1'-40' ~' / ~ / ~ 'W / I~1 T~GE ROAD ..... ~:~:~~~ ...... / .~ . DESCRIPTION m , SHE~ NO. c~ oF UK~AH INTERSECTION P-4 iMPROVEMENTS ' DATE ~~ 4/12/96 R~ISIONS ,,, ATTACHMENT "D" CITY OF UKIAH I 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: 3/19/97 14:51 Item Estimated Unit of ,, No. Item Quantity Measure Unit Price Total Price 1 Clearing & Grubbing 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 2 Sawcut AC 400 LF $2.00 $800.00 3 Roadway Excavation 1,50 CY $25.00 $3,750.00 4 Remove Concrete Sidewalk, C&G 2,000 SF $2.00 $4,000.00 5 !Construct Wheelchair Ramp 1 EA $2,400.00 $2,400.00 6 :Construct Curb & Gutter 320 LF $20.00 $6,400.00 7 Construct Sidewalk 300 LF $25.00 $7,500.00 8 Aggregate Base 200 TON $20.00 $4,000.00 9 Asphalt Concrete 70 TON $52.00 $3,640.00 10 Place Traffic Stripe 400 LF $1.00 $400.00 11 Place Pavement Marking 130 SF $4.00 $520.00 12 Right of Way and Permits 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00 Subtotal $39,410.00 ATTACHMENT "F" CITY OF UKIAH 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: 3/19/97 14:52 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 I LS $15,000.00 $15,000.00 Subtotal $19,600.00 ATTACHMENT "G" ' I R£LOCATIr TI~kF'rlC I " J; SB ~PROACH~ ] ~ I ~ , ~PROX. .... ,,' .,~ ~ ~ [ ~ ~ · ~RESE~ V~ BOX ~ RELATE T~IC I NB C~ OF UKaH ..... INTERSECTION P-1 ,, IMPROVEMENTS .... DATE ~ ' 4/12/96 ~~ R~SIONS 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 I Prepared By' Rick Seanor -.~ Date & Time Printed: 3/19/97 14:52 Item Estimated Unit of No. Item Quantity Measure Unit Price Total Price I 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 1 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 U ATTACHMENT "J" Table 4 Generation Summ Line Note Land Use Number Weokday P, bt, Poak Hour No. of Units Trip Rate in Out Total .... Per U~t ,, , 2 Industrtal Park (RBP) 373,5 ksf 0.9 i 74 255 340 3 lndustrinl Pirk (ABP + Norlard) 345.2 bf 0.91 116 ~an 314 4 A l'etalNon. Comm+T;r~__ ZH~,,,, _. _. ./¢d 629 $ B Resttutant $.0 ksf i 1.96 32 25 6 Auto Dealereldp (12.27 Act#) 101.5 itaf 2.62 1~) 1S? 266 7 C Auto Parta/Auto Care (4.94) Aer~) 33,! bf 4.00 ~9 ./6 I D Retail 198.1 kaf 4.28 424 424 9 D Wal-Mart Expansion 18.0 kal d.28 38 3! '/7 10 D Lot #LI, ,Retail .=[:,~ htr d.28 15 18 36 I I E Commo. ciM ]"rips (Total). 680 74,1 1422 12 Comnmrcial Trips (P~as-by: 30 %) 204 223 427 13 Commumial Tript (Internal Capture) 119 ! 19 2311 14 F Commereinl_.Trips (new pdmnry) .. 357 400 757 ...... ..... · i $ G Tot~J New Trips to the Area $20 1,029 1,S49 16 H Tolal Pa.~.4oy l'n',ps 204 225 427 I II I IIm I No~=s: Sou~ of Rates: Trip Generation, Sth Edition., lnstit~tr ofTransportafion Eflginoefs, 1991/1995 k,s.f, ' 1000 square feet, RBP - Rcdwood Business Park, ABP ,= AJqx)r~ Busincsa Park All building floor area to land awe covcrqc was provided by the City of Ukiah. A. C, E, O. This total represents the non-commrmin! (office and industrial) related trips. Rate is based on the average oflTE Land Use #83 i, Quality Restauront and rTE Land U~e #$3 i, High-Turnover Remurant. Rate is baaed ~m thc avcrsge oflTE land Usc #840, Autmobile Care Center and FFE Land Usc #848, Tiro Store. Ralc is based on ITE Land Usc//820 and is ealeulatcd baeod on a 324 ksfshopplng center (the .324 ksfconsiste of' the 198 laf rctail,! 8 lafWalMart expmeion, 8 ksfLot # 12 retail and existing 100 ksf WalMart). A shopping center ratc has intenlal eapturc inhcront within it, therefore no addifonal dedUction for internal capturr trips bctwecn commerelnl use~ is takcn. This total ropreaenl.~ the eommc~cial/rotail related trips. Rcpreeents Line # l I (Iotal commere~ trii~) minus Line # 12 (eommen:i.l pans-by trips) minus Line # 13 (commercial intvmal caphlre trips). Represents linc #4 plus line # 14. Same u line # ! ii ii · 4trport/Redwo~d Business-Park Traffic Analy~i~ W]tltlock & Wcinbergcr Transportation, ]mc. Page 11 flli City of Uk/ah March 19, 1997 ATTACHMENT "K" Table 6 - Fee A mrtlonment $ut Land Use Number W~kday P.M. Peak Ho~r of Units .... ' ' Trip Rate in Out Total Fzlr Share --- ,, _ Per Unit Offiee./Rctail 67.0 ksf :2.06 23 115 Discount for Internal Ca/~mre ~'~/x~ 2 8 10 L.nd UR Total , , 21~ = 107 I:~! 6.48% bdu~al Pa~k '/Ig../ksf 0.91' 1~0 ~14 654 DOco~n~ for Internal Cap.re Trips 10 $9 49 Lnud Us~ Tot,al.. .,~ 130 ..4.'/5 $0~ 30.6:2% Rest~urn~t 5.0 ksf 11,96 32 25 .60 D~eo~oa for I~em~l C~ur~ }~ Land U~ ~otaJ ...... 26 24 $0 2.53,*4 _~,uto Dealership ,, 101.5 ksf ~.62 109 ~$7 266 13.46¥., ,, .. Auto Pens/Auto Cn~ ... 33,8 ksf 4,~X), 59 '/6 13S 6.83% Ret. nil 22.4,4ksf 4:28 480 4B i 96 I Discount for Internal Ca~tur~ 7rips 101 t~ 159 Lnnd Use Total ~79 41:3 ?~l 40.08% _.~ 81~e To~ai 1~?~ 100,00% I III . __ ' - i il . i · A~rport/Redwood BuSiness Park Traffic Analyst~ Whitlock &'Weinberger TransportJtion, lac, Page 16 i City of Ukiah March 19, 1997 ATTACHMENT "L" CITY OF UKIAH I :SUMMARY OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FEES BY PARCEL NUMBER AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK Prepared By: Rick Seanor Date & Time Printed: 3/19/97 16:28 Lot Assessor's ID Parcel No. Land Use Acreage Fee No. 1 180-070-36 Restaurant 1.39 $18,480.03 SUBTOTAL (RESTAURANT) 1.39 $18,480.03 2 180-070-01 Talmage Prof. Ctr. 0.00 $0.00 3 180-070-02 Talmage Office Pk 0.00 $0.00 4 180-070-03 North Cai Wood 0.00 $0.00 6 180-070-29 Office/Retail 1.22 $9,513.24 7 180-070-28 Office/Retail 1.53 $11,930.53 8 180-070-27 R.C. Regional Ctr. 0.00 $0.00 90 180-070-26 Office/Retail 1.21 $9,435.26 180-070-25 Office/Retail 1.09 $8,499.53 11 180-070-24 Office/Retail 1.02 $7,953.69 SUBTOTAL (OFFICE/RETAIL) 6.07 $47,332.25 5 180-070-38 Walmart (Existing) 0.00 $0.00 12 180-080-41 Retail 1.00 $11,494.26 13 180-080-53 Retail 1.88 $21,609.20 14 180-080-54 Retail 1.28 $14,712.65 15 180-080-55 Retail 1.06 $12,183.91 16 180-080-52 Retail 2.18 $ 25,057.4l~ 26 180-080-51 Retail 5.04 $ 57,931.06 27 180-080-44,45 Retail 10.51 $120,804.65 5 180-070-38 Walmart (Expansion) 2.52 $28,965.53 SUBTOTAL (RETAIL) 25.47 $292,758.75 17 180-080-16 Industrial 2.96 $11,1 90.54 18 180-080-25 Industrial 3.54 $13,383.28 19 180-080-26 U.S. Geol. Survey 0.00 $0.00 20 1 gO-080-19 Industrial 1.00 $3,780.59 21 180-080-22 Industrial 2.23 $8,430.71 22 180-080-27 Industrial 4.49 $16,974.83 23 180-080-28 Industrial 4.59 $17,352.89 24 180-080-29 Industrial 4.60 $17,390.70 25 180-080-30 Industrial 5.56 $21,020.06 29 180-110-07 Industrial 9.00 $34,025.28 30 180-110-02,06 Industrial 14.19 $53,646.52 31 180-120-04 Industrial 5.80 $21,927.40 32 184-080-01 Industrial 1.20 $4,536.70 SUBTOTAL (INDUSTRIAL) 59.16 $223,659.50 28 Portion of 180-080-46,47 Auto Dealership 12.27 $98,316.69 28 Portion of 180-080-47,46 Auto Parts/Auto Care 4.09 $49,888.78 SUBTOTAL (AUTO DEALERSHIP/AUTO PARTS/AUTO CARE) 16.36 $148,205.46 §9542 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) a. 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 all 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. 9184 ~ 3 P. ~- §9543 B) §9544 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: Al B, ].]:M]:I'E]) 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: 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 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 capacity. (Ord. 882, §2, adopted 1988) 9185 Report Airpor~Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis for the City of Ukiah March 19, 1997 SJ'W&IKI005.R3 WHITLOCK ~ WEINBERGER TRANSPORTATION ,NC 2200 Range Avenue, Suite 102, Santa Rosa, California, 95403, (707) 542-9500, FAX (707) 542-9590 Table of Contents Introduction and Summary ................................................... 1 Study Parameters ..................................................... 3 Pass-Through Traffic ...... ........................................................ Project Generated Traffic Volumes .............................................. 9 Evaluation of Intersection Operations ........................................... 13 Mitigation Recommendations ................................................ 16 Study Participants And References ............................................ 18 Figures Study Area ............................................................... Existing Pass-Through Traffic Volumes ........ ................................ 8 Project Traffic Volumes .................................................... 2 Tables Appendices A B C D Intersection Level of Service Criteria .................................... 5 Intersection Level of Service Thresholds ................................. 6 Level of Service Standard Alternatives .................................. 6 Project Trip Generation Summary .................................. i.. 11 Summary of Intersection Operations ................................... 15 Fee Apportionment Summary ......................................... 