Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2004-06-16 Packet
CITY OF UKIAH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Regular Meeting CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 June 16, 2004 6:30 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. INTRODUCTION/PROCLAMATION a. Introduction of New Public Utilities Director Bernie Ziemianek b. Proclamation: Gay Pride/Awareness Week in Ukiah 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. Regular Meeting of April 21,2004 (Continued from 6/2/04) 1 RIGHT TO APPEAL DECISION Persons who are dissatisfied with a decision of the City Council may have the right to a review of that decision by a court. The City has adopted Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, which generally limits to ninety days (90) the time within which the decision of the City's Boards and Agencies may be judicially challenged. Sm CONSENT CALENDAR The following items listed are considered routine and will be enacted by a single motion and roll call vote by the City Council. Items may be removed from the Consent Calendar upon request of a Councilmember or a citizen in which event the item will be considered at the completion of all other items on the agenda. The motion by the City Council on the Consent Calendar will approve and make findings in accordance with Administrative Staff and/or Planning Commission recommendations. a. Approval of Disbursements for Month of May 2004 b. Notification of Emergency Purchase From the JWC Company for One Factory Exchange Influent Channel Grinder in an Amount Not to Exceed $24,969 Plus Applicable Tax and Shipping c. Rejection of Claim for Damages Received from Charles A. Nickerman and Referral to Joint Powers Authority, Redwood Empire Municipal Insurance Fund d. Report of Award of Construction Contract for the Cleaning and Purging of Well #5 to Water Well Technology Inc. in the Amount of $9,385 e. Adoption of Resolution Amending Appendix to City Conflict of Interest Code f. Approval of Budget Amendment in the Amount of $5,000 for Special Legal Fees Related to Litigation by River Watch g. Approval of Budget Amendment for Expenditures From Fund 699 For the Construction of New Sidewalks and ADA Ramps 7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS The City Council welcomes input from the audience. If there is a matter of business on the agenda that you are interested in, you may address the Council when this matter is considered. If you wish to speak on a matter that is not on this agenda, you may do so at this time. In order for everyone to be heard, please limit your comments to three (3) minutes per person and not more than ten (10) minutes per subject. The Brown Act regulations do not allow action to be taken on audience comments in which the subject is not listed on the agenda. al 1 PUBLIC HEARING (6:45 P.M.) a. Approval of Application to Demolish Two Structures Over 50 Years Old Located at 578 Clara Avenue, Ukiah b. Adoption of Resolution Approving General Plan Housing Element Update Project, Amendments to the Land Use and Transportation & Circulation Elements, and Associated Environmental Documents UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Discussion and Possible Approval of Revised Public Safety Sales Tax Ordinance for November 2004 Election b. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Hopland Bypass Funding- Vice- Mayor Baldwin 10. NEW BUSINESS a. Report Describing the City of Ukiah's Process for Disposal of Surplus Property - Councilmember Andersen b. Adoption of Resolution Calling an Election and Authorizing Execution Of Agreement with the County Of Mendocino for the Provision of Election Services at the City Election to Be Consolidated With the Regular Statewide General Election c. Selection of Members for the Solid Waste Subcommittee d. Discussion and Direction to the Inland Water and Power Commission Representative 11. COUNCIL REPORTS 12. CITY MANAGER/CITY CLERK REPORTS 13. CLOSED SESSION 14. ADJOURNMENT TO TUESDAY~ JUNE 297 2004~ 8:00 A.M.~ 2004/05 BUDGET HEARING The City of Ukiah complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities upon request. AGENDA ITEM NO: 3 ~, MEETING DATE: June 16, 2004 SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION OF NEW PUBLIC UTILITIES DIRECTOR BERNIE ZlEMIANEK The City of Ukiah is pleased to welcome Bemard "Bemie" Ziemianek to the position of Public Utilities Director. Mr. Ziemianek has over 20 years of utility experience and originally hailed from Pennsylvania, where he earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from Drexel University, a Master of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from Lehigh University, and is certified as a Professional Engineer. During his professional career in Pennsylvania, Mr. Ziemianek was the Area Operating Manager for Pennsylvania Power and Light Company, responsible for service to over 350,000 industrial, commercial and residential customers. He manager and supervised over 225 personnel involved in all phases of division customer service, economic development, marketing and sales, and rights of way, as well as 100 line crews and meter operations. Mr. Ziemianek comes to Ukiah most recently from the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) in Pale Alto, where he served as the Director of Distributed and Renewable Energy Resources. His responsibilities included business development for three major research and development programs involving fuel cells, micro-turbines, flywheels, battery storage systems, combined heat and power, PV Solar and Thermal, wind, biomass, Iow energy hydro, and hydrogen-related technologies and systems. In addition, he directed research and development programs for technology development in the electric transmission and distribution areas. Mr. Ziemianek is a very dynamic, energetic individual whose vast experience and leadership in the utility field will be a welcome asset to the City of Ukiah. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Welcome Mr. Ziemianek to the City staff. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizens Advised' Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Candace Horsley, City Manager Candace Horsley, City Manager N/A None Approved: Candace Horsley, C~y Manager 4:CAN/ASR.IntroZiemianek.061604 WHEREAS, tile Pride Alliance Network in Mendocino County was formed as a non- pro[it organization in October 2003 to help create safety~ sel[-respect~ and support for LGBT communin'es and their suppornYe [amilles and friends; and WHEREAS, the Pride Alliance Network, the Mendocino County chapter of Parents, Network (GLSEN), Billy Foundation, other community organizations, and gay and straight community members support Gay Pride/Awareness Week in Mendocino County NOW~ THEREFORE, I, Eric Larson, Mayor o£ the City of Ukiab, on behal£o£mr fellow City Councilmembers Phll Baldwin, Roy Smith, PaulAndersen, and Mari Rodin do hereby proclaim June 14 - 20~ 2004, as: Gay Pride/Awareness Week in Ukiah · .. WHEREAS, throughout the United States during the month of June, celebrations, rallies, and parades will be held recognizing the diversity and strength that has de~eloped in the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual~ and Transgender flLGBT) community; and WHEREAS, manylesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuab in Mendoclno County are productive, compassionate, and contributing members of the community yet are not fully accepted by the community at large; and WHEREAS, the Ukiah City Council'and the community at large agree that the discrimination, harassment~ and physical harm experienced by lesbian, gas bisexual, and transffender individuals is not acceptable and will not be tolerated,, and WHEREAS," the United States Constitution clearly provides that all citizens are entitled to equal protection and basic civil rights under the law; and MINUTES OF THE UKIAH CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21,2004 The Ukiah City Council met at a Regular Meeting on April 21,2004, the notice for which had been legally noticed and posted, at 4:00 p.m. Roll was taken and the following Councilmembers were present: Rodin, Andersen, Smith, Baldwin (arrived at 4:12 p.m.), and Mayor Larson. Staff present: Community Services Director DeKnoblough, Police Administrative Captain Dewey, Finance Director Elton, Risk Manager/Budget Officer Harris, City Manager Horsley, Police Officer Interim Public Utility Director Kennedy, Fire Chief Latipow, City Attorney Rappor :e Officer Stark, Public Works Director/City Engineer Steele, Police Chief Wil and Deputy City Clerk Ulvila. PRE-BUDGET City Manager Horsley advised that the put and staff an opportunity to discuss 2004-05 budget and for the Council to provi~ the draft budget, which will be presented to Public Safety Departments met centralization of dispatch services. vacant positions, and recommendE and Community Development, Fire, services. She also dis( Staff Report to ~oted 1 suggestions for Fund .saving ons for and is on to di n the City ,~S. this workshop is t. the Council the year larding the ,Iopment of June. She advised that the towards hiring a consultant for the estimated budget deficit, Services, Planning )ri other miscellaneous that are presented in her Ioyees have also submitted Jim Maston, form serve" and problem City's abili' the City's motto is "We are here to aying employees off creates a moral serve the community. Dicl ~er, Ukiah, inde ntly with appropr rE ncil to look at the Fire and Police Departments they provide and to fund them to an Ukiah Polic Officer Glenn Stark discussed the sales tax measure that was on ballot (Measure G) and strongly recommended that the City not consider any to the Police Department staffing because it would reduce the amount of time Police could provide service to the community. He continued to discuss the duties of the officers and crimes in the City. Ukiah Police Officer Johnson, President of the Ukiah Police Officers Association, discussed the increased work load of the Police Department and that a fair amount of danger to the officers is associated with the job. Jerilyn Harris, Executive Director of the Employers Council of Mendocino County, stated that the Employers Council was opposed to the way ballot Measure G was written. A letter detailing this position was submitted. Regular City Council Meeting April 21,2004 Page 1 of 13 Councilmember Smith recommended that Ms. Harris' recommendation be discussed later in the agenda and he would recommend a committee be formed to work on the language for a sales tax increase ballot measure for the November 2004 election. Councilmember Andersen explained that he is not interested in reductions to the Police and Fire Departments. He inquired as to the balance in Reserve Fund #699 and made the recommendation that some of those funds be utilized for the Police and Fire Departments. He opposed closing the City's pool. Finance Director Elton stated that according to Gen~ g Principals, he highly recommended that Fund #699 not be depleted may be needed in an emergency or it may be difficult to replenish if use~ noted that setting up a special fund would violate General Acc~ 't be able to issue a financial statement, and the City's would not bE to certify the accounting of the fund. He further discussE impact of reducing ty's reserve funds. Councilmember Andersen inquired if the City the expense for public safety this then rep. nsfer Reserve Funds to cover this year and next year. Finance Director Elton explained ti City's reserve fund and it wouldn't rec of whether to defer the ~owever, it would lower the that it is a question Tape lb Councilmem! not deplete its res~ in was opinion the City needs to pay its debts now and Council Nove~ in serve( discus.~ then for olice and any de possibility his for placing a sales tax measure on the purposes. He recommended there not be further cuts ,nt's budgets and he opposed a reduction in City is able to review the salaries for each position. He g the salaries for management by a percentage and John Murphy Police and Fire D those services are I: officer and retired fire captain, was of the opinion that services are the most important services for the City. Once ik up to speed, then other City facilities could reopen. Sue Thornhill, Vice President of Ukiah Youth Cheerleading and Football Program and an Ukiah resident, explained that there are a number of youth sports in the community that help the Police Department by keeping kids off the street and out of trouble. Councilmember Rodin was opposed to spending reserves because the fund will eventually be depleted. She recommended the Council consider putting an increase sales tax measure on the November ballot and the community needs to acknowledge Regular City Council Meeting April 21,2004 Page 2 of 13 and realize the increased sales tax would go toward maintaining the public safety services in the City. Councilmember Andersen recommended the City consider early retirement plans and revisit personnel hiring procedures for recent years. It was his opinion that the Code Enforcement Officer and Traffic Enforcement Officer positions are revenue generating positions. Monte Hill, resident of Ukiah and member of the Committee, inquired if a budgeted amount is going into inquired about the amount due to PERS. nvestment Oversight ~serve fund. He also Tom Maston, President of the Pony Colt League inquired as to the amount of money needed stadium. maintena~ Anton Stadium and ~d repairs of the John Moon, Ukiah, stated he is an the M continue to maintain it. He recommended the more revenue into the current et in order to the community, at least until hen it will tax is approved by the voters. ~m and felt should 1 alternatives bringing in the current level of service to if an increase in sales Tape 2a Jim Wattenburger, downtown area, su. tax measure for th, ishing mittee 1 ;iness owner in Ukiah's on language for a sales City Manager inquired of ~of sponsorship of City activities and ~r, is to the polic, [ection, a speedi~ streets ;ed that he is not supportive of cuts to the Museum as it the history of the community. He supported more officer, and the need to increase citations for as a need to obtain a funding source for those items. Mayor Lars they are community suppo that the Sun House closure of Anton Stadium and the pool and noted iommunity. If the City could generate sponsorship and services, it could continue those services. He also noted Jild may be able to assist with additional funding for the Museum. Councilmember Smith voiced his support of sponsorship for Community Services activities. Councilmember Baldwin opposed corporate sponsorship for public activities if the name was attached to the facility. Councilmember Rodin recommended Staff conduct more research into the "other options for consideration" listed on page 5 of the City Manager's Report to Council. Regular City Council Meeting April 21,2004 Page 3 of 13 Councilmember Andersen requested an assessment of City owned property located on Helen Avenue. He stated he is interested in some of the suggestions provided by City employees. Councilmember Baldwin, Andersen, and Smith were opposed to closing City parks, the pool and Anton Stadium. It was the consensus of Council for Staff to pursue s and the pool. ]ip for Anton Stadium Adjourned: 6:00 p.m. Reconvened: 6:30 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Joy Beeler led the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. PROCLAMATIONS PRESENTATION 3a. Proclamation: National Food Drive Mayor Larson read the ~roclaimir Association of Letter Carriers) Nat Drive to take part by placing a food Jail b, letter carrier can pick it up and - 2004 8, 2004 as NALC (National Ukiah and urged all citizens Saturday, May 8 so their Katherine Graham on be the Ukiah Food Bank. 1 3b. Pr(: Mayor La and withif :OI nt ~oets to p~ 'INTRODUCTION 2O04 ng April 25, 2004 as ukiaHaiku Festival icipate in the planned festivities scheduled Doril lerson acce invited )ne to the ul Festival. and discussed the essence of Haiku and Linda Noel Laureate. She oil for appointing her the City of Ukiah's newest Poet Larson with a book titled "The Dirt is Red". 3. PROCLAI i/PRESENTATIONS/INTRODUCTION 3c. Presentations: Individual Councilmembers Read Selected Poems (Councilmembers Smith and Baldwin~ and Mayor Larson) Mayor Larson, Councilmember Smith, and Vice-Mayor Baldwin read poems. 3. PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS/INTRODUCTION 3d. Presentation by Ukiah Main Street Pro_clram Regarding Downtown Revitalization Activities on Behalf of the City of Ukiah and the Ukiah Redevelopment A_clencv Joy Beeler, of the Ukiah Main Street Program, she read a poem. Regular City Council Meeting April 21,2004 Page 4 of 13 Rick Hanson, President of Main Street Program, discussed the National Main Street Program and explained what it means. Jim Wattenburger, member of the Main Street Program, discussed the performance standards instilled by the City's contract with the Main Street Program and discussed activities they sponsor, last year's accomplishments for the program in volunteer activities, sponsorships, fund raising events, membership fees, and workshops. He noted their partnership with the City has been very successful. City Manager Horsley explained that the Ukiah G meeting with the City and County and is looking t activities. ~rts group is going to be in more community 3. PROCLAMATIONS/PRESEN 3e. Introduction of Public Works Su Public Works Director/City Engineer Public Works Maintenance II worker in the IODUCTION the new Public Works Maintenance II and he is looking forward to the ch; ~r, stated it's a challenging job 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4a. Bud et Hearin Mayor Larson note~ second sentence Id increased to a position to second last paragraph, and that the that the assistant's hours be M/S Ande 2003, Rodi~ AB: ersen, None. the Budget Hearings of June 23-24, the ~g roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers and Mayor Larson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. 5. RIG APPEAL tN Mayor La the process. 6. CONSENT M/S Rodin/Smith ving item "a" through "d" of the Consent Calendar as follows: a. Approved ;ments For Month Of March 2004; b. Approved Sole Source Procurement From Air Exchange, Inc. to Extend and Upgrade the Current OSHA Mandated Apparatus Bay Exhaust System in the Amount of $32,764.28 and Approval of Budget Amendment; c. Approved Contract with Sterling Codifiers; d. Approved Lease with Nuestra Casa for Community Garden Site. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Rodin, Andersen, Smith, Baldwin, and Mayor Larson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Regular City Council Meeting April 21,2004 Page 5 of 13 7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Mike Deckered, Ukiah, discussed why he voted no on Measure G in the last election. Ana Araiza, Ukiah, discussed activities planned by Project Sanctuary for April which is Sexual Awareness Month. She stated that she would be supportive of Measure G if funds were allocated for a bilingual police officer position. Richard Johnson, stated he works for the Alliance for Human Rights and supports the City hiring a Mexican-American police officer. 8. PUBLIC HEARING 8a. Public Hearing Regarding Enforcement Services Fund Grant in the Amount of 000 FY 0 02/03 COPS and Discussion of Fun, 2004) Police Chief Williams clarified the pu (COPS) Program and noted that these shall not supplant any existing funding for law entity. He explained that Staff is ending consistent with the Council a fiscal year. They include: 1) Fur evidence room move; 2) Funding equ of force training Iher and 4) Emergency Ich as,, e. Notification of Law ~lic of Funds for FY cation (Conti from the Citi delir Option f¢ Safety ment existing services, and ~ent services provided by that for the funds, which are and Objectives for this space gained from the Department's application goals of the department; Public Hearing No public commenl Public He~ : 7:16 Ta prop, for remodel viewed video computeri: ' ' ise ;ntial. that she toured the Police facility and the area the need for surveillance equipment. She also booking room. She explained that video and Discussion foil, gard to the bid process for equipment and training and the cost to remodel gained from the evidence room's move. Police Chief Williams discussed th Councilmembers the small percentage of time officers spend on traffic violations compared to responding to other safety considerations. He explained that their original proposal was to use the funds for one year to fund a traffic officer position and at that time, the Department had a functioning firearm range which they don't have now. Many Councilmembers were supportive of hiring a traffic enforcement officer with possible future funding. Councilmember Andersen requested that as the project moves forward, Council be kept informed of the costs involved. Regular City Council Meeting April 21,2004 Page 6 of 13 M/S Smith/Rodin authorizing Police Department spending plan for both Fiscal year 2002/03 and Fiscal Year 2003/04 grants; carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Rodin, Andersen, Smith, Baldwin, and Mayor Larson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Mayor Larson advised that with the consensus of Council, there is a request to move item 10e next on the agenda. 10e. Discussion and Direction to Staff Rt Mendocino County Inland Water and Power Com~ Mendocino Counl Water to Act as a ". U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Coyote Dam Roland Sanford, General Manager of the Men( Commission (IWPC), discussed his draft Engineers for the Coyote Dam Feasibility St[ reported that the Mendocino County reviewed the document and found it a~ Agreement, once all parties are in agreemen finalized. They hope to have the document com begin by mid October. He the County Water Agency sharing one total c( sharing the other two-thirds was de have come forward and said that tt' Mendocino County IWP Between ~n and the Sponsor" for the ~d Water and Power with thc Army Corps of provided in Report. He ,cy Board and Cou have next step Project e the docum~ before it is mid summer so the study can haring split of the Mendocino ~d the members of the IWPC 'e three organizations that sole local sponsors; the Flood Control District. City Manager H changes which noted the .nford will Attorney has made some grammatical Mayor La docum~ sinc~ was sh noted on page 5, subsection "b" of the uitable di= on of the project benefits. He felt that a one-third/two-third share of costs, there should be o buy in. Mr. Sa appropriat responde( lefine how at there is still considerable debate concerning if it is share of benefits should be broken out. Mayor Larson buy in at an appro · ' that the potential benefits and the legal opportunity to ~hare will be difficult to define. Mr. Sanford responded to an inquiry by Councilmember Baldwin as to the local share of the Feasibility Study by stating that if the Feasibility Study were to be executed as originally planned and all of the options were studied from the Reconnaissance Report, including the raising of the dam, it is estimated that it would cost $5 million to do the Study and the local sponsor's share would be $2.5 million. He confirmed that every year the Corps will need to get their appropriation and it will vary by year, in part depending on the scope of activities that are anticipated to occur that year and other budgetary factors. He noted that the President's budget has $200,000 set aside for the Regular City Council Meeting April 21,2004 Page 7 of 13 Coyote Dam Feasibility Study for this fiscal year. The local sponsor share would need to match the $200,000. Councilmember Baldwin inquired about the designation of the project manager and in- kind services and inquired if there is anything the project manager does, according to this agreement that would be considered in-kind services for the County Water Agency's share. Mr. Sanford responded affirmatively. In general, none of the in-kind services unless the participants agree that it is response to an inquiry by Councilmember Andersen, referring to fiscal year 2004-05 with regard to the City agrees, its commitment would be $33,000 in local match. He also confirmed that the budget to $66,000 in the coming fiscal year. ~ct manager's work is ~ut of the ordinary. In ford explained that he is confirmed that if the r for its share of the }cino committing in its Jerilyn Harris, representing the ME not only is there a buy-in, but there is a cumul for those living in Mendocino County. She residents. inty Council. that results in a positive result d securing water for County Mayor Larson stated that in language that guarantees the optic participatory commitm( based on who is resentful if icy development of ect. out of any SM( for the initi ultir the vantac. could there has to be some percentage your liven project is going to be ~r that I: ticular project. He would be that on the City of Ukiah's money for the language allowing for reimbursement non-participants would get reimbursed make it a little more palatable and fair. It wa~ Insen il to convey its responses to the IWPC. 9. U 9a. Dis; N; City Managl (Measure G) BUSII of Possil Public Safety Sales Tax Ballot Measure on the sed that the City's March public safety sales tax measure out of the necessary 67% of the votes necessary to pass. Council has aske, endize a discussion of whether to place a similar measure on the November 2004 ballot. She recommended Council review comments from the public as to why they did or did not vote for Measure G and determine what changes could be made to the ordinance to make the measure more acceptable to the community. She explained that a resolution requesting consolidation of the municipal election with the County election would need to be submitted to the County by July 19th in order to be considered by the Board of Supervisors at their August 3rd meeting. The possibility of a mail-in ballot" election was discussed and Council directed the City Clerk's office to contact the Mendocino County Elections Department for details. It was Regular City Council Meeting April 21,2004 Page 8 of 13 noted by the City Attorney that the City would be able to use this voting method if there are under 5,000 registered voters in the City of Ukiah. Jerilyn Harris, representing the Mendocino County Employers Council, suggested setting up a committee to include the public with regard to formulate language for this ballot measure. It was her opinion that the Employers Council would not have opposed Measure G if it had provided more information as to how the funds would be used. She suggested the sales tax increase be one quarter cent instead of a half cent. Councilmember Baldwin was of the opinion that a gr participate in the November election. He ex opposed the measure in March should not be part of ti new measure. of voters will ~ncern that those that to draft language for a Tape 2a It was felt that the language of the me~ Councilmembers were of the opinion that public needs to be educated as to why an in and the impact it will have on the public passed. It was determined that meeting t, could be held at the Conference staff sh meeting, with special invitations community organizations. is the key to its is ;risis situati tge. Some ~d that the tax is neede~ this time ~ents whether it is or is not it ~ublic comment on the matter a public notice of the administrators, and It was the consensul that tax inch ;e should be a half cent. Police Officer if the Council woul the City not h ion he wo hard on the last campaign and inquired go forward with the provision that then bring ~uncil to hold one session and invite the public to obtain nts back to the Council for consideration. Mayor ~n voiced hi: he was ~rtive of supported pE ' ' well as an expa increasing the number of police officers however, sunset clause, especially a short-term sunset clause. He reviews of the sales tax as well as tighter restrictions as ~eeds for the departments. Councilmember lin voiced her opposition to a sunset clause because the City is embarking on many new expenses. She felt the language in Measure G was clear. Daniel de la Peza, Ukiah, voiced his support for Measure G and suggested that Council show the public the impacts of the measure's failure. It was the consensus of the Council to form a committee and review the language of the measure. Recessed at 8:50 p.m. Regular City Council Meeting April 21,2004 Page 9 of 13 Reconvened at 8:59 p.m. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9b. Discussion Regarding Candidate Interviews for City Commissions and Boards - Councilmember Rodin (Continued from April 7, 2004 meetin.q) Councilmember Rodin advised that she asked for a discussion regarding which commissions the City Council believes are appropriate to have candidate interviews. She thought interviewing applicants for all commissions may be fairer. She also wanted to discuss Councilmember Baldwin's previous proposal ;ach Councilmember appointing its own Planning Commissioner. Councilmember Baldwin discussed the recent deci= Rosa to allow each Councilmember to appoint expiring with their own term. He felt it important be represented on the Commission. Counci City Council in Santa ~=r to a term ~ers perspectives Tape 2b Mayor Larson stated that he previously tho opinions of the City Council but now he thinks it shoL reflect the have a diversity of opinion. Councilmember Andersen was Commission that share their own vie' that should want people on the Councilmember Smil been made during be interviewed. see an ~ars. H think a the appointments have 'ssion applicants need to M/S Baldwin/Rodi Councilm~ s mai term wi' :ity Council. s~x weeks an Ordinance regarding City Commissioners for a concurrent Me arried by ti and Baldwi None. !NT: None call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Rodin, Andersen, 9mber Smith and Mayor Larson. ABSTAIN: 10. NEW 10b. Presenl eneration Projects Utilizing Biomass anH Bioqas Fu =e Electrical Energy for the City of Ukiah Interim Public Utili s Director Kennedy advised that for Council's consideration are two prospective cogeneration projects that would be constructed and operated by COGENTECH and its contractual partners for the sole purpose of providing electrical energy to the City of Ukiah. The primary cogeneration project would utilize chips from wood waste (biomass) and produce six megawatts (MW) of power. The secondary cogeneration project would utilize methane gas (biogas) generated by the digesters at the City's Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) to produce 300 kilowatts of power. Garrett Smith, President of COGENTECH and Director of Engineering for Agricultural Sustainable Energy Technologies, Inc. (ASET), stated that Biomass/Biogas would Regular City Council Meeting April 21,2004 Page 10 of 13 provide resource sustainability, reduce costs, have Iow pollution, provide long-term, high quality careers during and after construction, proactively manage agricultural and wood products waste disposal problems, stabilize electricity prices for the Ukiah community, provide Iow cost thermal energy to adjacent businesses, and provide optimum utilization of methane gas from the City's WWTP by providing all of the heat and power needed for the digesters. Tape 3a Discussion followed relative to the operational procedures plants. biomass and biogas Chris Brown, Mendocino County Air Quality Cc standards and noted that if the threshold is exceed However, the projects seem to be below that thre= discussed federal ger public hearings. M/S Andersen/Smith determining that gotiations with CO~ and its contractual partners for the develo :1 of Bioma,, Biogas cogeneration plants for the purpose of gE for the City Ukiah is advantageous to the City of Ukiah, and aut e City Manager to execute appropriate Non Disclosure Ag and Lette~ ~nt. A brief discussion followed Attorney Rapport that the Letters agreement. of l and it was noted by City ~nt to negotiate on an Motion carried g call Smith, Baldwin, ayor Lar', NOES Councilmembers Rodin, Andersen, ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None 10. 