17 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 March 19, 1997 Introduction and Summary Introduction This report presents an analysis of the potential traffic impacts for the Airport/Redwood 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 StreeffTalmage 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 2,214 p.m. peak hour vehicle trips which includes 1,549 new/diverted trips external to the project area, 238 new trips internal to the project area, and 427 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 Drive 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 26.5 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 98.0 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 28.8 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. Intersection # 1 - South State Street/Talmage Road - It is recommended that the two southbound lanes be striped as one through lane and one left-tum 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-turn lane in addition to the two through lanes. Intersection #2 - South State Street/Hastings Avenue - Provide separate left-tm, through and right-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-tm lane, one combined left-turn/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 Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. Page I City of Ukiah March 19, 1997 .I. ntersecti0n #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, m 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 offramp and allow the offramp traffic turning right to mm into its own lane without conflict. Airport/Redwood Business Park TraJfic Analysis Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. Page 2 City of Ukiah March 19, 1997 Study Parameters Study Area The studv 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. I01 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, Califomia Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual, Califomia 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 facilities 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 EIR 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 (wc) ratios are added together to obtain an intersection vic ratio. The vic ratio for the entire intersection is then related to a level of service, with a vic of 1.0 considered to be at capacity and the upper limit of LOS E. This viC 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' Tra/fic Analysis Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation. Inc. Page 3 City of Ukiah March 19, 1997 Washington ~o LEGEND Nclr[h .... Future Roadways Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis ,,.,",~,, : Whiflock & Weinberger Transportation Inc. City of Ukiah UKIOOS.DRW 12/96 as providing a weighted average of vehicular delay for the entire intersection. Following are stmunaries 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. Si~alized Intersection Level of'Service Analysis Methodology 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, truck traffic, and pedestrian activity. Average stopped delay per vehicle in seconds is used as the basis for evaluation in this LOS methodology. Unsi~alized Intersection Level'of Service Analysis Methodology The level of service for the unsignalized study intersection, or one which is controlled by a stop sign on the minor street approaches, was analyzed using the unsignalized 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 occasional 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 ora 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 ~'pically 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. Reti:rence: Highway Capaci.ly l¥Ianual, Special Report iVo. 209, Transportation Research Board, 1994. Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. Page 5 City of Ukiah March 19, 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 I0.0 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 EIR 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 mid D D Signalized Intersections Maximum Delay (seconds per vehicle, average) 25.0 32.5 40.0 Unsignalized 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 conununities 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 Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. Page 6 Ci,ty of Ukiah March 19, 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 quanti~ 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. '3. The resulting database included license plate data for every vehicle which passed each of £our 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). 4. 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 EIR. Airport/Redwood Business Park' Trajfic Analysis Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. Page 7 Ciw of Ukiah March 19, 1997 Talmage Road I i; ( ) )' LEGEND ~y I~e~ F~ure R~ No r[h Figure 2 Existing Pass-Through Traffic Volumes Airpo~Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis Whi~k & W~in~rg~r Tr~nsp~n In~, City of Ukiah UI(IOOS. DRW 12196 Project Generated Traffic Volumes 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 occumng 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 fi.om an origin to a primary thp destination. Pass-by trips are attracted fi.om 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 arterial street system. For this project, diverted trips are those trips occurring on U.S. 101 or in other areas of Ukiah which are diverted to the study, area. Pass-by trips are those trips 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 Road. In estimating the extemal 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 fi.om Trip Generation, 5th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1991, and the February 1995 Update. 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. The internal capture represents the commercial trips that are linked to one end of a trip to/fi.om 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. There would also be some internal capture between the various commercial uses, however, these are accounted for in the shopping center trip generation rate used. No additional deductions for internal capture trips were taken for the commercial land uses. 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. 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 pans/auto care uses. The resulting trip generation estimates with these assumptions for the project are shown in Table 4. Note that Airport/Redwood Business Park' Traffic Analysis Whitlock & Weinbcrger Transportation. Inc. Page 9 City of Ukiah March 19, 1997 9. It 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 2,214 p.m. peak hour vehicle trips which includes 1,549 new/diverted trips external to the project area, 238 new trips internal to the project area, and 427 pass-by trips which currently exist on South State Street and Talmage Road. These trip generation prbjections 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. 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 Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. Page 10 City of Ukiah March 19, 1997 Table 4 Project Trip Generation Summary 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 - Comn~rcial Trips 163 629 792 5 B Restaurant 5.0 ksf 11.96 . 32 28 60 6 Auto Dealership (12.27 Acres) 101.5 ksf 2.62 109 157 266 7 C Auto Parts/Auto Care (4.09 Acres) 33.8 ksf 4.00 59 76 135 8 D Retail 198.1 ksf 4.28 424 424 848 9 D Wal-Mart Expansion 18.0 ksf 4.28 38 39 77 10 D Lot #12 Retail 8.3 ksf 4.28 18 18 36 11 E Commercial Trips (Total) 680 742 1422 12 Commercial Trips (Pass-by: 30 %) 204 223 427 13 Commercial Trips (Internal Capture) 119 119 238 14 F Commercial Trips (new primary) 357 400 757 15 G Total New Trips to the Area 520 1,029 1,549 16 H Total Pass-by Trips 204 223 427 Notes: Source of Rates: A. C. O. Trip Generation, 5th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1991/1995 k.s.f. = 1000 square ti:et, RBP = Redwood Business Park, ABP = Airport Business Park All building floor area to land area coverage was provided by the City of Ukiah. This total represents the non-commercial (office and industrial) related trips. Rate is based on the average oflTE Land Use #831, Quality Restaurant and ITE Land Use #831, High-Turnover Restaurant. Rate is based on the average oflTE 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 ksf consists of the 198 ksf retail, 18 ksf WalMart expansion, 8 ksf Lot # 12 retail and existing 100 ksf WalMart). This total represents the commercial/retail related trips. Represents Line # 11 (total commercial trips) minus Line # 12 (commercial pass-by trips) minus Line # 13 (commercial internal capture trips). Represents line #4 plus line # 14. Stone as line # 12. Airport/Redwood Business Park TraJfic Analysis Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. Page 11 City of Ukiah March 19, 1997 '.) Talmage Road il 'L 144 ~0 2 53 ~ 0 158 105 f-211 LEGEND ~J Study Intersections .... Future Roadways No?th xx ~- P.M. peak hour through volume Vo, um s Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation Ina. City of Ukiah UKIOOS.DRW 1/97 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 software 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 confirmed in the field and existing traffic volumes, the existing levels of service were calculated. The resulting conditions are shown in Table 5. Based on this process, all of the study intersections are operating acceptably regardless of the standard used at LOS C or better. 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 Drive 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 apphed, 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 26.5 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' TraJfic Analysis Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. Page 13 Ci~ of Ukiah March 19, 1997 ?,1¥ operate with an average delay of 98.0 seconds per vehicle and a LOS F. The movements which would be expected to experience the greatest delay include the left-roms 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 28.8 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 conceming 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 Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. Page 14 City of Ukiah March 19, 1997 Table 5 Summary of Intersection Operations (Weekday P.M. Peak Hour) Intersection Existing Existing plus Project Delay LOS Delay LOS 1. South State Street/Talmage Road 21.6 C 26.5 D Northbound Throu~ght 17.7 C 18.9 C Southbound Left/Through 25.5 D 36.9 D Westbound Left 26.7 D 26.7 D Westbound Right 16.3 C 20.2 C 2. South State Street/Hastings Avenue 8.9 B *** F Northbound Left 18.0 C 18.0 C Northbound Througlv~Light 7.9 B 9.4 B Southbound Left 17.9 C 20.5 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 12.5 B 98.0 F Northbound Left 21.8 C 106.2 F Northbound Throu~ght 15.4 C 31.9 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 Through/Right 10.9 B 11.5 B Westbound Left 24.8 C *** F Westbound Through/Right 7.2 B 7.1 B 4. U.S. 101 SB-Ramps/Talmage Road 3.1 A 8.9 B Southbound Right 9.5 B 28.8 D Notes' Delav= average delay per vehicle in seconds LOS = level of service taxx = overall intersection level of service *** = delay exceeds reasonable parameters for methodology Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. Page 15 City of Ukiah March 19, 1997 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. 