10a. Water Col Pro_qram Report. M/S a for voluntary water conservation program. Tape 3b Motion ~s consent of Council. It was the conse~ from the first parag Council to remove the times (between 10 a.m. and 8 p.m.) under "Suggested Practices for the Homeowner". 10. NEW BUSINESS 10c. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Request from County of Mendocino for Support of Federal Legislative Program Fundin_~ Reauests City Manager Horsley advised that the City has received a letter from Hal Wagonet, Board of Supervisors Chairman, and seeking support of Mendocino County's Federal Legislative Program funding requests for several projects. Regular City Council Meeting April 21,2004 Page 11 of 13 There was a brief discussion regarding the request and it was the consensus of Council to table the matter until further information is obtain. 10. NEW BUSINESS 10d. Review and Approval of Agreement for Purchase~ Sale and Development of Real Property Among Ukiah Redevelopment Agency~ City of Ukiah~ and Redwood Business Park It was the consensus of Council that the matter did not need to be discussed in Closed Session. M/S Baldwin/Smith approving agreement for purchase property among Ukiah Redevelopment Agency, City Park of Ukiah; carried by the following roll call Andersen, Smith, Baldwin, and Mayor Larson. ABSENT: None. and development of real Redwood Business Rodin, Non~ .BSTAIN: None. 11. COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Smith reported he was s~ Roseville tonight but didn't go. He will be leavi~ the NCPA conference. a NCPA'~?'meeting in gton, D.C. on Monday for Mayor Larson reported he submitt6 Cities regarding their legislative initi; Legislature Day in Councilmember R~ '[ for Project Sanctu which walk o the League of California as to who would attend determined that he and Jrday he' ill participate in a fund raiser shoes. 11. City Man; for a' ' woul~ that CITY MANG homeless II be out of 00 p.m. would be agreeable to Council 3n District. She inquired if Council under the Mayor's signature, to a church that is a ;ouncil was agreeable to the request. She advised !k. Ana Ar, Johnson had kiah, the bicultural meetings. It was noted that Richard ~ne meeting for a very brief period of time. Deputy City Cler a requested Council recycle their envelopes. Adjourned to Ukiah Redevelopment Agency meeting: Reconvened- 11:00 p.m. Adjourned to Closed Session: 11:00 p.m. 10:55 12. CLOSED SESSION a. Government Code ~54956.8~ Conference With Real Property Negotiator Property: Assessor's Parcel No. 002-232-12, Railroad Depot Property Agency Negotiator: Candace Horsley, City Manager Under Negotiation: Terms and conditions of lease Regular City Council Meeting April 21,2004 Page 12 of 13 b. Government Code ~54956.8~ Conference with Real Property Negotiator Property: A portion of Mendocino County, Assessor's Parcel Nos. 180-110- 02 and 180-110-06 Agency Negotiator: Candace Horsley, City Manager Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment No action taken. 13. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the City Council meetin~ ourned at 11:45 p.m. Marie Ulvila, Deputy City Clerk Regular City Council Meeting April 21,2004 Page 13 of 13 ITEM NO.: 6a DATE: June 16,2004 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: REPORT OF DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE MONTH OF MAY 2004 Payments made during the month of May 2004, are summarized on the attached Report of Disbursements. Further detail is supplied on the attached Schedule of Bills, representing the four (4) individual payment cycles within the month. Accounts Payable check numbers: 54698-54814, 54890-55003, 55062-55153, 55226-55312 Accounts Payable Manual check numbers: none Payroll check numbers: 54815-54889, 55154-55225 Payroll Manual check numbers: 54697, 55060, 55061 Void check numbers: 55004-55059 This report is submitted in accordance with Ukiah City Code Division 1, Chapter 7, Article 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the Report of Disbursements for the month of May 2004. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Candace Horsley, City Manager Prepared by: Kim Sechrest, Accounts Payable Specialist Coordinated with:Gordon Elton, Director of Finance and Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: Report of Disbursements APPROVED: ~_.~~~>~'~ M~a Horsley, City gerOandace KRS:WORD/AGEN DAPMAY04 CITY OF UKIAH REPORT OF DISBURSEMENTS REGISTER OF PAYROLL AND DEMAND PAYMENTS FOR THE MONTH OF MAY 2004 Demand Payments approved: Check No. 54698-54814, 54890-55003, 55062-55153, 55226-55312 FUNDS: 100 General Fund $187,258.15 131 Equipment Reserve Fund $1,181.81 140 Park Development $7,988.52 141 Museum Grants $5,686.70 143 N.E.H.I. Museum Grant $2,409.36 150 Civic Center Fund $2,942.52 200 Asset Seizure Fund 201 Asset Seizure (Drug/Alcohol) 203 H&S Education 11489 (B)(2)(A1) 204 Federal Asset Seizure Grants $1,697.37 205 Sup Law Enforce. Sty. Fund (SLESF) 206 Community Oriented Policing 207 Local Law Enforce. BIk Grant $1,666.66 220 Parking Dist. #10per & Maint $448.66 230 Parking Dist. #1 Revenue Fund $66.00 250 Special Revenue Fund 260 Downtown Business Improvement 290 Bridge Fund 301 2107 Gas Tax Fund 310 Special Aviation Fund 315 Airport Capital Improvement 330 Revenue Sharing Fund 332 Federal Emerg. Shelter Grant $4,753.76 333 Comm. Development Block Grant $40,315.41 334 EDBG 94-333 Revolving Loan $3,064.75 335 Community Dev. Comm. Fund 341 S.T.P. 342 Trans-Traffic Congest Relief 345 Off-System Roads Fund 410 Conference Center Fund $12,990.27 550 Lake Mendocino Bond $1,395,285.84 575 Garage $1,813.25 600 Airport $35,474.42 PAYROLL CHECK NUMBERS 54697, 54815-54889 DIRECT DEPOSIT NUMBERS 20432-20563 PAYROLL PERIOD 4/25/04-5/8104 PAYROLL CHECK NUMBERS: 55060-55061, 55154-55225 DIRECT DEPOSIT NUMBERS 20564-20697 PAYROLL PERIOD 519104-5/22/04 611 Sewer Construction Fund 612 City/District Sewer 615 City/District Sewer Replace 640 San Dist Revolving Fund 650 Spec San Dist Fund (Cap Imp) 652 REDIP Sewer Enterprise Fund 660 Sanitary Disposal Site Fund 661 Sanitary Disposal Replace 664 Disposal Closure Reserve 670 U.S.W. Bill & Collect 678 Public Safety Dispatch 679 MESA (Mendocino Emergency Srv Auth) 695 Golf 696 Warehouse/Stores 697 Billing Enterprise Fund 698 Fixed Asset Fund 699 Special Projects Reserve 800 Electric 805 Street Lighting Fund 806 Public Benefits Charges 820 Water 840 Special Water Fund (Cap Imp) 900 Special Depos, it Trust 910 Worker's Comp. Fund 920 Liability Fund 940 Payroll Posting Fund 950 General Service (Accts Recv) 960 Community Redev. Agency 962 Redevelopment Housing Fund 965 Redevelopment Cap Imprv. Fund 966 Redevelopment Debt Svc. 975 Russian River Watershed Assoc TOTAL DEMAND PAYMENTS TOTAL PAYROLL VENDOR CHECKS TOTAL PAYROLL CHECKS TOTAL DIRECT DEPOSIT TOTAL PAYMENTS VOID CHECK NUMBERS: 55004-55059 $247,535.47 $35,248.59 $14,193.60 $966.25 $3,209.65 $23,681.17 $2,883.09 $23,232.18 $40,924.02 $289.52 $8,000.40 $6,868.54 $759,074.34 $53.29 $5,566.92 $165,561.12 $9,631.99 $6,031.59 $ 644.16 $266,913.00 $731.08 $60.37 $157,530.00 $10,886.87 $187,385.39 $3,721.76 $3,685,867.81 $63,911.72 $113,232.13 $3O8,O82.34 $4,171,094.00 CERTIFICATION OF CITY CLERK This register of Payroll and Demand Payments was duly approved by the City Council on Deputy City Clerk APPROVAL OF CITY MANAGER I have examined this Register and approve same. CERTIFICATION OF DIRECTOR OF FINANCE I have audited this Register and approve for accuracy and available funds. City Manager Director of Finance 0 E~o > Oo r,j~ ~:o o~o~o~o~o~o~~o~ooo~o~,~ o~~ ~o ,.o c~o~ oo o,~ 0 0 E~ ~ 0 O~ E~o > ~o~ o ~o ~g~g~o o o o o o o o o ~1 cq E~ ~ o o · -I ,-t o o o o o o c~ ~ o o o o cq cq E~ E~ U'3 0 0 oo~ ~o · , , ooo ooo ©© ~0 ~0 goo~goo 0000000 ~oo~oo .,..... ~~oo ~oo~~ ....... O000000ffi ~0 o°8 ~oo~ oo Oo ,,~o z O~ > 0~ H_~ © 0 ~mm o > ~o~~ 0000000 O0 oo~g°~o O0 0 00 00 00 00 ~ ~-~ ~-~ ~ 00 00 [13 UD og ~~o oooooo o oo o o~ 0000 0000 0000 HHHH O 0 o© 0 o · oo°°gg°ggo ~ ~ 0000000 0 0 ~o~oo~ o o ~0~0000 ~ ~ oo~°~o ~ o°~ o~ o E~O OE~ ~O ["~ ['~ o [-..~. D.~ o · . 00 B.-- ~--i Lr'~ r,~ C~ °88 o o o · . . o . , · 0 , HN~O 8o~ oo o ~ o O~ ~OffiO O0 O O~ 0 H [-~-] [..i-] ~ r...) (.D 0 ~>> 0 © rO H 0 0000 .E.,O ~o > o o o o o o cq o o o o o o o o o ~1 cxl cq o ,--t o o i ~ i o,1 i.D c'q 000 o o o o o o 0 0 ~ODHO 0~ ~HO~O . 0 Or..) DDO · . cq c,~ oh co 0 ~E~ · , o ~o~ o ooo · . ~oo ooo . . ooo · . . HH~ ~0 O00ffi o~o ~.] H H ~ ~0 ,~o o r.,o o Ot~ > 0 a~ 0 0 0 © H ~ H ~ [z..] 0~ O0 © DDD © 00~ O~t~ C~ i rJ · ~o o > o 0000 0000 0000 ~o~o o o oo o o o t~ t~ o o o~o o o oooo 000~ 0000 ~Z~ H ~m~> n~ ~ 0 0 ~ o ~ o H O~ o n~ n~ ~o o~ o o ~ © E~o i ~ 0 ' O O °°~~~~~oo oo o o 00000000000000000 0 00000000 O0 O0 0 0 O0 00000000 goog~Og~oo o S~g~S~o oo ~ ooo o~ooo~ ........ ooooo~ ooooo~ O~H~~ o 0~ o 0 ~ > 0 o omomomo: o o~ H 0~: > ~~o o~o 000000 o~ 0 u~ D~ 0 ~oo ~~0 0 O0 O0 0 000000 ~ 000 ~00~ ooo~o H ~ HHH H ~ ~0 HHH~HO H U 0 o~ o ~D Ora uaO~O i (.p o r..J 0 H~ ~. H O Da O 0 ~00 ~ ~ H O OOOOOOOO O O O O oq oq OOOO OOOO o ,44 ~ o n~o oo H g~o~o~gg ~~oo~ 0 O0 ........ ~ ~0~0~ HOH ~ HH0 o o DDO 0 0 0 oo~o O · 0 o~ o o ~ o~ o ~ o H ~ J~ H o HHHHHHHHH o ©> o o~ oca ~ H O~ OO L~ 0 n~ 0 H ~ o ~o o o~~ HHH~H ~o~ o 0,< ~0 H E) 0 0 00 120 U'3 cn 0000 0000 0 O0 0000000000 00 0 0 0000000000 0 u,,.4 D.-, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 · LD ~ , © ~-I ~---4 0 C~ Ln ~ , . . 8S°°88SSS°Soo o 00000000000 000000~0000 ~oo~oo~o~ ~°°~2~°~oo ~ ~ 0 0 H~HHHH~HHHHO OO ~o ~H O~ ~ H 0 H ~0~0~0~0 H4H H~H ~o > oo oooooooo oo~ oo ~~oo 000000 ~~~0 00000000 00000000 000 0 0 ~00000~ 00000000 ........ 0000~00 oo~oo~o ~ ~0 ~ O0 0 ~ 0~~~0 ~H~H~H~H~ H~H~H~H~O ~o°° o · . . o ~ o ©o 0 ~ O ~O 6 0 E~ ~O~ ~ H O © > <2> ~00000 0 000 cn LD o o o 0 0 H ~ ~ H~ ~0 r-,-1 H H ~ o cq o ~ o 0 ~ H OU~ 0 0 ~ 0 E-, 0 ,<0 0 ~ ~000 0 ~:H 0,< > O0 O0 000000 o g 0 0 o o ~E~ 0 o ~H 000000~ o~ o o · , © o o o ~ad ~ 0 o° o°~°~o 0 00000000 . 00000000 ~~oo~ 00~00~ 0000 0 0 Oo ~o ad ad 0 O~ ¥ ~ ~ ~0 0 0 6 ~0 E~(JO 0 ~00000000 0,~ ~o i ~ · > 0000000000000 O~ O0 ~0 ~ ~ 000000000000000 HH~HHHHH~HH~HH 0 O0 O0 O0 O0 000 cq t%l cq 000 H H i 0 0 ~oo~oo~o~oo O0 O0 0 O0 0000000000000 ~oo~oo~o~oo ~o~o~o~o o~ oo~o~ o~ ~oo~o~~o~ ~o~oo~o~oo O~ O~ O~ O0 o~SSooso~soosoo O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 000000000000000 ~o~o~oo~oo~oo 0~0000~~0 ~000~~000000~ HHHHHHHHHHHH H ~D~DDDD~DDD D~ ~HHHHHHHHHHHH~HO o,g,o°° 0~0 ~H~O ~ ~ooooooooooo o~ ~H ~000000000000000 H~ 0 oo ooooo oo oo~ o o c) LN LN O~ ~ 0 0 0 H ~ 0 U O~HHH0 O0 o ~ o ora H f,~ ~J'~ HHHHH HO ,~ O~ 0 ¥ r~ 0 0 0 o 0 0,< H > ~c.-. ,,<o 2~ :>', 0 0 ~o 0 m °° ~ O~ fj · ~D 0 > O~ ~o > o o o o o o o o o o t'N1 cq Cq C0~CO °~ i ~o ~°° oo~°~o OOOOOOOO o~ ~ 00000000 00000000 ~° oogg~ggo o o o o o o cq cq ooo oo o ooooo 0 0 o© o© ° H 888~ ooSSoo ~S OOOOOOOO OOOOOOOO ~°°°88oo 0000000 80088© oo 88© o o O H M ~ r~ ~ ~ H ~0 ~r.~O HHHHH DDDDD 00000 O,-~ ~o U E~ E~ E~ OOO ,< 0 0~0000 0~~ ©© O~ E~o 0 . o > o ~o oooo o o o 0000 o,l ~o oooo oooo oooo mm~m 0000 o o o o o o cq cq 0 u,4 ~., 0 o E~ ~0 o~ ~0 H ~0 o o o . . o o o o DD o o C~ ~ ~r~O o o o o 0 z OU~ O~ [./-1 m (.) Hr~ or..) ~:> ~ O0 on~ H 0 . 0 > 0 0 0 0 Cq oq oq 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 o o 0 0 . 0 0 · 0 0 © © 0 ~ 000 HHH © ~0 000~ 0 0 0 n~ o H H 0 ("'4 '~:~ CO ~--I0 0 · . 04 o°8 0 . . H H O~ o~ H~ o> o H [~ o E~ © E~ E~ o ~0 ~m © OH ~ © o,~ oo O~ H ~ (J · o > 000000000000 000000000000 000000000000 000000000000 000000000000 '42 '4:) 0000 00 0000 0000 0000 ~o~ 0000 0000 0000 0 u~ .~, 0 oossossoosoo O0 0 O0 O0 000000000000 oo~oo~oo~oo ~°SS~~~°~~ o ~o 00~0~0~00000 ~o oDDD~ 0000 > DDO OoOO o o o o o · . H~ DDDO © 0000000000000 ~000000000000 oa~o 0 ~000 ill ~000 0,~ E~o C~ · o o u~ o o o o o °~.~ o o o o o o cq cq O0 O0 O0 0 0 O0 O0 O0 0 000000000000000000000000000000 0 000 000 000000 O0 0000000000 0 0 o o o o · . , , °~ · r-i o 0 ~0 ~oo~oo~oo~oo~o~o~oo~~oo oo oo oo o o oo ~ 00000000000000000000000000~00 000~00~0~00000~0~0~000000000 00~0~0000~~0~000~~~0 ~~~~o~o~~go~o~oO~o~ oo ~ ~oooo ~ ~ ~ .............................. 00000000000000000000~0000000~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~ O~ 0 O~ 0 0 ~ 000000000000000000000000000000 ~HHO000000000000000000000000000 E~ 0 ~ H H o~ rj · > ~ ~-i o o o o o o oq ~o o o o o o c0 co o~ o o o o 8 0~0~ o8 ~ ~ o o~ o c~ o n4 ,<~ ~o o E~ E-, H ~o n:::: o H ~ n~o o o E~ ~ H B-1 ,.,8 O~ © © r~ 0 E~ faO0 0 © i ~O > o 6'4 ¢q O O ~--I O O O O oo o 0 goOggoo o o ~ oo~ o o o o o o o , . o ~ c~ o ~4D ~ · . · , cq · ~ 120 i.-t © HHE~ ~O O o o ~H 0 O~ ~0 o ~a ¥ © o~ ~o ~o o~ U U 0 ' 0 0 O~ 0000 0000 0000 o ~~ H ~ ~Z O0 O0 ~oo~oo OOOOOOO o 0 H~ 0 ~o o ~H~ H H 0 0 0 0 HH~ H mO00 000 o SSo oSS°° 0 O0 O~ Z o~ ~~ 0 ~~ 0 00000 0 0 o~~ ooo o i o~ OH 02; 0 [.i.1 m U o,~ E-, ~ ~0000000 o o4 o o o o ,co 00 6-4 ~ o O OO OO O OOOOOOOOOO ~o~ 0 0 ~0 ~o 6'46'4O 0 · cq 00,< 0 ~> 0.,--4 0 ~ C.) © ~0000000 0 H 6 HO rJE~ 0 ~H~H H~H~H E~o > O0 0 O0 O0 00000000000000 0 O O OO OO OO OO O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 0000000000000000~00000 o o o o oo ;;~;o o 0 ~ o n4E-, 0000000000~000 OO~OOOO~OO~OO ~OO~O~O~O~O ~0~00~0~ ~OOO~~OO~ ~OOOO~~~ .............. ~ ~ ~ H HH~OH~H~ . .............. OO OO OO O O O OO 0000000000000000000000 ~0~0~0~0~0~~0~ O~O~O~OOO~O~OOOOO~OOO ~-~o~o~~oo~o~ ~O O~ O~ OO ~ ~ OO ~oo~.~o~oo~~~~ 88°°88°88°¢8°~~°~oo o . o . ~o ~ o i oo E~ E~ H H Or,.) o H ~ 2 © ~o > 0 0 0 O0 OD 0 0 t~ ~ o u.4 D.-, 0 0 o~°~oo o ~o~oo oo ~° oo ~oo oo SSo o ooo SSosso 0 0 00000000000000000000000000000000 ................................ 