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-tum 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 from 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. Intersection #2 - South State Street/Hastings Avenue It is recommended that separate right-mm, through and left-turn lanes be provided on the westbound approach, that the two northbound through lanes be extended to Talmage Road, and that a separate left-mm lane be striped on the eastbound approach. 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 assigmnents tried for each increment. Copies of some of the intermediate calculations are included in Appendix D. Intersection #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-mm 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. Intersection #4 - U.S. 10t 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 to address safetv 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 turning right to mm 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 sho,~n in Table 6. It should be noted that the discount for internal capture trips are shared between the commercial and non-commercial uses. Airport Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation. Inc. Page 16 City of Ukiah March 19, 1997 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 6.48% Industrial Park 718.7 ksf 0.91 140 514 654 Discount for Internal Capture Trips 10 39 49 Land Use Total 130 475 605 30.62% Restaurant 5.0 ksf 11.96 32 28 60 Discount for Internal Capture Trips 6 4 10 Land Use Total 26 24 S0 2.53% Auto Dealership 101.5 ksf 2.62 109 157 266 13.46% Auto Parts/Auto Care 33.8 ksf 4.00 59 76 135 6.83% Retail 224.4ksf 4.28 480 481 961 Discount for Internal Capture Trips 101 68 169 Land Use Total 379 413 792 40.08% Site Total 1976 100.00% A/rport/Redwood Business Par/,' Traffic Analysis Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. Page 17 City of Ukiah March 19, 1997 Study Participants And References Study Participants Project Manager: Engineer/Data Collection: Graphics: Report Review: Field Technician: Steve Wemberger, P.E. Andrew Wong Cheryl Whitlock-Griffm Dalene J. 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 Update Airport/Redwood Business Park EIR, Leonard Charles & Associates. Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. Page 18 City of Ukiah March 19, 1997 Appendix A Description of Intersection Capacity Analysis Methodologies Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis Whitlock & Weinberger TranSportation, Inc. City of Ukiah March 1997 DESCRIPTION OF INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS TWO-WAY STOP-CONTROLLED METHOD Background The method ofunsignalized intexsecfion capacity analysis used for two-way stop-controlled intersections is fi.om 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-way 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, as 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 case 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, fi.om 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 uncongested. (When congestion occurs, it is likely that major street traffic will experience some impedance due to minor street traffic.) Left turns fi.om 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: o ° . ° Define existing geometric and volume conditions for the intersection under study. Determine the conflicting traffic through which each minor street movement and the major street left- 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. Estimate 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 following priority order: o 2. 3. 4. Right turns from the minor street Left tums fi.om the major street Through movements from the minor street Left turns fi.om the minor street For example, if a leit-lxmaing vehicle on the major street and a through vehicle from the minor street are waiting to cross the major tntffic stream, the first available gap of acceptable size Would be taken by the left-turning vehicle. The minor street through vehicle must wait for the second available gap. In aggregate terms, a large number of such left-turning vehicles could use up so many of the available gaps that minor street through vehicles are severely impeded or unable to make safe crossing movements. Level of Service The level of service criteria is shown below. As used here, total delay is defined as the total elapsed time from when a vehicle stops at the end of the queue until the vehicle departs from the stop line; this time includes the time required for the vehicle to travel from the last-in-queue position to the first-in-queue position. Note that the level of service criteria for two-way stop-controlled intersections are different than for signalized intersections primarily because drivers expect different levels of performance fix)m different kinds of transportation facilities. An unsignalized intersection is designed to carry less traffic and have shorter delays, hence the thresholds for a stop-controlled intersection' are lower than for a signalized intersection. LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR TWO-WAY STOP-CONTROLLED INTERSECYIONS Level of Service Average Total Delay (seconds/vehicle) A <5 B >5 and < 10 C >10 and <20 D >20 and <30 E >30 and <45 F >45 Reference: Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report No. 209, Third Edition, Transportation Research Board, 1994 Using this same criteria, the average approach delay for all vehicles on a particular approach or for the intersection as a whole can be computed as the weighted average of the total delay estimates for each individual movement on the specific approach or for all approaches, respectively. Estimation of Queue Lengths Theoretical studies and empirical observations have demonstrated that the probability distribution function for queue lengths for any minor movement at an unsignalized intersection is a function of the capacity of the movement and the movement's degree of saturation. An estimate of the 95th percentile queue length for minor movements is provided in the calculations. DESCRIPTION OF SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS 1994'HCM 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 designs.' This method addresses the 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 service 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 signalization of intersections focuses on the accommodation of the major movements and approaches comprising the intersection. Capacity is, therefore, only meaningfid 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 15-minute interval divided by the capacity of the approach or designated group of lanes. Input Data The input data necessary to use this methodology includes lane geometrics, traffic 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. While volume-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 complex. 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 Iow 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 capacity analysis module and the level of service module to obtain a complete picture of existing or projected intersection operations. Thus, the designation of Level of Service F does not automatically imply that the intersection, approach, or lane group is overloaded, nor does a level of service in the A to E range automatically imply that there is unused capacity available. The procedures of this methodology require the analysis of both capacity and level of service conditions to fully evaluate the operation of a signalized intersection. LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level of Service Average Total Delay (seconds/vehicle) A ,:5.0 B >5.0 and < 15.0 C >15.0 and <25.0 D >25.0 and <40.0 E >40.0 and <60.0 F >60.0 Rcf~n~'nc~: Highway Capaci(vManual, Special Report No. 209, Third Edition, Transportation Research Board, 1994 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 Denotes the total number of lanes available for a particular movement. Y Denotes how the lanes are used. When Y is ...... The following applies: ~ I.OR 0 ~ 1.o T A lane used exclusively for a particular movement (i.e. exclusive left-turn lane). ~ 1.0 L I: }: A lane which is shared, that is, either of two different movements can be made 1 ~'- '"" ..,-- 2.1 T from a particular lane (i.e. a lane which is shared by through and fight-turn a~' 1.0 L [: · traffic). 2 ~_ l.l , Denotes two or more through lanes in which two lanes are shared, one with .... 2.2 T . ~r ~.l ~. left-turn traffic, the other with fight-turn traffic. I: 3 Denotes an expressway through movement. I: · ~ 1.4 R 4 *:--.. Denotes a fight-mm movement from a wide outside lane where right-mm n--- 2.1 T · '-- l.o L vehicles can bypass through tmf:fic sharing the lane to make a right-turn on red. I' ! I' ! · ,_.- 1.5 R 5 "-- Denotes a right-turn movement from an exclusive right-tm lane with a '~.-2 - 2.0 T r'- 1.o L right-turn arrow and prohibition on the conflicting U-turn movement. I' ! ! 