00000000000000000000000000000000 ................................ ~00~0~~0~~00~0~~~00~ 00~~00000~00~~0~000~~ 0~~00~0~0~0~~00~00~~ ..................... , 0000000000~00~000000000000000~0 00000000~0~00~0000000000~0000~0 o ~ °© 0 0 0 . · , , O~ o ~ H;~2 © HO n~ ~o © o H ~o H ~ r.p ZZ o o o oo ooooo o o o o o 0 0 ooo ~g'~O H H 0 mm> o o o oo~ o o8888 0 00000 0 ~0~ ..... ~0~0 ~oo~ o~so o o oooo .... ~ooo O~ ~~o ~oo OHZ~ ~U ~0~ 0~ ,~o Z n~ ,~ H H H 0 ~ 0 0 0 Z~ i-i 0 ~ ~ 0 Hi ~HHHH ~0000 0000 O OO OO O OOOOOOOOOOO O OO O OO O OO OOOOO SS~SSo o oooo ;o~ r'~ ~ 00 00 cq cq !.FI o o 04 ('"4 · -.4 ~ o,] ("4 00 6:o o o o o~ o o o o {--q ~ O O ~SSoosoosso 0 O0 O0 0 00000000000 oosoo~o~o O~OO~O~ ~OOO~~OO~ ~ O O H ~ ~H H~H~H HHO ~~0 OHHHHO o o~°o~¢, o o,.,:, 7 ~ ~~ 6~ O ~ ~~0 o o o o o o co c0 o o o o o o · . o o oh o . . o 04 (N] ,-4 ,.-i ',..0 · · 0 ,< H E~ O0 oh o O~ r.)ua ,~o ~ rj Or..a ~00000000000 00000000000 ~0000 0 0 ~H H O~ 0 E~ o i I--t i ~.., r~ O~ E~o > kO 0 0 og o o o cq cq 00000 ~oo~ oo o o2S~So 0~000 0~~ o o ~ '~ o o o · ~° O~ ~cq o O~ ~o 0 Or~ ~00000 E~ 0 > o o 0 ~ n~ ~o 0 · o o ~o 0 ~ n~ 0 0 © 0 ~ _~o > ~ ~ H o~ > o o o o o o o o c-q cq o o o o 120 O0 o o o co cxl cq cq E~ E~ 00 c0 D~ ~ o o o o ~o cq cq cq OOOO OOOO OOOO O O o ~ c~ o o o o o o . . o o , 0 0 004O oo~ o o o o o · . . '4;)00 · . . t-i Lf~ ~ cq ~1 c'q 0 o oo~o ~o ~~0 00~ o ~.~o O ~ H,~ I~ H E-' ~ 0~-~ 0 ~0 ~ H O~ > ~D ~D 0 0 oo co o oh co co 00 [-~ ~ o o o o u-~ ~n o o o o ~° o 120 0 u.4 ~ 0 O~ H ~ H~,~ o o o o o o . , ~° · ~0 ~> o o o o co 00 . . o o oo O~ © (.) 0~ ~,~ 0 ~ H © H 0 0 © 0 ~ O0 ~0~ O~ 00~ H o~ > OOOOO ~oo ooSS O OO 0000 000000000000 000000000000 000000000000 o 0 00 HHHH~ HHHH~0 ~Soo~o~S~¢o3 0 00~ 0 0000~0~0~ o~oo~oo~oo OOO~OOOOOO~O ............ oo~o~o~~ ~0 ~ O~ ~H~ O=D0 ~OM ~ ~H~ ou~ Oo o ~0 r. ao or~ ~o o~ 2:O H o~ om M c..) ~° oo E~ > o o o o o o o o ~ 0'3 ~° cq ~ Ln 0 0 0 [-~ 0 ~4 D~ 0 H H 0 ,ri ~>~0 0 0 oo 00000 0 ~ 0 n~ O~ n~O 6 ~0 i o,< > 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO CO r"-. 00 HHHHH OOOOOOOOO ~~00000 go 0 0 OOOOOOOOO ~ooo~~ oo;;~ oo~ o 0 O O O O ,-t H ~ ,< o ~oo ;o~;~ ~ 0 g° o~° © o<~ o OO OOO O · °~ °°~ o 00~0~0~0~ ~000~0000 ......... O0 oo~ ° o~° O OO ~OO O O OO o o 0 o°o°°° ooo° 6'4 ~o n~ OU~ o00 © H rj'] © mo ~ 0 0 H H H H ~ o >~o © r4 H 40 U o~ H 0 · ~D o 0 u~ 000 t"q t'N1 c'q ~.0 0 0 ~ 00 o'3 '~ ~0 O0 CO ~--I ~-I 0 0 0 0 ~ [-... 00 o0 ~--I ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t~ 0000 0000 0000 o~ ~0 ~ E~ H~ ~0 ~E~ 000 OOE~ E~ E~ n~ ~0 0 n~ H~ n~ O~ o H ~ ,~o © H . CJ ~1 H o E~ H ~ H H H~ O~ ~H,,~ 0 OHHHH H~~ i o,< E~o > H H H H H H H H OO OO 0 0 o ~o~o~o o ~°° o o o o oo oo ~° o OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ................................ ~~OO~O~OO~~O~OOOO~O~OO~~ ..................................... OOOOOOOOOOO~O~~OO~OOOOOOOOO~O~ ooooooooo~o~~oooo~oooo~o~~ 0 H 0 m ..................................... OC~ n~ o~ o ~H D i H HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH~~~~~ o888°888o O~ ~o H ~P rj · > o o 000000 000000 o o o c-q cq (xl o o o co 6'q cq o o o o co co o o 0 0 ~o~Oo o 000000 ~oo~o~~ ~ ~oo~ ~ o S~°°~~ o~ i o o c~ c'q U]H~O O0 a~O ~~0 00~ o ~ H o~ o~ o oo oo o · . . o L~ L~ ~o 0 ~ ~ ~000000 :>-, I,-] H~ H ~ 0 ~ H ::,--, O0 0 CIO 0 H 0 n~ O~ O~ ~0 E~ ~ o 120 D~ © n~ ~D 0~;~ ~HO r.)o ~.,~ E-,o > o o ('4 ¢~ o o o o co o o o o o ~o o OO OO OO OOOOOOOOO O L~ O0 CO 00 O ,4.4 ~ O o o o o i w-~ 0 0 0 0 ¢( n~ 0 ~0 oo~oos~oS O0 O0 O0 000000000 00~0~0~00 ~o~o~~ ~0 0 ~ HH H~H~HHO ~ o o ~ . . · o o o o 00 co . · · , 004 ~-.~ ~o 0 ~ > © ~0 ~ ~0 H r,..) r.~ ~ H O i_1_1_1~ mc) D ~000000000 E) 0,< E-,o > o~oo 0 u,4 ~ 0 o~ o ~ o > Z i 0 O0 0 ~ H > 0 u,4 D.., 0 O~ rj · o > 0 © o H o,< _~o I-.-I ~ r..) · 0 :> 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >> oo O0 0 0 0 0 00 00 ~~O OOOOOO OOOOOO OOOOOO O0 O0 o 0 OO '' ~° 000 . . . 000 · . . ~0 HHHO O O O O O O · . ~° cq Cq ¢q , DO oo o oo~ SSo oos O OO O OO , ~O~ ~ O ~O 0 0 0 (~ · . ~° C~ · D~ ~o~o OOOOOO 0000~0 ...... 0 o~°° OO ~HHHHO o ~ o F~ © or.~ o H ,~ ~-~ H ~o © H H ~ " 0 o o o o o o Oh C',I Cq o o o o o o cq o o o 0 0 ~o n~ O~ n~ © ~0 O~ O~ © on~ O~ 0 on~ © H E~o r~ , o CD o o o o o o O0 o o co 00 0000 0000 0000 0000 o~o L~ 000 Oh O~ <DOC> o o o o ~° co ~o o O0 ~~0 ~o o o 000~ ~0 0 o Oc~ ~o O~ 0~ ~0000 © 0 0 O0 © 0 0 ~ 0 0~ ,~ ~,~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ooo o~ CO 0 0 0 0 ,.-I · . . 00~0 ~o 0 0 0 0 0 0 000~ oo~o O0 0 o E~O o~ o ~ooo ooa-I ~o~ ~o~ ~ H o i H '~ r.j > °7, CO 00 00 00 ~o~oo~oo~oO~Oo oo oo oo o 00000000000000000 ~°~°°~°°~°~°°~~ ~ ~ ~ ~gg~gg~ggg~gg~goo o o oo 0 00 ~-I 00 00 Cq SO~ 0000 0o00 o u,4 ~ o o o © 0 0 0 . · 6O SSoossoosso~ssOSSoo oo oo o 00000000000000000 0 0~ ~ 0~~00~0~0~~ ................. oo~ 00 000 . . · °~ tn , , · . o cq cq ,.~ rJ] H ~J]0 o~o 0000 0000 0~ .... 0000 O~ d 00~ D o © © O~ ~o (j . oo oo ~oo~oo~ oo ~oo oo oo oo oo oo oo o oo~oo~ooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooo oo ~ O0 ~ o~~o~oo~~oo~oo~oo~o~o~oo~ ~o~ ~ o 0 0 o ~.~o 0 ~ H O~ ¢j · oo ooooo o~o 000000 000000 0000000000 0000000000 ~oo~oo~o 0 0 ~oo~ oo oooo ~°~ 0000 0000 O0 00000 ~oo~ oo~ 00000 ..... 00000 00000 goggoo~ o ~ ~oo~ oo o OOOOOO OOOOOO OOOOOO HHHHHH0 oossoo~soo OO OO OO 0000000000 ~°~°°~°°~~o ~ ~ °~°~~°2~ o o 0000000000 0000000000 O~ ~00000 0 rj · ~ ~0 H ~J ¥ ~ 0000000000 I.'-'4 OOO O OOOOOO OOOOOO ~oo~oo OO OO OoO OOOOOOOO 00000000 O0 O0 0 00000 HHHHH °~°° 0 0 OO OO OOOOOO OO~O OO~O mm mm0 oo oo oo oooooooo oooooooo o~o~ ~~ooo ~~00 00000000 ~OOO~OOO O~ mO0~ ~HHO ~H DDDDD~DD~ m mmmmmommo 0 DmO UUUUU~UU~ ~~o D"- 02 '.,.0 ¢q 0 ~o 04 04O Om ~HHHHHH ~000000 H ~40 040 0 E~ 0 ~ H 0 0 i > 0 1204 0 m © O~ ~ ~ ~ H ~ ~00000000 O~ E~o 0 · o > o o o 00 co 120 0 ~ O0 OH > ~ H o o ITEM NO. DATE: June, 6 2004 6b AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: NOTIFICATION OF EMERGENCY PURCHASE FROM THE JWC COMPANY FOR ONE FACTORY EXCHANGE INFLUENT CHANNEL GRINDER IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $24,969 PLUS APPLICABLE TAX AND SHIPPING As part of annual maintenance at the Wastewater Treatment Plant, the Channel Monster ® influent grinders are pulled and disassembled. The current maintenance cycle found the #1 unit had been subjected to extensive wear and non-repairable damage possibly from excessive abrasives, grit, and gravel passing through the system. The unit cannot be rebuilt cost effectively in house. The manufacturer offers a unit exchange program at a cost not to exceed $24,969. This amount is approximately one half the cost of a new unit. The influent grinders are critical to plant operations as they protect down stream equipment from being damaged by trash in the raw sewage and must be returned to service as soon as possible. Due to the emergency nature of the situation, this purchase was authorized by the Public Utilities Director and the City Manager. Funds are available in the maintenance account 612.3580.302.000 to cover this expense. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive And File Notification Of Emergency Purchase From The JWC Company For One Factory Exchange Influent Channel Grinder In An Amount Not To Exceed $24,969 Plus Applicable Tax And Shipping. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Bernie Ziemienek, Director of Public Utilities Prepared by: Jerry Gall, Wastewater Treatment Supervisor Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: ~one ~ APPROVED:~ ~~I,,-~'~ Candace Horsley, City~anager ITEM NO. 6c DATE: JUNE 16, 2004 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: REJECTION OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES RECEIVED FROM CHARLES A. NICKERMAN, AND REFERRAL TO JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY, REDWOOD EMPIRE MUNICIPAL INSURANCE FUND The claim from Charles A. Nickerman was received by the City of Ukiah on June 3, 2004 and alleges damages due to a bicycle accident on December 12, 2003. Pursuant to City policy, it is recommended the City Council reject the claim as stated and refer it to the Redwood Empire Municipal Insurance Fund (REMIF). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Reject Claim For Damages Received From Charles A. Nickerman And Refer It To The Joint Powers Authority, Redwood Empire Municipal Insurance Fund. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Alternative action not advised by the City's Risk Manager. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: Yes Claimant ~~~)%~,..~ Michael F. Harris, Risk Manager/Budget Officer Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Claim of Charles A. Nickerman, pages 1-3. APPROVE~" Candace Horsley, City'~anager m~h:asrcc04 0616CLAIM File With: City Clerk's.Office City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Ave Ukiah, CA 95482 · · Attachment # : [ iii i CLAIM FOR MONEY OR DAMAGES AGAINST THE CITY OF UKIAH RESERVE FOR FILING STAMP CLAIM NO. JUN 3 2004 CriY Ui- U~AH CITY CLERK'S DEPARTMENT A claim must be presented, as prescribed by the Government Code of the State of California, by the claimant or a person acting on his/her behalf and shall show the following: If additional space is needed to provide your information, please attach sheets, identifying the paragraph(s) being answered. · 1. Name and address of the Claimant: Address to which the person presenting the claim desires notices to be sent: Name of Addressee: ~ ,Z~ ,,~,,~,~' .~. ~'~,,~,/./,~l./J Telephone: ~..~'<~'._ Address: ~~ ~. ~~~ ~ ~ Z~ ~/~~ . The date, place and other circumstances of the occurrence or transaction which gave rise to the claim asserted. Date of Occurrence: /'~, .-../~,~ _ ~ ~' Time of Occurrence: ~.~;:~._~' .~?~. . 4. General description of the indebtedness, obligation, injury, damage or loss incurred so far as it may be known at e time· of,. the presentatiOn of the clai . ' · · . '"':'- . : -- '" L :' - . - 5. The name or names of the public efnployee or employees causing the injury, damage, or.loss, if known. Page I of 3 , If amount claimed totals less than $10,000: The amount claimed, if it totals less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) as of the date of presentation of the claim, including the estimated amount of any prospective injury, damage, or loss, insofar as it may be known at the time of the presentation of the claim, together with the basis of computation of the amount claimed. Amount Claimed and basis for computation: If amount claimed exceeds $10,000: If the amount claimed exceeds ten thousand dollars ($10,000), no dollar amount shall be included in the claim. However, it shall indicate whether the claim would be a limited civil case. A limited civil case is one where the recovery sought, exclusive of attorney fees, interest and court costs does not exceed $25,000. An unlimited civil case is one in which the recovery sought is more than $25,000. (See CCP § 86.) : ~ Limited Civil Case ,~.. Unlimited Civil Case IYou are.required to provide the information requested above in order to comply with Government Code §910. ' :: . 10. 11. Claimant(s) So..cial Security Number(s): (optional) -5'? 1 - ~ ~ Claimant(s) Date(s) of Birth' Name, address and telephone number of any witnesses to the occurrence or transaction which gave rise to the claim asserted: _ ~ / .-- \ _ · -/ .. j- ,,, . ' ; .. If the claim involves medical treatment for a claimed injury, please provide the name, address and telephone number of any doctors or hospitals Providing treatment': ..L~.--., ~ ,~ ~_.;,,~ ~'/,,~,-~' __~4', ~,,z, ~.,~~ ~ , If applicable, please attach any medical bills or rePorts or similar documents supporting your claim. If the claim relates to an automobile accident: '-"Y3,') .,~ ~,~z...~~ .. Claimant(s) Auto Ins. Co.: Telephone: Address: Insurance Policy No.: '. Insurance Broker/Agent: Telephone: Address: · . · Claimant's Veh. Lic. No.: ~ ~' ~ (~ ( '7 ~ Vehicle Make/Year: Claimant's Drivers Lic. No.: Expiration: If appliCable, please attach any repair bills, estimates or similar documents supporting your claim, Page 2 of 3,.-'~- '"' READ CAREFULLY For all accident claims, place on the following diagram the name of streets, including North, East, South, and West; indicate place of accident by "X" and by showing house numbers or distances to street corners. If City of Ukiah vehicle was involved, designate by letter "A" location of City of Ukiah vehicle when you first saw it, and by "B" location of ~)ourself or your vehicle when you first saw City of Ukiah vehicle; location of City of Ukiah vehicle at time of accident .by "A-1" and location of yourself or your vehicle at the time of the accident by "B-I" and the point of impact by "X." NOTE: If diagrams below do not fit the situation, attach hereto a proper diagram signed by claimant. Warning: Presentation of a false claim is a felony (Penal Code {}72). Pursuant to California Civil Prodecures {}1038; the City/Agency .may seek to recover all costs of defense in the event an action is filed, which is later determined not to have been brought in good faith and with reasonable cause. Page 3 of 3 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT ITEM NO. 6d DATE: JUNE 16, 2004 SUBJECT: REPORT OF AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE CLEANING AND PURGING OF WELL #5 TO WATER WELL TECHNOLOGY INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,385 Pursuant to the requirements of Ukiah City Code section 1520 et seq., this report notifies the City Council of the award of a construction contract to Water Well Technologies Inc. in the amount of $9,385 for the cleaning and purging of well #5. Well #5 was video inspected and found to be heavily encrusted with iron bacteria and debris. The recommendation from this inspection was to have a qualified contractor clean and purge the well. This could also relieve compaction and improve permeability. The City of Ukiah went out to bid for these services and, in response, received two qualified bids which were opened by the City Clerk at the time set for public bid opening. The lowest responsible bidder was Water Well Technologies Inc. Compensation to the contractor will be based on both the bid and performance. There are adequate funds available for this work was in account 820.3908.250.000, Water Production and Storage, Contractual Services. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive Report Regarding Award Of Construction Contract To Water Well Technology Inc. In The Amount Of $9,385.00 For The Cleaning And Purging Of Well #5. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: N/A Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Bernie Ziemianek, Director of Public Utilities Alan Jamison, Water Treatment Plant Supervisor Candace Horsley, City Manager Bid Tabulation APPROVED:~ Candace Horsley, ~y Manager CITY OF UKIAH 300 SEMINARY AVENUE AttC~lll/te~ UKIAH, CA 95482-5400 (707) 463-6217 (City Clerk's Office) BID OPENING FOR' WELL CLEANING SERVICES AT THE UKIAH WATER TREATMENT PLANT SPECIFICATION NO. DATE' June 3~ 2004 TIME: 2:00 p.m. COMPANY AMOUNT . . , BEYLIK DRILLIN, INC. 555 S. HARBOR BLVD. LA HABRA, CA 90631 WATER WELL TECH. P. O. BOX 519 FAIR OAKS, CA 95628 LAYNE CHRISTENSEN COMPANY P. O. BOX 1326 WOODLAND, CA 95695 NO BID Marie Ulvila, Deputy City Clerk Bids: Well Cleaning Services 2004 Alan Jamison, Water Treatment Plant ITEM NO. 6e DATE: June 16, 2004 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION AMENDING APPENDIX TO CITY CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE It has come to the attention of the City Clerk's office that the City's Conflict of Interest Code as found in the Appendix to the Code should be amended for two positions. The City Council is the code reviewing body for City agencies. These amendments are reflected in the Appendix as highlighted areas. The positions of Executive Assistant (Shannon Riley) and Water Utilities Project Engineer (Ann Burck) are added to the list. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution Amending Appendix to Conflict of Interest Code. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Determine modifications must be made to the Appendix, identify changes, and adopt Resolution with revised Appendix Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Marie Ulvila, Deputy City Clerk ...-'.¢zJ./~./. ~-- Gordon Elton, City Clerk and Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Resolution Amending Appendix to Conflict of Interest Code APPROVED: Candace Horsley, Ci~ ASR:Conflict2004 Manager ATTACHMENT. // RESOLUTION NO. 2004- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH AMENDING APPENDIX TO CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE WHEREAS, 1. The Political Reform Act ("the Act, "Gov. Code § 81000, et seq.) requires state and local Government agencies to adopt and promulgate conflict of interest codes; and 2. The Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) has adopted a regulation (2 C.C.R. § 18730) containing the terms of a standard conflict of interest code, which can be incorporated by reference and may be amended by the FPPC after public notice and hearings to conform to amendments in the Act; and 3. On March 6, 1991, in Resolution No. 91-46, the City Council adopted the standard conflict of interest code by reference; and 4. Resolution No. 91-46 contained an Appendix which set forth the disclosure categories for the various positions in the City of Ukiah Government who make decisions that could affect an economic interest; and 5. Various job titles and duties have changed since the Appendix was originally adopted and the Appendix requires amendment to reflect the currently effective job titles and duties within the City of Ukiah; and 6. Under Government Code Section 87306.5 every other year beginning in 1992, the City Council must either amend its City Code or determine that no amendments are necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Resolution supersedes all other resolutions establishing Appendix to Conflict of Interest Code in the City of Ukiah and the attached Appendix to Conflict of Interest Code (Exhibit A) is hereby adopted, effective June 16, 2004, and shall remain in effect until further amended by resolution of the City Council. Resolution No. 2004- Page 1 of 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of June 2004, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: Marie Ulvila, Deputy City Clerk Eric Larson, Mayor Resolution No. 2004- Page 2 of 3 EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. 2004- APPENDIX TO CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES FOR CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE (Effective January 7, 2004) RANGE OF DUTIES POSITION REPORTABLE INTERESTS a. Employees whose duties are broad and indefinable Mayor*, Councilmembers*, City Manager*, Assistant City Manager, City Attorney*, City Treasurer, Community Services Director, Finance Director*, Fire Chief, Fire Battalion Chief, Fire Marshal, Planning Commissioners*, Planning Director, Police Chief, Police Captains, Public Utilities Director, Public Works Director/City Engineer, Risk Manager/Budget Officer, Ukiah Valley Conference Center/Plaza Manager All sources of income, interests in real property and investments and business positions in business entities Employees whose duties involve a: Entire City contracting or purchasing for supplies: City Clerk, Deputy City Clerk, Deputy Public Works Director, MIS Coordinator, Purchasing Agent, Executive Assistant Investments and business positions in business entities, which provide services, supplies And materials, machinery or Equipment of the type utilized By the entire City (excluding Schedules B & C1) b. A specific City Department Airport Manager, Activities/ Sports Coordinator, Community Services Supervisor, Museum Director, Electric Supervisor Engineering Associate, Public Works Superintendent, Senior Civil Engineer, Electrical Distribution Engineer, Water- Utilities-Project Engineer Investments and business positions in business entities, and sources of income which provide services, supplies, materials, machinery, or equipment of the type utilized by the designated-employee's department (all schedules excluding schedules B & C1) Note: Included solely for disqualification purposes. Disclosure requirements imposed by Government Code Section 87200. Solely required to complete Form 721 or any successor form. (See 2 C.C.R. 318730, Section 3.) If the City hires Aconsultants-~ as defined in 2 C.C.R. 312700, the City Manager shall describe in writing the consultant--s duties and, based upon that description, shall determine the scope, if any of his or her reporting obligations. The City Manager shall forward a copy of this determination to the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). Resolution No. 2004- Page 3 of 3 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT ITEM NO. 6f DATE: June 16, 2004 SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,000 FOR SPECIAL LEGAL FEES RELATED TO LITIGATION BY RIVER WATCH Submitted for the City Council's consideration and action is staff's request for a Budget Amendment authorizing additional operational expenses of $5,000 within the Sewer and Wastewater Treatment Utility Administration and General Budget Fund. Additional spending authorization is needed to pay for continued special legal fees which are being incurred as a result of litigation by River Watch. Legal representation services continue to be provided on an as needed basis and expenses exceeding the last authorization of $10,000 approved by the City Council in March of 2004 have been incurred. Staff is requesting an additional $5,000 to pay for the legal expenses which are and will be incurred until the end of the current fiscal year. The litigation was not anticipated and the funds have not been budgeted for the payment of the legal fees in the 2003/04 Budget. Approval of this budget amendment request will authorize additional expenses of $5,000 in account number 612.3505.250.000. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve Amendment To The 2003/04 Budget Authorizing $5,000 Of Additional Operational Expenses Within The Sewer And Wastewater Treatment Utility Account 612.3505.250.000 To Pay For Special Legal Fees Related To Litigation By River Watch. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: Reject the request and provide direction to Staff. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Bernie Ziemenik, Public Utility Director Rick Kennedy, Consultant to City Candace Horsley, City Manager Budget Amendment Worksheet APPROVED: Cand~ce Horsley, City h~anager LU 0 ~ ~ ~ o =~ ~.~=~ g~ ~ ~-~ o == ~ o og~ ~ .~ ~ z ~ ~~o g ~ ~ · ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 ooo o oo o,oooo . o oo g . .g . . oo O~ O0 0000000000000~0~0~ 0 00000 O000000000000000 O0 O0 oogoo ooooooooo ~ ~ 0 X ~ ~ 0 O~ ~ ~ O~ ~0000 ~ ~ 00 ~ o~oo ~ ~ ~ 0 00~ ~ ~0 ~ O~ O~ 0~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 ~ 0 ~ o 0 Z 0 AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO.: 6q DATE: June 16, 2004 REPORT SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR EXPENDITURES FROM FUND 699 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW SIDEWALKS AND ADA RAMPS SUMMARY: On July 17, 2002, the City Council approved the Homeowners' Sidewalk Construction Reimbursement Program. The funding limit was set at $50,000 to be expended from Fund 699. Expenditures for this program and ADA ramps were not specifically identified for the current fiscal yearthough significant balances for both exist in the fund. A listing of the actual and estimated FY 2003/04 expenditures is included as Attachment 1. A Budget Amendment is required for the two line items in Fund 699 to properly account for the expenditures which have occurred. The Homeowners' Sidewalk Construction Reimbursement Program assisted in over 750 lineal feet of sidewalk and over 400 lineal feet of curb and gutter construction in Fiscal Year 2002/2003. Eleven homeowners were reimbursed $16,062.05 for their efforts. During this Fiscal Year, it is estimated that at least eight more homeowners will have participated, with approximately 535 additional feet of sidewalk and 375 additional feet of curb and gutter to be installed. The reimbursement from the City to the homeowners is estimated to total approximately $12,929. Total expenditures and commitments in the program currently approach but will not exceed the $50,000 amount authorized for the program by Council in 2002. During the implementation of the 2002 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) project to construct the sidewalk along the State Street frontage of the Fairgrounds, additional work was necessary due to conflicts with a drainage structure and in order to transition the south end of the project with an existing driveway. The additional cost was paid with moneys from Fund 699 - Sidewalk Repairs. The amount that exceeded the authorized 2002 STIP funding totaled $3,244.10. Over the course of this year, while implementing some of the above-mentioned homeowners' sidewalk construction projects, some opportunities arose to implement the construction of missing ADA ramps adjacent to the homeowners' projects. The City Manager agreed that it would be (Continued on Page 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve Amendment to 2003/2004 Budget authorizing expenditures in Accounts 699.3110.800.014 and 699.3110.800.015 for the construction of new sidewalks and ADA ramps in the amounts of $16,174 and $3,694 respectively. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Do not approve Budget Amendment and provide direction to Staff. REQUESTED BY: PREPARED BY: COORDINATED WITH: ATTACHMENTS: APPROVED: Diana Steele, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Diana Steele, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Candace Horsley, City Manager A. Accounting of Fund 699 Expenditures- FY 2003/2004 ~:~~B' Bu~Amendment.~. Worksheet Candace Horsley, ~ity Manager APPROVAL OF BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR EXPENDITURES FROM FUND 699 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW SIDEWALKS AND ADA RAMPS June 16, 2004 Page 2 acceptable to use Fund 699 - ADA Ramp moneys to reimburse the homeowners for the cost of the ramps. During this year, one ramp will have been completed at a cost of $3,964 and nine more are in the development stages, anticipated to be constructed in the upcoming Fiscal Year. In light of the accomplishments of this program by partnering with the public to achieve goals to provide ADA-connectivity and sidewalk continuity, Staff recommends approval of the attached Budget Amendment. Accounting of Fund 699 Expenditures Fiscal Year 2003/2004 SIDEWALKS Homeowners' Sidewalk Construction Reimbursement Program Paid to: Various Homeowners Supplement Funding for N. State Street Sidewalk Constructed with 2002 STIP Funds Paid to: Murray Inc., RW TOTAL AUTHORIZATION FROM FUND 699 ACCOUNT 699.3110.800.014 $12,929.45 $ 3,244.10 $16,173.55 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE THIS FISCAL YEAR = ESTIMATED ENDING FUND BALANCE THIS FISCAL YEAR = $ 61,946.00 $ 45, 773.45 ADA RAMP CONSTRUCTION Ramps Constructed in Conjunction with Homeowners' Sidewalk Construction Reimbursement Program Paid to: Various Homeowners TOTAL AUTHORIZATION FROM FUND 699 ACCOUNT 699.3110.800.015 $ 3,694.00 $ 3,694.00 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE THIS FISCAL YEAR = ESTIMA TED ENDING FUND BALANCE THIS FISCAL YEAR = $162,838.47 $159,144.47 HOMEOWNERS' SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTIONS FY 2O02/2003 FY 2003/20O4 FY 2004/2005 UNCOMMITTED TIME FRAME CURRENT TOTAL PROJECTED $16,062.05 $12,929.45 $12,982.64 $1,550.50 $ 43,524.64 1,1.1 Attachmer~ · Z :D o ITEM NO: DATE: June 16, 2004 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF APPLICATION TO DEMOLISH TWO STRUCTURES OVER 50 YEARS OLD LOCATED AT 578 CLARA AVENUE, UKIAH SUMMARY: The Rural Communities Housing Development Corporation (RCHDC) filed a Demolition Permit application to demolish a single-family residence and barn located at 578 Clara Avenue. The single family residence was built in 1910 and the barn in 1920. Both structures are in disrepair, and are proposed for demolition to accommodate an affordable high density residential apartment development. The structures are over 50 years old, and therefore, according to the Ukiah Municipal Code (UMC), the City Council must conduct a public hearing to review and consider the historical and architectural significance of the structure before a Demolition Permit is issued. On May 26, 2004, the City Demolition Permit Review Committee (DPRC) considered the application and Historical Profile prepared by Judy Pruden, and unanimously found that none of the criteria in UMC Section 3016(E) (attachment 4) applied; therefore the structure is not historically or architecturally significant. Based on the recommendation of the Demolition Permit Review Committee, Staff is recommending approval of the Demolition Permit. Pursuant to a recommendation from the DPRC, staff is arranging to photograph the buildings for the historical record. The applicants have also indicated that the will allow interested parties to salvage and recycle the materials from the two structures. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the Demolition Permit for the structures located at 578 Clara Avenue, based on the finding that they do not have historical or architectural significance. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: Do not approve the Demolition Permit, and provide processing direction to staff as to the structure's future disposition. Citizen Advised: Noticed according to the requirements of the Ukiah Municipal Code. Requested by: Rural Communities Housing Development Corporation Prepared by: Charley Stump, Director of Planning and Community Development Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: 1. Demolition Permit Application and Location Map 2. Historical Profile (Pruden) 3. Ukiah Municipal Code Section 3016 4. CEQA Exemption APPROVED: Candace Horsley, City'Mfnager 68Z9-g9~ (/_OZ.)'Ha "' ' '=IAVAhlVNIIAI=IS OOg EOUAL HOusING l Rura! Development Corporation 237 E. Gobbi St, Ukiah, California 95482 (707) 463-1975 Fax (707) 463-2252 City of Ukiah Planning & Community Development 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 April 21, 2004 RE: 578 Clara Avenue (600 N. Orchard Ave.), Ukiah (APN 002-138-05) Demolition Permit As owners of the aboved referenced property and persuant to our development plans of building affordable multi-family housing under combined Low Income Housing Tax Credits, Tax-Exempt Bonds, Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation and City and County Redevelopment funds, Rural Communities Housing Development Corporation (RCHDC) is requesting permission to clear the structures on this site. There are four (4) structures currently on this property including the attached metal shed (see Plot Plan attached). RCHDC is requesting to remove each of these structures as follows; both metal structures would be dismantled and relocated and the dilapidated wood shed, house and barn would be made available to the local fire district for a "training burn" site, following the removal of any recyclable items or materials. Attached is the Absestos Clearance letter ti'om Jeff Smith, EPA/AHERA Inspector. indicating there were no reportable asbestos containing materials identified on his April 16, 2004 inspection and the Demolition/Asbestos Release Form from the County of Mendocino Air Quality Management District. Also included are two application survey forms for the house and barn as indicated on the Plot Plan attached that are estimated to be over fifity years old for the consideration of the Demolition Review Committee (DPRC). Please contact Laurie Rolfe in our office (463-1975, ext. 11) with any further questions or requirements you may have regarding this matter. ..V--eqT-truly yours, Duane Hill Executive Director, RCHDC cc file Orchard Manor Apartments Alta~hn~'~ # PROPERTY Wooden Shed ~ House Vacant Lot Vacant Lot · i /---- -Former 7 / !-Tank Corrugated Steel Building House ~ 57'8 (~ ~ Mervyn's Former K-Mart Parking Area · mm ,mmm mmm mmm mmmm environmental service N No ScaleI Figure 2 Property Plot Plan 600 North Orchard Avenue Ukiah, California 22 Plate 1. View Looking Southwest across the Property, APN 002-138-05, Ukiah, California (December 5, 2003) NOTE: Barn, corrugated metal building attd house are shown. Plate 2. View Looking Northwest across the Property, APN 002-138-05, Ukiah, California (December 5, 2003) NOTE: Orchard Avenue is Shown RIGHT. A-2 Attachment Plate 3. View Looking North across the Property, APN 002-138-05, Ukiah, California NOTE: Qff-site attached housing in Orchard Manor Apartments are shown itt the BACKGROUND. II Plale 4. Close-Up View I,ooking '~Vest tit the House (578 Clara Avenue) on the Property. APN I}02-138-05, [!kiah, (;alifornia (I)ecember 5, 2003) CITY OF UKIAH CODE SEOTION 3016 · Prope~y Owner: Prope~ Address: Zoning: ~- Age of structure: ,/E' ?~ ~,,~,.How was age determined? Is property located in the City of Ukiah Architectural and Historical Resources Inventory? If yes. 1) Is it one of the 200 individually analyzed properties? · 2) Is it included in a potential Historic District? Which one? 3) Is it one of the properties not considered worthy of specific analysis? · Describe structure's current condition: /~°7~d~-~ '/zo ,~ oo~L ~c,'~,~"~ Describe purpose of demolition: Describe all salvageable archaic materials and any salvage Plans: Can the structure be //,~5'5,,,~('~, Are there plans to move the structure?/,J o moved? Describe any moving plans (location, timing, etc.): General comments regarding historic, architectural, or cultural significance of building/property: Describe any unique features of building or property: Recommendation for City Council action: Describe the Demolition Permit Review Committee's actions on the application (page 2). . M.E.M-O.R-A-N-*.D-U.M Attachment DATE: May 26, 2004 TO: Charley Stump, Director of Planning FROM: Judy Pruden, Chair Demolition Permit Review committee RE: 578 CLARA AVENUE- APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION .. This property is part of Block II of the Wagonseller Subdivision, which was filed in 1889 and was within the incorporat.ed City limits. Although the property fronting Clara Avenue was divided into small house lots, this area remained in fruit orchards for decades. The Stickney family, a County pioneer family which originally settled in Casper, started buying .acreage in this area and by the 1930s owned all the land north of Clara Avenue to Orr Creek. Their ranch is now the Orchard manor Apartments and Sidnie Court townhouses. Ruel Stickney, who owned the property, was a well-known pear grower. He was president of Ukiah Fruit Growers and helped develop the California Canning Pear Association. The Stickney family did not live on this ranch. The small houses and outbuildings were part of the ranch housing and operations. ! made a site visit to the property. All the buildings are vacant, and have vandalism problems. The main house is a good example of ranch housing, which was very simple and cheap to build. Tax records show the structure was built in 1910 and the architectural features further confirm this date. Although the property has an interesting agricultural connection, there is not a strong enough case for designation as a significant cultural resource for the City of Ukiah. There are two recommendations: · . · 1. The barn and-house be photographed including the interiors. . Discussion with the applicant about salvage or arChaic materials. Attachment 3016: MODIFICATIONS TO THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE: mo The section of the Uniform Building Code, relating to applications for building permits is modified to require in an application to demolish a building, the date when the building was first constructed, if known. Bo The section of the Uniform Building Code, relating to permit issuance, is modified to require that, as to buildings constructed fifty (50) years or more prior to the date of application, the Director of Planning or his/her designee shall determine whether: 1. The building is an accessory building such as, but not limited to, a garage, storage shed, or carport, whether attached or detached to a main building; except that certain accessory buildings, such as carriage houses, which are presumed to have historic or architectural significance shall be subject to further review as provided in subsection D of this Section, unless the building is subject to demolition under subsection B2 of this Section. 2. Immediate demolition of the building is necessary to protect the public health or safety and the failure to immediately demolish the building would constitute a serious threat to the public health or safety. Co If subsection B 1 or B2 of this Section applies to the building, no further review shall be required under this Section and the permit shall be issued in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Building Code. Do If the Planning Director finds that neither of the exceptions in subsection B 1 or B2 of this Section applies to the building, the demolition permit shall be subject to further review in accordance with this Section. The Planning Director shall transmit the proposal to the Demolition Permit Review Committee, or other official reviewing body established by the City Council, for review, comment, and a recommendation to the City Council. Once the Demolition Permit Review Committee formulates a recommendation concerning the disposition of the proposed demolition permit, the Planning Director shall schedule and duly notice the matter for a public hearing and decision by the City Council. The public noticing shall indicate the day, time, place, and purpose of the public hearing, and how additional information about the subject matter can be obtained. The public noticing shall be accomplished in the following manner: 1. Publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing. 2. Mailing or delivery at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing to the owner(s) of the subject property, or his/her agent, and to the project applicant, if the applicant is not the owner. 3. First class mail notice to all owners (as shown on the latest available Mendocino County Tax Assessor's equalized assessment roll) of property within three hundred feet (300') of the subject property. xln reviewing proposed demolition permits, and formulating recommendations to the City Attachment # '~ ,- 2..- Fo Go Council, the Demolition Permit Review Committee shall consider any information provided during the meeting, and shall use the following criteria. The structure: 1. Has a special or particular quality such as oldest, best example, largest, or last surviving example of its kind; or 2. Exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City's cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, or architectural history; or 3. Is strongly identified with persons or events significant in local, State, or national history. If the Demolition Permit Review Committee finds that any of the criteria listed in subsection E of this Section apply to the building proposed for demolition, it shall recommend denial of the demolition permit to the City. 1. The City Council shall conduct a public hearing pursuant to subsection D of this Section to consider the recommendation of the Demolition Permit Review Committee, and to determine if any of the criteria listed in subsection E of this Section apply to the building proposed for demolition. If the City Council determines that any one of the criteria apply, it shall make a corresponding finding to that effect. 2. At the hearing, the applicant shall have the opportunity to present evidence that a viable market does not exist for the building, taking into account the condition of the building, the probable cost to put the building into marketable condition, and the uses of the property allowed under existing or probable future zoning regulations. The City Council shall consider such evidence offered by the applicant and any other information presented at the meeting by any interested party or by staff, to determine whether or not a viable market exists. "Viable market" means that it is reasonably likely that the building could be sold within a commercially reasonable period of time for more than the seller would be required to invest in the purchase of the property and preparing the property for sale, or that the property could produce a reasonable return on the amount of money it would take to purchase the property and prepare the building for income producing purposes. "Reasonable return" means the average rate of return on real estate investments in the Ukiah Valley. 3. If the City Council determines that a viable market exists: a. It shall so notify the Building Official who shall not issue the demolition permit. The City Council shall determine whether a viable market exists based on substantial evidence presented at the hearing, or, it may assume that a viable market exists, if the applicant fails to present substantial evidence that a viable market does not exist; b. Not more than once within any twelve (12) month period, the applicant may submit a new application for a demolition permit and the City Council may reconsider whether a viable market exists: (1) Upon a showing by the applicant that market conditions have changed; or (2) Based upon new information that in the exercise of reasonable diligence the Attachment # ~ -- "~ applicant could not have produced at the first hearing. 4. If the City Council determines, based on substantial evidence, that a viable market does not exist, the issuance of the demolition permit shall be stayed for a period of ninety (90) days. a. During that ninety (90) day period, the City shall do the following: (1) Determine whether other alternatives to demolition exist, which are acceptable to the applicant, that would preserve the historic, architectural or cultural significance of the building; (2) Determine whether funds are available from any private source for the acquisition and preservation of the building through a negotiated purchase on terms acceptable to the applicant; or (3) If sufficient funds are available from any private source and a negotiated purchase is not possible, determine whether to acquire the building through eminent domain. b. If within the ninety (90) days, the City does not reach agreement with the applicant or commence acquisition of the building, the Building Official may issue the permit in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Building Code. c. If within the ninety (90) day period, the City either: 1) reaches agreement with the applicant or 2) commences acquisition of the building, the Building Official shall not issue the demolition permit. d. However, the Building Official shall continue to process the application for a demolition permit in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, if the City and the applicant terminate their agreement or the City fails to diligently pursue or abandons acquisition of the building. e. The City Manager or his/her designee shall inform the Building Official whenever the City and the applicant terminate their agreement or the City fails to diligently pursue or abandons acquisition of the building. f. If the Building Official has issued a demolition permit under this subsection and the permittee applies to extend the permit an additional one hundred eighty (180) days in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Uniform Building Code then in effect, the Building Official shall refer the application to the City Manager for an initial determination as to whether market conditions have changed. The City Manager shall make the determination within ten (10) days after the application is referred by the Building Official. If the City Manager determines that market conditions may have changed and that a viable market may exist for the property, he or she shall schedule the matter for a hearing before the City Council to be noticed and conducted in accordance with subsections D and G of this Section. However, at the hearing the City shall have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that market conditions have changed and a viable market exists. If the City Manager determines that market Attachment Ho conditions have not changed, he or she shall so notify the Building Official and the applicant. Upon such notification, the Building Official shall further process the application to extend the term of the demolition permit in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code then in effect. If the City Council conducts a hearing upon referral by the City Manager, the City Clerk shall provide written notification to the Building Official and the applicant of the City Council decision. If the City Council decides that a viable market exists, the Building Official shall not issue the permit, but the provisions of subsection G3b of this Section shall apply. If the City Council decides that a viable market does not exist, the Building Official immediately shall proceed to further process the application in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Uniform Building Code then in effect. 5. "Diligently pursue acquisition" means taking all steps within the time required by law to acquire the building by eminent domain. 