6 ,.6 ~ Denotes a right-mm movement from a shared lane with a right-turn an'ow and ..... 3.1 T r !.0 L prohibition on the conflicitng U-turn movement. I: Denotes a turning movement which has a separate lane to turn into, as shown 7,8,9 below: It:t:t, · ~- 1.7 ~ Turn lane which is shared with a through lane. or left-turn lane and under signal 7 -~_:- 24 T control, and which has its own lane to turn into. There must be at least two ~ 1.0 L It!t r through It:t:t ~ 1.8 R 8 ~ Exclusive turn lane which is under signal control, and which has its own lane ~.- 2.0 T ~ 1.0 L [O turn into. It:tr - Ir' ,., ~ Exclusive turn lane not under signal control and which has an exclusive lane to · 9 ~ :.o T turn into, often referred to as a "free" turn. Since the volumes in this lane do not ~.o ,~ conflict with other intersection movements, the V/C ratio of the free right-turn [ t:~ I movement is not included in the sum of critical VIC ratios. · '4 F. Zb, Appendix B Intersection Level of Service Calculations Existing Conditions Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. City of Ukiah March 1997 II II 11 ~ II II \ 11 II o~ It II ~II II \II II il II II tl II ~.~ II II ~) I! Il il II II II tl II II ~.l 0 II II -d ~ II II U II II II II 11 ~ II II II II O~II I1 II ~ IlJ~Il .1.) II J II ~ IIJ II -i-t I~ II-ri II II 11 II II II 0 II ~II ~ II II j~ Il ~ 11 0"~ II II Iii 11 -J-'l II ~ II -i-I II 0 IIi II II II .~1 II '~- II II· II ~-I Illl I~II ~ II ,,,, II II-d II ~ 0 II ,IJ II ~ ~ II -dII I~ ,, ',: II i I · -- I · I-4 i o · 0 i 0000 0o00 0 o 00 0 0 0 · O. 0 · · o II 1.3 L) II II II II II ~1~ I~ o II · II II II II · II ~ II C,II II JJ II II II ~ ~ 11 ·II (~ It ~-~ II · IIIIII · II II ~ ~ ~ m II II II ~ ~ ,, II II II ~ ~ II II . · II ~ ~ ~ II II ~ II II 0 . ~ ~ nO ~ II ii ~ .... . ~ II " ~ ,,~ ~ ~ II II II II ~II II ~. II II I~11 II ~ II II \ II II II II II -~ II II ~ II II J~ II II II II kL-I II II 0 II II II II II II-~l ~ II II II II ,.~ II II II ~ II II II II I~II II ~ II ,, II J II II II [-i ~ II J~II~ II II -~ Il 0II J~ J) II II - ~ II -d II J) E-i · i 0 II vII ~,II II ~ II-~II ..~ ~ II 4-) II 4J E-I II cll II ~l II -M II 0 II [.~ IIII II I II II II :>., il · ii c3 ii ~-Ii ii · II ~ ii ii 0 II -J-I II II II "~ II I~l ~ C.,.) II T.,,,) i i ,(-- ! 0 · i i 0 0 .~ 0 · o 0 i rj o i i i v o o 0 c:) · i i o · ~'1 IA · ~ · I v 0 · i ri II ~l 11 ~ II II S II 4"---- II II il II ~ t'- ~ IIII · · · IIulII ~) ~ II b II ~1 HII · II II o II II ~ ~',l~',l 0 0 0 II II II II II II ~ ~ II ~II II II II g II II II · 0 0 II II II ~ II II ~ II II II II IIII II ~ II II II ~ r'l II II II II I~II II II II II II II II · · II II 0 0 II II II II II II U3~FII II H H II II II u~m ~ l~ II ii II,~ ,, II II II ~ ~ II II II II II II 0 0 II II II II ~ II II II H II II ~ ~ JJ ~ ,, II ~ 0 0 ~ O~ U 0 o~ o~ O 0 0 0 O0 0 ,~°°"o°o°':'°~o ~ ~ r-( ~-l,lr-.i ooooooooo o oo · 0 o~§o o 0000000 O0 · 0000000 O0 · 0000000 O0 · 0000000 O0 .. · 0 · 0 0 ~ 0 ~ II'!fo o I U 'Ii o oo o 0 0 0 0 II II Il II oooo,, I! I! 0000 II Il ?~ ~ 0000 I$ II II " I! 0000~ oooo~ 0000 ~ .... II ~ H H H H II II # # U 0000 .... M M M 0000 .... 000 0 .... rj -,-I d o U3 · II H II I"- II M Il Il ftC; ~ M II ~ II · Il~:~ Il 0 Il Il Il "~ ~ ~ . 0 II · I r~ lg. Il II # II II N II II ·II II M II [i k~ M II # 0 ~ II 0 # ~ #a~ u 0 I! II II · ~ II Il .... 1",,I II II ~,~ II II III-I II II II 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 March 1997z~z~ ~), ~ ~) II II ~II II O~II II M II II II II 0 II II It -N II II ,.~ II II II II II II ~-~ II II 0 II II II II .,l.} 0 II II -H ~ II II rJ II II ,,~ II II II II II Il II II ~1 II II 3 ~ II 0 Il H II "0 II133 0 II 13a IIm II ,1.} II,'1-, II Il -,-I II 'r~ 11 D II 134 II ~J E-I 0 II + II ~ II o3 I~II -H tl ,,~ [-~ II IQ II II-HII 0 E-I III II II II :>~ ii ·II ,J~ II ~ II II · tl ~)ti ~,, tl Z h II II O ~ II ,-II H ~} q-I II -HII II ~ II 133 L~ ~ IIr,,.) II F-I rJ ,( -- ! i o,?.__>,! ,-4 r-, m 0 0 0000 .... ~m II II IIh, II IIII II IIr,/}II r,J ,,~ .. ~ II ~ II II ,.3 II II· II II· ~ II ml II· O~II mIIII II II I'- II ~,,,,~I~° -,,+ ·H o II ~ II ~ H II II ~ ~'1 F1 m II II II II II II ~, ~1II II ~.1 II II ~ 0 II II 134 · II II t-i II II II II ~ ~1) II ~ II II II II II II · O O O O II II II '-, II o~ II I! I! I! II II I! II tl II 11 II II II II II II II II .Ii II 3 II II 0II "0 II II ,--I II -HII II :3 Il ~ II II II 11 '~IllI II II 0 II ii ~4 II n, II ii II + il 11 II 03 II II .IJ II ~ II II *~ II ~ II II r~ii ii ii i ii ii ii· ii ~'ii ii ·ii 134 ii ii ii · . B Il ~Iii' Il 'H Il 0I- I 0 I I 0 0 · O , i rJ II II I! I! H ff ff II II II I! I! I! II fl Il H }l I! I! H I! II I! I! II I! II ff I! II I! ~ + m II II :~ II H II II O0 I! I! II N MM,II II II i.-~ O 0'3 o°o°§ ,, · · · II I! · · · II ~ M H H II II II ~ ~ ffiII II ~ ~ II II II fl 0 0 0 Il~ ,, ~ ~ O Oo II ~ O ~ · * * II 0 0 0 II II II II II II 0 0 0 II II II ,, H II 0 ~m 0 0 0 II II II ~ ~ 0 · · . 'OM 0 0 0 ~0 >. 0000000001 · , · I · o ~§° o 000000000 0 O0 · o§oo§§ooo · 0 · o 1,01.1'1 · i i i ! ! I # # # # # # # I # # # § 88 ,, oo I # oooo#~0~ oooo# # I 0 0 0 0 1 # oooo~ II ~ ~ · oooo .... ,-i ,=1 · o o .... Appendix D Intersection Level of Service Calculations Mitigated Conditions Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. City of Ukiah March 1997 0 0 0 · . . ~ ~o°o°o°o°I~°~, ~ oO ,?, oo oo .. # # II 00 o 0 II 1~ 0 0l .... II 0 o o 0 1! il II 0000 II II II II 0 II II II ~ ~ o o 0 o II II II II II 133 ~ 0 ~ · 0 o 0000 + 0 oo oo oo II I1 r./'J II rJ II II ~1B · II r,- II ~)II r,. II II ["- II·II II ·BL~ II · II II II ~ II II II II II II ~ II rfl ffl I~1 1"3 II II ii ,, ~'.' i~ II II , , :> ~ ~ . ,,~ ~ ~ II If · II II · 0 0 II II ~ m F II II 0 ,, ~ ~ ~ II ~ fl II ~ ~ II 0~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , , ~ ~ ~ II Il II II ~ · .... ,,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ II II ~ ~ ~ ~ II II 0 IIH II ,,~,,~ ~ II II Il II II II z 0 ~ + , >~ II II II II II II II II H I! I! fl I! II I! I! I! I! I! ~ +~ ~ II II \ II II O~ II II *.4 II II ~II II II II ~II II II II II ti II ID II II II II ~ 11 II II II II II ~ 0 II II -N "~ II II II II II II II II II II 134 II~ II II ~ II "~ ~ ',', .; ,,,, ~ I~ II II 0 II ~0 II ~JII II ~ II 0II x II ~' II -HII 11 ~ I', g ,, ~ II (IS II t~ On. ,l ~0'I Il n. II II ~ II-ii II III II ~- II 0 I! II ~ II iII II ..Q Il ~' II II · II ~ II II 0 Ill II-.II I-I ~ i~tl -ri Il 131 ~ 0 II .i..) II O3 0'2 II -~II {3~ ~ II ~ II ~ r' ~ 11 § I', [~ o~ i-~ II ~ IIN ~ ~3 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... e-~' ~4 e-I e-I ~-~ 3-1 0 I i · i · ! ¥ ~oooo,,~ ~MII Il ~~II # OOOOI1~ 000011 0000~ II # II II II ~ ~ · I! 0000~ II ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 II II ~ ~ II II II ~ D oooo .... oooo .... o ,-4 o o ffi 0000 II II II cl~ II II m.. II 11 o~II II i-~ II II ".. II II II II II -H II II ..~ II II ~) II II II II II II II II II II ~ ~I Il Il .U 0 11 II -H 1TI II II II II II II II II II II II II ~ II m II ~ I',~~ ~ · I.) II 03 II H II ,,Ill II 133 0 II ~II ~.J II II Il .Il) Il ~ 0 Il ~ Il II~ II [4II-H ~JI! n,II~ E'~ 0 II + III~ ri, II II II II ~" II ~ II 03 1"3 II II ~ ti i II k II II 0 ~ llll ~ II ~ .1.~~l' II '~II II ~ II r.~ ~ I~l, ~§§§§ll~°~ ,,~ I! ~~11 II ~11 II ~~II Il Il ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ II ~ II ,, 0 0 II .... ~ O00011 II II II II II OOO011 II ~ ~ II O000ll II II ~ ~ 000011 II ~ ~ II II II ~ ~ + · . . · · 0000 .... II II to ~ II IJ II II II II II II +------Il ~-~ II 0 I:~ 133 ff"l II II II II · '~ ¢',,I el) II II · · ·II Ii13 II· II II 0 ~ '~* II ~ II · · · II ...-- II ~'* 0 0 II II -- II II II II II I! m ~'~ II ~> Il Il '~ Il H 00 t"- II · · O O O Il· Il Il Il ,, II II 04 IIIIII II II II ~ II II ~l~ II H II ll~ II Il Il ~ ~p t.n IIII · · · II II · o o o II II ~'~ II II ~,~ ~)(',1 ~ II II 133 ulh ~) II II O II II II II II i:~ II Il ~ Il II II 0 00 II II · · · II II ~ ~ ~,.~ Ill, ~ ',',g II II Il l--il Il ~_~ [l~ 13~ Il I~Il Il II II l Il Il 0 0 0 0 0 ..... o ~ 0 o 0 0 0000 II II II II II II II:l II II ul II · II o II H II II II ~ II II I! I! I! II I! I! I! I! II I! I! II II I! I! I! II II II II I! II II II II I! I! II II I! I! I! II I! II rJ II IIII r.~ II II II II I! I! I! I! I! # II II II I! I! I! II II II II I! I! I! I! II II ~ B II II II I! II I! II March 25, 1997 Mr. Rick Kennedy City Engineer City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis Dear Rick, As you know, 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 internal 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 thc 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 Airport/Redwood Business Park was field surveyed and estimated based on those surveys. The data revealed that during the p.m. peak hour there are approxhnately 19 vehicles making westbound left tums from Talmage Road onto Airport Park 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 5 P O R TAT I O N I N 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: Response: Speed assumption on the Talmage Road overpass in calculating the level of service. 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 vehicle to enter westbound Talmage Road from 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~6r, P.E. SJW/UKI005. L3 P/t E 2__ ITEM NO. 9a DATE-April 2, 1997 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF HERBICIDE USE IN CALTRANS' RIGHTS-OF-WAY The City received a letter and news release from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) regarding a new policy they are implementing immediately. Caltrans Director Rick Knapp has notified cities and counties that Caltrans will now give local agencies the opportunity to decide whether Caltrans should continue the use of herbicides along the state highway rights-of-way within the agencies' jurisdiction. The process would include a Public Hearing with a Caltrans representative in attendance to describe their Vegetation Management Program and the benefits of the spraying versus the potential impacts of discontinued herbicide use. The Council would then take public testimony and consider whether to request Caltrans, through a resolution, to continue their current practices or to discontinue use of herbicides. We have also received several letters from interested parties regarding this new policy, which are attached for Council's review. Staff is asking Council to determine if they would like to hold a Public Hearing on this issue. If that is Council's desire, staff will set a date with Caltrans for their participation in the dialogue. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council consider letter received from Caltrans regarding herbicide use in Caltrans' Rights-of Way ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Determine it is not appropriate to consider this item at this time. Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Acct. No.: Appropriation Requested: N/A (if budgeted) Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Caltrans Prepared by: Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: 1. Letter and News Release, dated March 10, 1997, from Rick Knapp 2. Letter, dated March 17, 1997, from Els Cooperrider 3. Letter, dated March 21, 1997, from Dan Hibshman APPROVED:,~ (~ ~~_~-'~,~ c'~ndace Horsley, City M'a~nager 4/Can. ASRHerb. Cal 3/10/97 LOCAL AGENCY PROCESS FOR CONSIDERING HERBICIDE USE IN CALTRANS HIGHWAY RIGHTS OF WAY This process may be followed by a city or county wishing to consider whether or not herbicide use should be discontinued for any or all State highway route segments within its jurisdiction. . Board of Supervisors or City Council schedules hearing on ~enda in cooperation with Caltram. At hearing, Caltrans describes its Vegetation Management Program to the Board or Council, including the benefits of the program and the potential impacts of discontinued herbicide use. Board or Council takes public testimony, then considers adoption of formal resolution. Resolution needs to address: · Vfnich routes and limit; apply. · If any specific herbicides are permitted or excluded. Vfnether issuance of encroachment perm__its for pesticide applications in Caltrans right of way should be prohibited for contiguous private property owners, utility companies, etc. (Note: Caltrans will not attempt to prohibit the State Department of Agriculturc and County Agricultural Commissioners from carrying out thcix responsibilities to eradicate pests under State law.) · Any special programs to be offered by the local agency to resPOnd to the vegetation control need. 3. Upon receipt of the resolution, Callrans will comply. 4. Cakrans will consider resolutions received as valid through the fiscal year. To perpetuate the direction, thc Board or Council is asked to reconsider the issue prior to the next fiscal year, offering Caltrans an opportunity to appear as indicated under Paragraph 2 above. #97-056 Contact: Debra Oinn, l%blie Affair~ Otti~er Csltra~ - ('707') 445-6444 March 10, 1997 IlewNrelellse California Departmei~t of Tramlx)rtation District 1, Eureka RIck Knapp, District Director Highway Info- 1.800-427.9623 (ROAD) Interact http://www.dot, ca. gov/hq/roactinfo http'J/www.smart-traveler.com CALTRANS TO BE RESPONSIVE TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS REGARDING HERBICIDE SPRAY PROGRAM EURE .IC~ - Caltrans Director Rick Knapp, in an effort to resolve the controversy that exists in some areas of the north coast over herbicide spraying, has unveiled a new process which will provide the opportunity for local government to decide whether Caltrans District 1 should discontinue the use of herbicides in State highway fights of way within its jurisdiction. "By proposing this new process, our hope is to create a climate of cooperation so that we can make decisions regarding vegetation control that take into account the public's wishes while addressing the sM'ety concerns for the motorists that use the highways,'.' Knapp said. The new process calls for the local agency to provide Caltrans District 1 the opportuni~ to explain the implications of no longer using herbicides to control vegetation, along with accepting public testimony on the subject before considering passage of a formal resolution on flae subject. Resolutions could be considered by cities or counties. Resolutions by County Boards of Supervisors would apply to the unincorporated areas. Incorporated areas would be considered by City Councils. Resolutions would apply for only one fiscal year. This "sunsetting" element of the process will give Caltrans and the public an oppormrfity to testify on the subject annually. In enacting these resolutions, consideration may be given to all routes, specific routes or portions thereof; or specific herbicides. -MORE- MON 16'48 F~ 445 6314 EXEC OFFICE E ~003 -2.- Knapp said that Caltrans has been steadily reducing its use of herbicides in conjunction with a goal established by the department in 1992. In Caltrans District I, which covers Del Notre, Humboldt, Lake and Mendocino Counties, herbicide use has been reduced ~5% in the past five years. Approximately, 70% | . of vegetation is controlled by m~nual and'mechamcai means. The department is committed to reduction in herbi&ide~ use of 50% statewide bY the year 2000 and an 80% reduction by the year 201~ Knapp, who chairs Caltrans' statewide Roadside Vegetation Management Comn~Ree, said "The reason for the phased reduction is l . to allow time to develop other alternatives, including improvements to the highway system to reduce the need for he to control vegetation in and arot At this time, it is prohibitively e · without the use of herbicides. ..rbicides." Currently, much of the herbicide u~e is-~ md guardrail, guide posts, signs, and landscaping. ~ Ipensive to control vegetation in these areas ff Knapp cautioned that cea sing the use of herbicides with no alternative / vegetation control measures in ~lace will be counterproductive to the safety objectives of the program. The'program is intended to provide improved visibility / of safety devices, improved sig~ t distance for motorists and highway workers, and reduced risk of fires. Knapp sai effectively control vegetation wi state highway miles in the four w,ill have the opportunity to wei herbicides within their jurisdicti be cautious in taking these actio the District does not have sufficient resources to thout using herbicides along the more than 1,000 lorth coast counties. Nevertheless, local agencies gh the pros and cons of discontinuing the use of ~ns. Knapp said that he will urge local agencies to Lq. 03/19/97 15:53 'l~707 468 1660 ~ECEEF 001 March 17, 1997 Rick Knapp, Director CalTrans, District 1 P.O. Box 3700 Eureka, CA 95§02-3700 , ·.., I)IESlf IN Dear Rick, Thank you so much for listening to the people of Mendocino county. I believe you made a very wise decision by allowing the local governments to decide whether or not to use chemicals for weed control in their districts. Please be assured that the public is fully aware of some of the problems associated with noxious weeds, visibility, and fire hazards. For this reason, we are working to put together informational pamphlets on how to deal with those issues. With the help of CalTrans, the Environmental Centers, and other local groups we can speed up the process of getting this information out to the people. As a Landscape Designer I have come across many different scenarios associated with weed control, esthetics, and cost-effective methods on how to deal with weeds on the North Coast. I also do "fire- scaping" with natives, which is of great importance to the people in Mendocino, Lake, and Sonoma counties. For my work I have contracted with Red Tail Farms Wholesale Growers in Potter Valley to start production of perennial native grasses, iow growing groundcovers, and other suitable and attractive California natives. With your assistance, I'd like to start outlining a protocol for test plots on Highway I along the coast in the fog belt. Also, we could come up with similar protocols for the hotter inland areas. One area I have in mind would be some interchanges and median strips in the Ukiah area. I have a list of native plants which would be suitable for inland valleys. These include species growing to a height of 6" to tall trees. You can count on me for assistance, information, and cooperation. Thanks again for working with the people. Sincerel_2/, E1 s=-~perr ~ der RIVER ASSOCIATES 18451 ORR SPRINGS I{OAD UKIAH, CALIFORNIA 95402 p~ON~ & FAx (707) 937-~662 cc: Virginia Stromm-Martin Sen. Mike Thompson Charles'Peterson, Supervisor Dave Bengston, Ag Commissioner ~al Center RECEIVED CITY OF UKIAH MAR 2 1 1997 CITY' CLERK DEPARTMENT UKIAH OFFICE 890 NORTH BUSH STREET UKIAH, CA 95482 (707) 463-4461 March 1 ], '1997 FORT BRAGG OFFICE 120 W. F~R'ST, FORT BRAGG. CA 9543? (?07} 964-4713 COUNTY OF MENDOClNO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH COURTHOUSE UKIAH, CALIgORNIA lS482 CAROL MORDHORST ADMINISTRATOR Kichard Knapp, Director CalTrans- D.i~rict P.O. Box 3700 Eureka, CA 95502 Dear Mr. Knapp: As a physician, and Public Hcalfl~ Officer of Mendociao County, I am wxking to ex'press my concerns about the Use ofpe~icidcs along thc roads in Mendoeino Cottuty. Thc coucem.~ ' ex-pressed by the citizens of the county about unla~owa effects of pesticides on their health are well tbunded. Most peSticides have not bee~ tested for long term effects - especially when used in combh~ation. Their effects as carcinogen.s, endocrine disruptors, neurotoxias and inhibiting fe~xility are all poorly understood but certai,fly pose risks. You may not 'know that Mendocino Cou.nty has a significantly higher cancer rate for all types, compared to tl~e State average. I have personally dealt with these problems as an internist and in the emerge,Icy room. We should be doing all we Can to eliminate their use. Just bocause something is less toxic than 'DDT docs~]'t mean ifs good for you. 1 concur with thc request of the Board of Supervisors, please do not ~ray pc~icides along our roadsides. I congratulate and urge you to consider the advisory committee you have formed to lind common solutions. Please contact me at (707) 463-4134 if you l~ave any ques'tions. Sincerely, Marvin 'l"rotter, M.D. Public Health Officer MT/ct cc: C. Pct. erson, Mm]do. Co. BOS Chairperson D. Bengs[on, Men, do. Co. Dcpt; Of Agriculture ITEM NO. lOa DATE: April 2, 1997 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR MENDOCINO COUNTY FILM OFFICE The Fort Bragg and Greater Ukiah Chambers of Commerce are asking each of the cities and the County to endorse the Fort Bragg-Mendocino Coast Chamber of Commerce as the county designee in the Film Liaisons in California Statewide (FLICS) program. The Greater Ukiah Chamber of Commerce will provide representation for Ukiah by sitting on the Steering Committee for the newly created Mendocino County Film Office. According to Cammie Conlon, Marketing Coordinator for the Fort Bragg-Mendocino Coast Chamber of Commerce, it is anticipated that the establishment of the Steedng Committee could occur within approximately six months. Additionally, they do not anticipate any costs associated with the Greater Ukiah Chamber of Commerce or City of Ukiah being involved in the process. Staff feels this would be an excellent contact source and referral agency for Mendocino County, and recommends approval of the letter of endorsement. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council authorize Mayor to execute letter endorsing Fort Bragg- Mendocino Coast Chamber of Commerce to serve as Mendocino County's designee in the Film Liaisons in California Statewide program ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Determine it is not appropriate to submit letter of endorsement. 2. Determine it is appropriate to submit revised letter of endorsement. Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Acct. No.: Appropriation Requested: N/A (if budgeted) Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Greater Ukiah Chamber of Commerce Prepared by: Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: 1. Draft Letter of Endorsement 2. Letter, dated March 25, 1997, from Greater Ukiah Chamber of Commerce 3. Letter, dated January 28, 1997, from Fort Bragg-Mendocino Coast Chamber of Commerce APPROVED~ ,~ Candace Horsley, City Manager 4/Can. ASRHerb,Cal 300 SEMINAI~AVE., UKIAH, CA 95482-5400 · ADMIN. 707/463-6200 · PUBLIC SAFETY 463-6242/6274 · FAX # 707/463-6204 · April 3, 1997 Pamela Powell, Deputy Director California Film Commission 6922 Hollywood Boulevard, Ste. 600 Hollywood, CA 90068 Dear Ms. Powell' This is to advise you that the City Council of the City of Ukiah endor~,es the Fort Bragg- Mendocino Coast Chamber of Commerce as the representative for the County of Mendocino in the Film Liaisons in California Statewide (FLICS) program. Sincerely, Sheridan Malone Mayor SH:ky 4:Can:MFilm '~/e Are Here To Serve" creater uktah chamber of commerce 200 south school street uktah, CA 95482 (707) 462-4705 fax (707) 462-2o88 March 25, 1997 Ukiah City Council 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah, CA 95482 ~R ~ 7 1997 Honorable Mayor Malone and Members of the City Council: Enclosed, please find a request from the Fort Bragg - Mendocino Coast Chamber of Commerce for your support in establishing a Mendocino County Film Office within their jurisdiction. As outlined in the letter from Jim Hay, our county is missing out on a substantial source of revenue and although the Film Office will be situated on the Coast, all areas of Mendocino County will be represented. The Board of Directors of the Greater Ukiah Chamber of Commerce, by unanimous decision, formally request your endorsement of the Fort Bragg - Mendocino Coast Chamber of Commerce as the county designee in the Film Liaisons in California Statewide program. Sincerely, Elizabeth R. Brazil General Manager January 28, 1997 FOrT Bragg · MENDOGINO COAST Honorable Members of City Council City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 The Fort Bragg-Mendocino Coast Chamber of Commerce has committed to the establishment of a Mendocino County Film Office. The County of Mendocino and the City of Fort Bragg have endorsed our efforts by Resolution, and Pamela Powell, Deputy Director of the California Film Commission, has approved our application for the Film Liaisons in California Statewide (FLICS) program. Earlier this month I attended a Film Commission conference in Sacramento which was attended by 27 FLICS from all over the state. It was clearly evident that Mendocino County is missing its share of California's $21 billion film industry. For instance, FLICS in neighboring Humboldt and Sonoma counties are infusing their economies with hundreds of thousands of dollars -- not to mention jobs -- from feature films and television series and commercials. In years past, Mendocino County had quite an impressive record of film production, coordinated by Toni Lemos of Mendocino. When she retired, we began losing location filming. In order to once again attract film companies, we must have a recognized representative of the Film Commission who is prepared and qualified to facilitate location filming at no cost to the production company. The California Film Commission requires endorsements from Mendocino's city governments as well as the County Board of Supervisors. Therefore, I ask that members of the City Council send me a letter naming the Fort Bragg-Mendocino Coast Chamber of Commerce as the county designee in the Film Liaisons in California Statewide program. Please keep in mind that all areas of Mendocino County will be suggested as film locations and we will ask individuals from each area to join our Steering Committee. On that committee there will be representatives from county and city agencies, all chambers of commerce, the Mendocino Winegrowers Alliance and the Mendocino County Tourism Board. Along with your letter of endorsement (sample enclosed), we also need copies of all city ordinances and policies affecting filming in your jurisdiction. Thank you for your assistance in bringing the film industry back into Mendocino County. Jim Hay President Post Office Box 1141 · 332 North Main Street, Fort Bragg, CA 95437 (707) 961-6300 or (800) 726-2780 · FAX: (707) 964-2056 · email: chamber@mcn.org FILM LIAISONS liN' CALIFORNLa., STATEWIDE (FLICS) The California Film Commission (CFC) works ha conjunction with the FLIES members to help promote and facilitate filming dctroughout California. The goal of the program is to offer 'die best location andproduc,qon assistance $'ailable anywhere in the world. FLiC$ it a voluntary, non-profit or~m~£iOtl established by state mature. Mcmbcra are ~-upported and funded by a local. entity such as a chamber of commerce, county, or convention and visitora bureau. FLIES members -are experienced troubleshooter~ and actively work to attract production into their communities. FL.rCS members know their local business and government practices, act as liaisons bet'ween the Ludustry and the local comanuni~, and rn'-ak; all approla~'i~.L; lu,.,~l la~bhx~sS r~ferral$, FLICg members ~tay hfform~d on production itcu,~ ~uch a~ permitting fees and processes, chiId labor laws, arid fire and safety standards within their community. They know the best locations avaiIable in their communities and how to secure quick permission for filming *.here, When a location is not available in one area, Y"LICS can relay production company's location needs to the CFC to fax to other FLICS members :via the CFC's Location Flotline overmght. The FLICS designation i~ a signal to the industry that they Ullderstand the b~ines$ and offer professional service, unavailable outside of California. Developing a strong network of 53 FLIES members tM'oughout the ~at~ has curbed nmaway proctuction and increased ~he number of' locadu, ahuu~ {.hx-uu~v[tuut Cal~-iFu~i,ld~. Tar fill.~el' infomlation about tbs iiLICI phone Pamela Powel~ a :~/7~5-~054. PLEASE PHONE THE FLI£S' OFFICE BEFORE YOU VISIT OR. CALL THEIR REGION OR A SPECIFIC SITE ~V-ITHIN THEIR REGION, The followLng is a list ofthe FLICS: CALIFORNIA FILM COMMISSION Patti Stolkin Archuletta, Direc:or Pamela A. Poweil, Deputy Director Catherine Adarnic. Production Analyst Margie Atkins, Imaging Consultant Pamela Lockhart. Permit Coord~azor Lisa Mosher, Librarian Lori Kigo, Executive Assistant Kayla Thames, Production Specialist 6922 Hollywood Blvci., Suite 600 Hollywood, CA 90028 ($00) 858-4749 (213) 736-2465 FAX: (213) 736-Z522 Email: FILMCAt~,aol.com . Web: ww~v.ca.gov./commerce /cf home.html AMADOR COUNTY Tom Blackrnan. Film Commissioner Amador Count), Film Commission I06 Water Street Jackson, CA 95642 (209) 223-2276 Pager: (209) 2094300 FAX: (209) 223-3a06 Email: filmamador@.¢ depot.net Web: www.cdepot.n et/filmamador ANTELOPE VALLEY/LANCASTER Jeff McNeil, Film Liaison Antelope Valley Film Office ..... '-;4933 North Fern Avenue Lancaster, CA 935.35 (805) 723-6090 FA~X: (805~ 723-5~L; .......... Web: www.avfilm.com ANTELOPE VALLEY FILM IINFO & RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT Stephanie Abrahamson P.O, Box 1641 Lancaster. CA 93539 (805) 945-1292 BERKELEY Barbara Hillman, Executive Director Berkeley Film Office Convention 8: Visitors Bureau 1834 University Ave., 1st Floor .. Berkeley, CA 94703-1516 (800) 847-4823 ($10) 549-7040 FAX: (510) 644-2052 Email: beonuis~ix.netcom.com Web: www,b~rkeleycub.com BEVERLY HILLS Robin Chancellor, Director of Communications & Marketing Bonita Miller, Special Events Coordinator City of Beverly Hills 455 North Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210 ~-85-.-438 (3to)" ' " Pager: (310) 501-6638 (Robin) F,(X: (310) 273-1096 BIG BEAR LAKE Carolyn Miller, Manager Big Bear Film Office P.O, Box I0000 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 (909) 878-3040 Pager: (909) 584-7519 ex~. 7519 FAX: (909) 866-6766 BUTTE COUNTY Susan Peter$on; Tourism/Film 'CommiSsion ..Manager Debbie ,lohnson, Tourism/Film Commission Coordinator Chico Chamber of Cotnmerce 500 Main Street Chico, CA 95927 (800) 8524570 (916) 891-5556 ext. 326 (Susan) ext. 308 (Debbie) FA.X: (916) 891-3163 Email: ccsusanp~aot.com CATALINA ISLAND Shirley Davy, Film Liaison Catalina Chamber of Commerce P.O. Box 217 ' ~ Avalon, CA 90704 (310) 510-7646 FAX: (310) 510-1646 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Erin Keid, Sales Manager Convention & Visitors Bureau 2151 Salvio Street, #N Concord, CA 94520 (510) 685-~184 FAX: (510) 6854190 EL DORADO/SOUTH TAHOE Kathleen Dodge, Film Commissioner E1 Dorado Tahoe Film Commission 542 Main Street Placerville, CA 95667 (800) 457-6279 (916) 6264400 Pager: (916) 848-4049 F.a~'(: (916) 642-t624 Email: £dmtahoi.~spider. iloyd, com Web: spider, lloyd.cony'- fLlmtaho EUREKA!ffffUMBOLDT COUNTY Kathleen Gordon-Burke, Film Liaison Marsha Benson, Assistant to Film Liaison Convention & Visitors Bureau 1034 Second Street Eureka, CA 95501 ($00) 346-3482 (707) 444-6635 FAX: (707) 443-5115 Email: Eureka!HumboldtFC~vine. orgRedwood.vis~aol.com FRESNO COUNTY Brian Ziegler, Film Commissioner Convention & Visitors Bureau 808 'M' Street Fresno, CA 93721 (800) 788-0836 (209) 233-0836 FAX: (209) 445-0122 IMPERIAL COUNTY Cindy Stillman, Interim Director Imperial Valley Assn. of Governments 940 North Nlain Street, Suite 208 E1 Cenrro, CA 92243 (800) 345-6437 . (619) 339-4290 FAX: (619) 352-7876 KERN COUNTY Arm Gutcher, Film C~mmissioner Susan Keep, Mtkg, Associate Danetta York, Mtkg. Associate Kern County Board of Trade P.O. Box 1312 Bakersfield, CA 93302 (800) 500-KBlU, I !&.805)g6L-_2367 ....... fret; Hours; '(805') FAX: (805) 861-2017 LAKE COUNTY Wilds Shock Lake Counv/Marketing Program 875 Lakeport Blvd. Lakeport, CA 95453 (800) 525-3743 (707) 26%9544 F.~'C (707) 263-9564 LONG BEACH Jo Ann Bums, Director Alida Hayes, Assistant Offic~ of Special Events City of Long Beach 333 West Ocean Blvd. Long Beach, CA 90802 (310) $70-5333 Pager: (310) 9834740 FAX: (310) 570-5335 John RobLnson, City Film Coordinator & Photographer (3 ] 0) 570-5399 '" Pager: (3 I0) 570-5398 FAX: (310) 499-7630 LOS ANGELEs Cody Cluff, President Stephanie Liner, Executive VP Daryl Seif, Vice President Mike Bobenko, VP Operations Donna Washington, Permits Melodic Hindle, Permit Coordinator Entertainment Industry Development Corporation (EIDC)/LA Film Office 7083 Hollywood Blvd,, 5th Floor Hollywood, CA 90028 (213) 957-1000 Office Pager (310) 983-4740 FAX: (213) 463-0613 MADERA COUNTY Brian Wilkmson, Director Modern Film Commission P.O. Box 126 Bass Lake, CA 93604 (209) 642-3676 FAX: (209) 642-2517 MA.LIBU yjmberty Collins, Dire=or EnX Porter, Permit Coordinator Jedediah Ireland, Permit Coordinator 23555 Civic Cemer Way Malibu, CA 90265.4865 (310) 456-2489 ext. 236 (Klm) ext. 223 (Er~) ext. 275 (Jed) Pager: (310)277-2216 ...... FAX: (310) 456-5799 MAlVlMOTIt, MONO & INYO COUNTI~.S James R. Vanko, Director andy Elliott, Coordinator P.O. Box 24/#1 Minaret Road Mammoth Lakes, CA 93546 (619) 934-0628 Pager. (619). 934-2004/1004 Cellular:. (619) 937-2027 FAX: (619) 934-0700 Web: www.rnammoth-mtn, com MAR~OSA COUNTY Don Hang, Commissioner Mariposa County Film Commission Yosemite/M~posa Chamber of Commerce P.O. Box 425 Mariposa, CA 95338 (800) 208.2434 (209) 966-2456 FA'K: (209) 742-5409 biERCED COUNTY Robin Geyer Conference & Visitors Bureau 690 West 16th Street Men:ed, CA 95340 (209) 384-3333 FAX: (209) 384-8472 MODESTO Linda Hoile, Manager Convention & Visitors Bureau P.O, Box 844 Modesto, CA 95353 (209) 577-5757 FAX: (209) 571-6486 ,MONTEREY COUNTY Karen Nor&'u-anc[, Executive Directnr Juli¢ Armsurong, Director of Special Event~ Monterey County Film Commission P,O. Box Ill Monterey, CA 93942-0111 (408) 646.09 lO FAX: (408) 655-9244 FanaiI: mryfilm~aol.com Web: mry.iafohut, com/MontereyFilm Commission/home.btm OA~ leatii Rucker, Film Coavaiasionor Oakland Film Commission 1333 Broadway, 9th Floor Oakland, CA 94612-1406 (510)228-4734 Pager. (800) 608-6856 FA.X: (510) 238-2227 ORANGE COUNTY Cristi Silverberg, Director of Oper do Debi I-Iausdorfer, Director of Marketing Darlene Moreno, Assistant Director Orange County Film Commission 2 Park pl~:,~. Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92714 (800) 6284033 (714) ,176.2242 ext. 232 (Cristi) mt. 226 (Darlene) Pager: (714) 301-2526 (Cristi) After Hours: (714) 476-0869 FAX: (714) 476-0513 PALM SPRINGS ' Kimberly Purcell McNulty L,na Zimmer~chied, Assistant Convention & Visitors Bureau 69-930 Highway 111, Suite 201 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 (800) 957-3767 (619) 770-9000 ext. 105 (*dtim) · Xt. 117 (Lena) FAX: (619) 770-9001 Web: www.desert-resorts.com PASADENA .aa-ici Penn, Film Liaison 175 North Garfield Ave., #I02 Pasad~aa, CA 91109-7215 (818) 405-3964 FAX: (818) 4054785 P1TTSBURG Brad Nail Chamber of Commerce 2010 Railroad Avenue Pirtsburg, CA 94565 (510) 432-7301 FAX: (5 I0) 427-5555 PLACER COUNTY Jennifer lasper Placer CouaW Film Office 13~68 Lincoln Way Auburn, CA 95603 (916) 897-2111 Pager: (/116) 951-6207 FAX: (916) 887-2134 PLUMA$ CO~ Karen Morfiz Plumm ConnEr Film Commission P.O. Box 4120 Quincy, CA 95971 (800) 326-2247 (916) 283-6345 FAX; (916) 283-5465 REDDING SHASTA COUNTY Sherry Ferguson. Film Commissioner Convention & Visitors Bureau 777 Auditohum Drive Redding, CA 96001 " ($00) 874-7562 (916) 225-4100 FAX: (916) 225-4354 · . RIDGECREST Ray Arthur, Executive Director Lyrm Orong, Administrative As '.sk3mnt Ridgecr¢st Film Co~r-ission 100 West California Avenue Ridgecrest, CA 93555 (800) 847-4830 (619) 37s.82o2 Pager:. (619) .371-0781 After hours; (619)3754552 FAX: (619) 371.1654 EmaiI: mcvb(~owens.rid§ecrest, ca.us Web: www.ridgecrest.¢a, us/ filmcomm . -- '- .. . . . . .- ~.-'"~"" SACRAiYI~N'ro Lucy St~ff'ens, Di~e~xor of Media ~lafio~ J~ Decker, Execu6ve ConventiOn 142I 'K' S~t ~enm, CA 9~814 (91~ 2~5553 F~: Ol~ 2~7788 ......... . ...... .- . S~ BE~O CO~ .. J~e Sm Be~m Co~ Film 615-C (408) 637-5315 F~: (408) 63%1008 Shed Dav~, Director Rajan.Shandil, ~s~t - 301 ~ V~d~flt Way,'S~ I00 S~ Be~~o, ~ 92408 (909) 890-1090 F~: (909) 390-I088 Em~: ie~del~e~m Web: ~.ea~eo~iefe .. ~y ~de~o~ Film Com~ioner ~y MeC~dy, & Rob~ R~e~ ~ D~r, Co~em~ & Mmic L~ ~r, Michael l,apins, ~ony LeS~e, S~ D~ego F~ Comioa 402 W~ Bro~ay, gl000 S~ Diego, CA 92101 .... F~ (619) SAN FRANCISCO - Robin Eickman, Dh'ecmr of Filming Operations Wendy Liaka, Director of Marketing Carole Lsaacs, Assistant Film/Video Arts Commi,_~ion 40I Van Ness Avenue, #417 San Fran¢/sco, CA 94102 (41 ) 554-6244 FAX: (415') 554-6503 Email: sffilcomm~.aokcom Web: www.conn ectmedia.¢oll:U'$.film com.htral SAN JOSE Joe O'K,m% VP~ Film & Video Marketing VickS Ellis, Manager, Film & Video Department Convention & Visitors Bureau 333 West San Carlos Suite 1000, 10th Floor San Jose, CA 95110 (800) SAN-JOSE (401t) 295-9600 ext. 134 (Joe) ext. 135 (VickS) FAX: (408) 295-3937 Email: jokane~sanjose.org vellis~sanjose.org Web: www.sanjose.org SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY Jonni Biaggini, Executive Director Robin Smith, Sales Manager Visitor & Convention Bureau/Film Commission 103'7 Mill Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (g05) 541-i000 FAX: (805) 543-9495 Emaih slocvcb(~slonet, org ' Web: www.ci.sf, ca.us/film SAN MATEO COUNTY Juda Tolma~off, Film Liaison Convention & Visitors Bureau Seabreeze P!a~'-a ! 11 Anza Blvd., ~410 Burlingame, CA 94010 (415) 348-7600 FAX: (415) 348-7687' SANTA BARBARA COUNTY Nancy Larman, Commissioner Santa- Barbara County Film Council 12 East Carillo Street Santa Barbara, CA 9310 I ($05) 966-9222 FAX: (805) 966-1728 Em_aL1i sbcvb~sil¢om.com Web: ,~AvW.silcom.corrdsbarb,' ~']tm- serv ic es/sb fchome.hrm ... SANTA CL,'kRIT:~, V,LLLE¥ Cheryl Adams, Commissioner Lori Murl~hy, Production Assistant SCV Film & Tourism Bureau ?197fl Valencia Rivd. #125 San'm Clarita, CA. 91355-2175 (800) 4-FILMSC (805) 259-4787 FAX: (805) 259-7304 SAe~TA CRUZ COUIN'I'¥ Kal'ina Paz. Film Liaizon Santo Cruz County Convention & Visitors Bureau 701 Front Street Santa Cruz, CA 95060 (408) 425-12.34 ext. I5 FAX: (408) 425-1260 Email: dopa~cruzio.com Web: www/in fopoint.¢om/sedevcd SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS NATIONAL RECRKATION AREA Alice M. Allen, Permit Coordinator National Park Service 30401 Agoura Road, #100 Agoura Hills, CA 9130I ($15) 59%t036 ext. 212 FA_X: (818) 597-8357 Email: alice_allen~,nps.gov Web: www.nps.gov/samo SISKIYOU COUNTY Betty Smart Siskiyou Film Commission P.O. Box 262 Mt. Shasta, CA 96067 Home: (916) 926-3794 FAX: (916) 926-4166 SONOMA COUNTY Sheree Green Sonoma Film Commission 5000 Robem Lake R, oad, #A Kohnert Park, CA 94928 (707) 586-8110 Pager: (707) 323-4344 FAX: (707) 586-$111 Email: Filmms~aoI.com Web: www.visitsonoma.¢orrff . .. Tl.,q..~ R £ COL.?rI~, Diana Metzler, Community Development Specialist Tulare CounD' Courthouse, Room !03 ¥i~itlia, CA 9329 ! (209) 733=6294 FAX: (209) 730-2591 TUOLUMI~ COUNTY/SONORA Kelli Come l%nct .~lk~a Tuolumne County Film Commission P.O. Box 4020 Sonora, CA 95370 (209) 533-4420 ext. 1105 (Kelli) ext. 102 (Nanci) FAX: (209) 533-0956 Emaih kelli@mlode,eom Web: www.mlode.eom/-nsierra/film. him VALLEJO/SOLANO COUNTY Judi Perazzo, Film Liaison Convention & Visitors Bureau 495 Mare Island Way Vallejo, CA 94590 (707) 642-3653 FAX: (707) 644-2206 WEST HOLLYWOOD Terry House, Film Liaison 11300 Santa MonJca Blvd. West Hollywood, CA 90069-4314 (213) 848-6489 Pager: (310) 572-8794 FAX: (213) 848-6561 Email: wehofilm~¢i.west- hollywood.ca.m January 10, 1997 RESOLUTION NO. 95- 2 55 RESOLUTION OF THE MENDOCINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ENCOURAGING THE FORMATION OF A MENDOCINO COUNTY FILM OFFICE WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors and the people of Mendocino County are proud of the beautiful natural features of Mendocino County, and of the enhancement to these features made by the people of Mendocino County; and WHEREAS, this 6oarcl and the people of Mendocino County are proud to welcome visitors to this area, and to share the pleasures of our way of life with these visitors; and WHEREAS, this Board and the people of Mendocino County recognize film and television production as a culturally enriching and satisfying experience for a national and international audience, and recognize the film and television industry as a valuable component of the economy of this region; and WHEREAS, this Board further recognizes the need to develop a proactive marketing plan and operations to attract film and television productions to Mendocino County given the competitive nature of film and television location in California and the nation; and WHEREAS, this Board is aware of the importance of identifying and marketing on an on-going basis the diverse attractions that exist throughout the county, both on the coast and inland; and WHEREAS, this Board is aware that thoughtful organization and guidelines will minimize the potential negative impacts and maximize the benefit of filming operations to both local residents and film opera~ors; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Mendocino County supports the creation of a Mendocino County Film Office to proactively market, serve as a prime contact, and effectively coordinate filming activities in Mendocino County; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Mendocino County wishes to go firmly on record as encouraging and welcoming the film and television industry to Mendocino County. The foregoing resolution was introduced by Supervisor ~e~:e~, seconded by Supervisor ~'d. chae~ , and carded this 19th day of December, 1995, by the following vote on roll call: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Supervisors M~4i~el, Pinches, Henry, Peterson, Sugawara None None WHEREUPON, the Chairman declared said resolution adopted, AND DO ORDERED. SEIJi SI~AWARA, Chai~r~an ATTEST: JOYCE A. BEARD Clerk of said Board ! hereby certify that according to the provisions of Government Code Section 25103, delivery of this document has been made. · JOYCE A. BEARD ,By: ~ RESOLUTION NO. 2144-96 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT BRAGG ENCOURAGING THE FORMATION OF A MENDOCINO COUNTY FILM OFFICE WHEREAS, the Fort Bragg City Council and the people of Fort Bragg are proud of the beautiful natural features of Mendocino County, especially our Coast, and of the enhancement to these features made by the people of Fort Bragg and Mendocino County; and WHEREAS, this City Council and the people of Fort Bragg are proud to welcome visitors to this area, and to share the pleasures of our way of life with these visitors; and WHEREAS, this City Council and the people of Fort Bragg recognize film and television production as a culturally enriching and satisfying experience, and recognize the film and television industry as a valuable component of the economy of this region; and WHEREAS, the Fort Bragg City Council wishes to go firmly on record as encouraging and welcoming the film and television industry; and WHEREAS, this City Council further recognizes the need to develop a proactive marketing plan and operations to attract film and television productions to this area given the competitive nature of film and television location in California and the nation; and WHEREAS, this City Council is aware of the importance of identifying and marketing the diverse attractions that exist throughout the City and both the Coast and Inland areas of the County; and WHEREAS, this City Council is aware that thoughtful organization and guidelines will minimize the potential negative impacts and maximize the benefit of filming operations to both local residents and film operators; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Fort Bragg City Council supports the creation of a Mendocino County Film Office to productively market, serve as prime contact, and effectively - 1 - coordinate filming activities in the City as well as the unincorporated area. The above and foregoing Resolution was introduced by Council- member Olbrantz, was seconded by Councilmemher Galli, and passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Fort Bragg held on the 26th day of February, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Peters, Galli, Huber, Olbrantz, and Mayor CamPbell. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. · PATRICIA A. CAMPBRT.T., Mayor ATTEST. - s/ DeeLynn R. Carpenter DeeLynn R. Carpenter, CMC/AAE City Clerk - 2 - The foregoing instrument Is a correct copy of the original on file at City Hall, Fe. rt/Bragg, Calif .... OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE CORPORATION DIVISION I, MARCH FONG EU, Secretary of State of the State of California, herebY certify' That the annexed transcript has been compared with the corporate record on file in this office, of which it purports to be a copy, and that same is full, true and correct. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I execute this certificate and afl]x the Great Seal of the State of California this ,SEP - 7 199~ SecretarF o[ State SEC/STATE FORM CF.- ! 07 86 40888 1865558 FILED In the o.~;:~ of f,~e S~retr~,--t o'~ State ' Ug 2 7 1993 ARTICLES OF INCORPOFLa, TION OF [~ARCH FONG Ei.I, Secrei:ary c.;t State UKIAH FOUNDATION FOR COMMERCE AND EDUCATION, INC. The name of this corporation is UKIAH FOUNDATION FOR COMMERCE AND EDUCATION, INC. A. This corporation' is a nonprofit public benefit corporation and is not organized for the private gain of any person. It is organized under the Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law for charitable purposes. B. The primary and specific purposes of this corporation are to sponsor educational and training programs relating to both the public and private sectors of the economy, the environment, and government, and to conduct research and analysis of matters of public interest affecting the economy, education, and government; and in that connection to collect and receive funds and donations in order to carry on the purposes of the corporation; to promote the common good and general welfare of persons in the area by providing such services and funding for such purposes; and to have and exercise all rights and powers now or hereafter conferred on non-profit corporations under the laws of the State of California. Iii The name and address in the State of California of this corporation's initial agent for service of process is: ELIZABETH CHRISTIAN, 495 East Perkins St., Ukiah, Ca. 95482 IV A. This corporation is organized and operated exclusively for charitable purposes within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. B. No substantial part of the activities of this corporation shall consist of carrying on propaganda, or othenNise attempting to influence legislation, and the corporation shall not participate or intervene in any political campaign (including the publishing or distribution of statements) on behalf of any candidate for public office. . V The property of the corporation is irrevocably dedicated to charitable purposes and no part of the net income or assets of this corporation shall ever inure to the benefit of any director, officer, or member thereof, or to the benefit of any private person. Upon the dissolution or winding up of the corporation, its assets remaining after payment, or provision for payment, of all debts and liabilities of this corporation shall be distributed to a nonprofit fund, foundation or corporation which is organized and operated exclusively for charitable purposes and which has established its tax exempt status under Section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. · Dated: August 18, 1993 IH CHRISTIAN Incorporator ITEM NO. 10b DATE: APRIL 2, 1997 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: SET DATE FOR BUDGET GOAL SETTING WORKSHOP The Departments have completed documentation of the 1996-97 accomplishments and goals for the upcoming 1997-98 fiscal year. This is a standard step in the development of the City's annual budget. A Council workshop is appropriate to verify the objectives and identify any particular programs or projects the Council may wish to discuss. Approximately two hours should be adequate for this activity. Staff will have our calendars available at the meeting so a time and date can be established. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Set date and time for Budget Goal Setting Workshop ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Determine a goal setting workshop is not required and take no action. Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Appropriation Requested: N/A Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: Acct. No.' N/A N/A N/A Michael F. Harris, AICP, Assistant City Manager Candace Horsley, City Manager None APPROVED' mfh:asrcc97 0402GOALS Candace Horsley, City Manager