6. References to "applicant" herein shall include the building owner. The Planning Director shall provide a written notice of the City Council determination to the applicant. The written notification shall be mailed or hand delivered within five (5) days from the date of the City Council's decision. The notice shall include the finding(s) and decision made by the City Council and a copy of this Section. The applicant for a demolition permit for a building determined to have historic, architectural or cultural significance shall salvage the building materials for reuse to the maximum extent feasible, and shall ensure that upon completion of the demolition, the site is left in a safe, presentable, and clutter free condition. J. Reconsideration Of Decisions: 1. Grounds For Reconsideration: The City Council may reconsider a decision under this Section within sixty (60) calendar days from the date the decision was made, if information that may have materially affected the decision was: a) misrepresented by the applicant, or b) not disclosed by the applicant, if the applicant knew or should have known that the information may have affected the City Council decision. "Information" as used herein means matters of fact or law. A decision may not be reconsidered, if all three (3) of the following have occurred. The demolition permit: a) has been issued, b) did not at the time it was issued violate any provision of the Uniform Building Code, as adopted by the City, or any other City ordinance or State or Federal law, and c) the permittee has commenced demolition in good faith reliance on the permit. 2. Procedure On Reconsideration: Reconsideration of a decision under this Section may be placed on the agenda for a regular City Council meeting by any member of the City Council who voted in favor of the original decision. Notice of any meeting where reconsideration is on the agenda shall be provided in accordance with subsection D of this Section. If already issued, the permit shall be suspended from the date that an eligible City Council member Attachment requests that the matter be placed on the agenda and until the City Council makes a final decision upon reconsideration. The Building Official shall notify the applicant in writing of the permit suspension. At the meeting, the City Council shall determine, based on evidence provided to the City prior to or during the meeting, whether reconsideration is permitted under subsection J 1 of this Section. Any motion to reconsider the decision shall contain findings supported by substantial evidence. If upon reconsideration the City Council makes a different decision, the City Clerk shall provide notice of that decision to the Building Official and the applicant/permittee within five (5) working days after the decision is made. If, upon reconsideration, the City Council determines that a building has historic, architectural, or cultural significance, and the Building Official has issued a demolition permit based on the previous decision, the Building Official shall revoke the permit. If the previously issued permit has expired, the Building Official shall deny an application for a new permit, unless the permit is issued in accordance with subsection G4 of this Section. (Ord. 838, §1, adopted 1984; Ord. 927, §1, adopted 1992; Ord. 1014, §1, adopted 1998) NOTICE OF CEQA EXEMPTION Attachment TO: Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 ~~County Clerk County of Mendocino Courthouse Ukiah, CA 95482 FROM: City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 PROJECT TITLE: RCHDC Demolition Permit A-6037 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Demolition of a dilapidated single family residence built in 1910, and a dilapidated barn constructed in 1920. LOCATION: 578 Clara Avenue, Ukiah PUBLIC AGENCY APPROVING PROJECT: City of Ukiah NAME OF PROJECT APPLICANT: Rural Communities Housing Development Corporation (RCHDC) CEQA EXEMPTION STATUS: Q Ministerial ~~Categorical Exemption Section 15301, Class 1 (I) r~ Statutory Exemption Section REASONS WHY PROJECT IS EXEMPT: The proiect involves the demolition and removal of two structures determined not to have historic or architectural significance. LEAD AGENCY CONTACT PERSON: Charley Stump TELEPHONE: (707) 463-6200 Director / TITLE: jri'.q Enviro I Coordinator DATE: June 10, 2004 AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO: 8b DATE: June 16, 2004 REPORT SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING THE GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE PROJECT, AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION ELEMENTS, AND ASSOCIATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS SUMMARY: The General Plan Housing Element update project has been steadily progressing over the past year. The Planning Commission has completed its public hearing process, and is recommending that the Council adopt a Resolution approving the new Housing Element and associated Mitigated Negative Declaration. It is also recommending that the Council approve minor amendments to the Land Use and Transportation and Circulation Elements to maintain consistency with the new Housing Element. A Negative Declaration is also recommended for this General Plan Amendment project. (Continued on page 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt the Resolution Approving the General Plan Housing Element update project, amendments to the Land Use and Transportation & Circulation Element, and associated environmental documents. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: Continue the public hearing to the next City Council meeting. Citizen Advised: Publicly noticed according to the requirements of the Ukiah Municipal Code. Requested by: Planning Commission, Housing Element Update Committee, and Charley Stump, Director of Planning and Community Development Prepared by: Charley Stump, Director of Planning and Community Development Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager . . . Attachments: Resolution for Adoption Revised General Plan Housing Element and associated Mitigated Negative Declaration Revised Land Use and Transportation & Circulation Elements and associated Negative Declaration Planning Commission minutes, dated May 12, 2004 Compliance Letter from the State Office of Housing and Community Development, dated June 10, 2004 APPROVED: ~ '~1~,~~_ Candace Horsley, City ~nager After detailed review, extensive discussions, and a series of suggestions, the State Office of Housing and Community Development, who must certify the Element, has found it to comply with State law and is posed to formally certify it. BACKGROUND: Last year, the City contracted with PAS & Associates to update the General Plan Housing Element. A Housing Element Update Committee was formed to help guide the process, and a series of public workshops was conducted by the Planning Commission and City Council to receive early public input. Based on the public input, as well as direction provided by the Council, Commission, and Committee, PAS & Associates prepared a draft Element for the public hearing process. The Planning Commission conducted five public hearings and considered input from the general public, Housing Element Update Committee, and State Office of Housing and Community Development. The Commission shaped the Element accordingly, and finalized its recommendation to the Council last month. SUMMARY OF NEW HOUSING STRATEGY The revised Housing Element builds on the policies and programs of the existing Element, while recommending several new strategies to meet the community's housing needs. The 2003 Vacant and Underutilized Land Survey indicated there are approximately 122 acres of vacant and underutilized land left in the City, of which approximately 60 percent are zoned for residential development. However, the City permits high-density residential development in commercial zoning districts, and the Survey revealed a significant amount of infill and mixed-use opportunity on commercially zoned parcels. Accordingly, a major theme of the new housing strategy for the coming years is to promote and provide opportunity for infill and mixed-use development. The Element also promotes and establishes programs for using land efficiently to meet all housing needs, and implements "smart growth" and sustainable development projects. Other themes are to promote housing rehabilitation and conservation; provide a range of housing types for all economic segments of the community; expand affordable housing opportunities for special needs groups; and ensure public participation in the development of housing policies. New suggested housing programs include: · An aggressive housing rehabilitation program funded by State Community Development Block Grant money. · Revising the Zoning Ordinance to facilitate infill and mixed-use development. · An Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. · A Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Ordinance. · Establishing "small lot" subdivision standards. · Consider increasing the Redevelopment Agency's affordable housing set-aside allocation. In addition, the Element states that a considerable amount of redevelopable land exists in the City that could be used for medium and high density housing, as well as for creative mixed residential/commercial developments. In particular, the downtown core area provides excellent opportunity for this type of redevelopment, and would contribute substantively to the goals of encouraging compact pedestrian oriented development and downtown revitalization. An example of prime redevelopable downtown parcels includes a number of those inside the area bounded by Smith, Mason, Main, and Norton Streets. Because the City is nearing buildout, an increased interest in redeveloping land that contains substandard developments will occur. Housing Element policies calling for mixed use, infill development, and live/work projects, as well as the goal of implementing smart growth planning principals, supports the creative redevelopment of land in the downtown core, as well as in other areas of the City. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT: At it's meeting on May 12, 2004, the Planning Commission made the following recommendations: 1. IP-3.7.4 - Rental Deposit Guarantee and Revolving Loan Fund - This is an existing program that is currently being administered by the Community Development Corporation (CDC) with City RDA funds. Do we want this Implementation Measure to just state that the City will "continue" to participate in this program? The Planninq Commission recommends that the Implementation Measure state that the City will "continue" to participate in this program 2. The parcels on the Vacant and Underutilized Land Survey should be prioritized for development. The Planninq Commission decided to recommend the following lan.qua.qe' "lnfill development on vacant and underutilized parcels along the primary transportation routes, in areas in need of revitalization, where infrastructure is available, and on parcels with a Iow number of constraints makes the most sense, and is most desired." 3. The Element should include a general discussion and/or strategy of "redevelopable" land; and identifYing the downtown as a high priority area. The Planninq Commission decided to recommend addinq the followin.q new paragraphs to the bottom of Paqe 3 - SUMMARY OF NEW HOUSING STRATEGY: "In addition, it has been determined that a considerable amount of redevelopable land exists in the City that could be used for medium and high density housing, as well as for creative mixed residential/commercial developments. In particular, the downtown core area provides tremendous opportunity for this type of redevelopment, and would contribute to the goals of encouraging compact pedestrian oriented development and downtown revitalization. Example of identified prime redevelopable downtown parcels includes a number of those inside the area bounded by Smith, Mason, Main, and Norton Streets. Because the City is nearing buildout, an increased interest in redeveloping land that contains older developments will occur. The Housing Element policies calling for mixed use, infill development, and live~work projects, as weft as the goal of implementing smart growth planning principals, support the creative redevelopment of land in the downtown core, as well as in other areas of the City." 4. The term "older" in the first sentence on the top of page 4 should be changed to "substandard." The Planninq Commission recommends this chanqe. 6. A Glossary of terms should be added to assist the reader. The Planninq Commission decided to recommend addinq text boxes to the final document explaining words and terms rather than in a glossary. This way, the reader can reference the word or term on the same pa,qe where it appears in the text, rather than flippin.q to the end of the document to find it in the glossary. 6. Affordable Housing Bond Measure The Planninq Commission recommends that the City Council consider pursuing a bond measure to fund affordable housin.q programs/projects, and that this could be added to bullet number 6 under "Summary of New Housing Strategy" on pa.qe 3 of the Element. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS: The proposed amendments to the Circulation & Transportation and Land Use Elements are necessary to maintain internal consistency with the new Housing Element. The amendments are considered minor in nature, and involve minor policy changes to the street Level of Service standards, language regarding second units, and simplifying the population density and building intensity table (see Exhibit "A" of the Resolution). PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ON GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS: The Planning Commission recommends approval of the proposed General Plan amendments. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Draft Housing Element: The consulting team prepared an Initial Environmental Study to determine if the implementation of the Draft Housing Element would result in significant adverse impacts on the environment (attached). The Study revealed that implementation of the Element would potentially result in significant traffic congestion that exceeds levels acceptable to the City, and potentially conflict with the Transportation/Circulation and Land Use Elements of the General Plan. Traffic Impacts: The new units that could be built in the next five years could generate 2,320- 3,500 new trips (depending on whether the units are apartments or single-family residences). Without knowing where the new development would be located and how many units would be constructed at any one site, it is not possible to assess impacts on specific streets and intersections. Compared with conditions that would result from the existing General Plan, however, the programs of the Draft Housing Element would create the potential to reduce auto trips, since (1) the programs support mixed use and live/work development as well as density increases, creating opportunities for people to work close to home and use public transit; and (2) housing units allowed in mixed use areas could displace the existing commercial development potential. These possible effects can only be evaluated through environmental review of subsequent, site-specific development proposals. At a cumulative level, the new housing would add trips to City streets. It is known that a number of intersections on State Street, Gobbi Street, Perkins Street, and Talmage Road currently operate below Level of Service D (LOS D). The City General Plan states that LOS D is the minimum acceptable level for accommodating new development. The City has hired a transportation consultant to prepare a Citywide traffic study that is assessing existing and projected traffic volumes and impacts to 20 study intersections. At the same time, these consultants are preparing a revision to the City's Circulation and Transportation Element. This Citywide traffic study will assess the future traffic generated by future development, including that allowed under the Draft Housing Element. The study will identify feasible circulation mitigations to maintain a target Level of Service at City intersections. It is possible that the new Circulation and Transportation Element will identify new minimum acceptable Levels of Service for various categories of streets and intersections. In any case, the Citywide study will identify the short-term and long-term circulation improvements needed to provide adequate circulation for projected buildout, and this buildout includes the development over the next five years allowed by the Draft Housing Element. City implementation of the recommendations set forth in the Citywide traffic study and/or the revised Circulation and Transportation Element would reduce cumulative traffic impacts from the Draft Housing Element to a less than significant level. Traffic impacts would be considered as necessary through environmental review required for any subsequent housing development projects. These projects would be required to comply with City traffic standards and policies of the Ukiah General Plan Circulation and Transportation Element. Mitigation Measure The City shall complete the Citywide traffic study and update of its Circulation and Transportation Element. Impact Significance After Mitigation City implementation of the recommendations set forth in the Citywide traffic study and/or revised Circulation and Transportation Element would reduce cumulative traffic impacts from the Draft Housing Element to a less than significant level. Land Use Plannin,q Impacts: The Land Use Element of the City's General Plan will need to be amended to reflect the new types of land use allowed by some of the policies and programs of the Draft Housing Element. The City is initiating the process of amending the Land Use Element to ensure plan consistency. Development that has occurred since the adoption of the 1995 General Plan has resulted in traffic congestion not foreseen in that General Plan and the EIR for that plan. A number of intersections in the City currently exceed the acceptable levels of service identified in the General Plan. As such, the City is preparing a Citywide traffic study and update of the Circulation and Transportation Element of the General Plan. This new Circulation and Transportation Element will assess the impacts of new development occurring over buildout of the City and identify measures to reduce congestion consistent with the revised Circulation and Transportation Element. Thus, any inconsistencies between the Draft Housing Element and other parts of the General Plan would be rectified by the planned revisions of the Land Use Element and the Circulation and Transportation Element. Mitigation Measure The City shall complete its Citywide traffic study and update of the Circulation and Transportation Element and Land Use Element. Impact Significance After Mitigation Revising the other two General Plan Elements would ensure the internal consistency of the City's General Plan and reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Comment Letters: A comment letter was received from the State Department of Transportation - Division of Aeronautics commenting on the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attached). The author makes 14 separate comments, most of which serve to reiterate the scope of the project, indicate airport noise and safety requirements, or directs the reader to resource material. None of the comments specifically identified any inadequate language, findings or conclusions in the document. Accordingly, Staff recommends that these comments be noted for the record, but that no formal response is necessary to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. General Plan Amendments: A separate environmental document has been prepared for the proposed amendments to the Transportation/Circulation and Land Use General Plan Elements. No potentially significant adverse impacts were identified and therefore no mitigation measures are recommended. No comments were received on the proposed Negative Declaration for the amendments to the General Plan Transportation & Circulation and Land Use Elements. CONCLUSION: After a series of workshops and five public hearings, the Planning Commission is recommending the Council adopt a Resolution approving the new Housing Element and associated Mitigated Negative Declaration. It is also recommending that the Council approve minor amendments to the Land Use and Transportation and Circulation Elements to maintain consistency with the new Housing Element. A Negative Declaration is also recommended for this General Plan Amendment project. As indicated above, the State Office of Housing and Community Development, who must certify the Element, has found it to comply with State law and is posed to formally certify it. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt the Resolution Approving the General Plan Housing Element update project, amendments to the Land Use and Transportation & Circulation Element, and associated environmental documents. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH APPROVING AND ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND RELATED AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION AND LAND USE ELEMENTS WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65302 (c) requires that localities adopt a General Plan Housing Element that complies with the State's standards as set forth in Government Code Section 65580 et seq; and WHEREAS, the State General Plan guidelines require that the state-mandated Housing Element be revised every five years to incorporate new information and reflect changes in community needs and values; and WHEREAS, the existing Housing Element was adopted in 1995; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City of Ukiah to replace said element with the Housing Element Update; and WHEREAS, the City has provided the State Department of Housing and Community Development with the Draft Housing Element for review in accordance with Government Code Section 65585 (b); and WHEREAS, the State Department of Housing and Community Development provided written findings indicating the changes needed to bring the Draft Housing Element into substantial compliance with Government Code Section 65580 et seq; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 21676, the City has provided the Mendocino County Airport Land Use Commission with the Draft Housing Element and proposed amendments to the General Plan Transportation and Circulation, and Land Use Elements; and WHEREAS, to assure that the other elements of the General Plan are in conformance with the Draft Housing Element, a number of revisions to the Land Use and Circulation and Transportation Elements of the General Plan have been prepared by City staff, reviewed and recommended for City Council approval by the Planning Commission at a public hearings on April 14, 2004 and May 12, 2004, and attached hereto as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the written findings of the State Department of Housing and Community Development and has reviewed the City Staff's response to the findings as well as the Draft and Final Draft Housing Element prepared by staff in order to substantially comply with the requirements of Government Code Section 65580 et seq; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held five duly noticed public hearings on February 25, 2004, March 10, 2004, March 24, 2004, April 14, 2004, and May 12, 2004 to consider the Draft Updated General Plan Housing Element and after receiving testimony, considering the staff report, comments from the Housing Element Update Committee, comments from the State Department of Housing and Community Development, and due deliberation, the Planning Commission formulated a recommendation to the City Council to certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration and adopt the Final Draft Housing Element with modifications; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, an Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and circulated for public review concluding that no potentially significant unmitigated environmental impacts will occur as the result of implementing the new Housing Element; and 1 Resolution No. General Plan Housing Element Update Attachment WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held two duly noticed public hearings on April 14, 2004, and May 12, 2004 to consider the proposed amendments to the General Plan Circulation & Transportation, and Land Use Elements, and formulated a recommendation to the City Council to certify the Negative Declaration and approve the amendments; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, an Initial Study and proposed Negative Declaration has been prepared and circulated for public review concluding that no potentially significant unmitigated environmental impacts will occur as the result of the minor amendments to the General Plan Transportation/Circulation and Land Use Elements; and WHEREAS, the Final Draft Housing Element identifies the City's housing needs, setting appropriate goals, objectives, and policies and includes a five-year program schedule of needed actions to respond to the goals and implement the policies; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that: 1. The Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the new Housing Element is certified as a complete and factual document prepared in accordance with CEQA. 2. The Final Housing Element substantially complies with State requirements of Government Code Section 65580 et seq. 3. The Final Housing Element is approved as an element of the General Plan. 4. The Negative Declaration prepared for the minor amendments to the General Plan Transportation/Circulation and Land Use Elements is certified as a complete and factual document prepared in accordance with CEQA. 4. Amendments to the Land Use and Transportation and Circulation Elements contained in Exhibit A are approved. 5. In accordance with the requirements of Section 21089 of CEQA for fees paid to the California Department of Fish and Game, a finding can be made that the project will not have an adverse effect upon wildlife resources. This finding is based upon the following rationale. The project descriptions, Initial Environmental Studies, Negative Declarations, and public testimony did not present any evidence regarding potential adverse effects upon wildlife resources from this project. Therefore the project qualifies for a "de minimus" exemption under Section 21089 of CEQA. 6. This resolution is effective upon its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED on Ayes: Noes: Abstain: Absent: 2004 by the following Roll Call Vote: Eric Larson, Mayor ATTEST: Marie Ulvila, Deputy City Clerk 2 Resolution No. General Plan Housing Element Update EXHIBIT A Attachment Resolution No. The following sections of the Ukiah General Plan are amended. Text indicated by a strike · k ..... r, is deleted. Text indicated by double underlinina is added. V.5 CIRCULATION AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Page 4: Implementation Measure CT-1. l(b) Approval of land use entitlements shall be conditioned upon an integrated circulation system which fully takes into account the efficient use of autos, bicycles and walking, and: ~n .~vio};nn ~.~n~i}~ ~hi~h tuill ~ ~ ~v~~ ~: ~h~ ~r~~ ~r~;~' ~,, ~,v~.,.~ v~v,~] w~,,,v,, w.,,, ,,v~ ~ ~vv~v~ ~] ~,,~ ~.v~v~ ~,vj~v~ b) a time specific commitment by the proponent to construct improvements necessa~ to provide the capacity needed to se~e the proposed project; or lull VIlelY ~v ~llV vvv~ vi IIII~IVI,II~ uvvvvv ~v ~lVll~V ~v ~ IlIIIII"IIHII, tab,mum ma~ ~mpmvem~nt ~VVVllllllV~ll I~ i iVll ~VlVlV~lllVll~ Vl I lV~v Vl~VlllV~ ay v~v I II~I III~]~I ffaaways, ~, ............... ~..~, ~,~,. ~. ~ ..... ~, ~,.~'~.~, ~. (Ro~or to now Implomont~tion Pro,mm GT-1 ~. 4(o) bolow.) Imnl~m~nf~finn A~no,,r~ ~T_4~ O/hi- If fh~ [l~n~l_~lln~l I~t~l ~; m~n,;~ ~r~ ~l~t~, I ~1 vi VVl livy ~l IlV ~IVVIV~IVIIMI] ~Vlllll~V Vll~ll ~V IVVMV~ ~] tllV Vl~] VI VV~ll~] ~1 IIV~ ~ VVI I~I~IVI I IVI ~lVjVV~ I vIM~v~ I vM~ iI I1~1 VIVlilVi I~V ~v ~1 MIIIV I v~MV~lVI i ~av~Mll~V ~v ~M~i~H~ ~VV I ,~V/* II I I I VIVI I~ ~llMt M~IVIMI VI M ~IV~V~I llVMI~ I ~1~ ~ I g~ ~1 i~lgl i gl ~ I I~11 I ~ ~1 I~1 i~] ii gll I I~1 ~ ~ III III I~1~! ~1 i~ ~1 I~ ~11 ~g~ iiI1~ gl ~1 I~ ~1 g~v~ i i~11 ~l~lg~lll~l i~ i~ ii i~lllgl~l I~ ~v I1~1 I ~1 I~ ~1 i~1 I~11 I~ ~1 i~ I ~ ~ ~1 igl i~] II gll I I~1 ~ ~ iii iii i~1~ ~1 I~1 I ~1 ~1~1 gl ~1 I~ ~ I I~11 iii i~1 ~1~111~1 I~ I I~1~ ~1 I ~gl I I ~1 I~ I I III I~ ~lln~ ~r MIIVVM~VMI VI ~llV ~lVjVV~ ~lV~ViiVil~ illU] vvIIV~lUV~ iiil~lVlViiIVll~V ~v Vl~] vi vvull~] M~v~vI i ivI I~ III IIVI I ~1 IV I IVI I ~ll v vvv~v vi I il c) the ~;~* ~e ~;~ '";*" ~ findbg *~* ~v;**;~ ~; .... I.H~n and c!rculatJcn needs ~* t~e 3 Resolution No. General Plan Housing Element Update Attachment ~ /- Page 21' Implementation Measure CT-'Ie. 2(g): During the short-term planning period, when a road if found to have a level of service of "E," the City or County shall prepare a plan of improvements to increase the level of service to a "D" or a "C" as may be required. The program ¢ .... ~,,.,..~,~.. k~ ....,4 ....u-, ~,,-,~,, Sh-~l not,.. ...... ,., , fcc° may ~' ......~'"'~ to" ¢' '"'~ improvements ...... p ....... ~.~ &.~v I v~,.~~.4 I I ~.~' ~,,4 i I i ~.4 i 11~4 ~.A ~.~ v ~.~ i v i i i~.~11~, .... ~'¢ ....................... has ........ ~. ............... Page 21' Po c'r'~6, , .... '~' .-...-.,~ .... ~ --, ''~ S'''''i''''--, .,w ... ....................................... ......,,...---.-.--~--.-.-.,-- ,---.-., ~ .............. ,...o~,~.,,.,,~o~ /~,~f,~r to new Implementation Program CT- new development on -o~'~° id°'"*m"'H aS ............. ~ ...... 16.4(e) below.) l~l~Vl i~i~iI ~i i~ ~i I~ ~VlVl~ iii~i I~ ~Vl i~i~I ~i I ~i i~ i ~ ~ll~llV i~I iii I~ ~i i~ II~ ~.,,~..~.~iTi~l ~i~,~ family ~i~+iol .... ~"~'~'"i"~l~+ , ,~i*~ u+ili~ +~ IT: Trip ~ ~ii i~i~ l~l~Vl i~I~I ~I II~I ~lll~ ~l I~ i I ~ ,,~ ,, N .... I~~+ ,,,;11 Rot O~' 'S~ ;+ +~ ~"~ A~I~,,, ~ I ~,,~1 ~ ~,;O~ ~. d ~ ,,,~,~,~,~,,,~ ~ ~,,~,,,,,~ ~,,,~ d~,,~l~-, i I~ ~ I ~l I~ ........................ ~ ......... ~ ........ ~ .................... lllV~ vii &l IV ~IV & ~i llVV~ &l iVlV Ul i i l&lllV~ v~ I~ v~l ~ ~l ~l~l ~ll~ll IIIII Vl I IIII~I I~ ~I 19 ~I kV ~v ii I I Vl kV II V~VIk~ I I ii~I U~IVI I ilii~iVliiVii&~Li~ii iViV~I~ I IViV ~ II kl IV IVlVI IMM~ VMI IMM~ IVIVI VI VII IVMIMVI iLIMI ............... program ....................... Page 22: Implementation Measure CT-16 4(b): Require ,h-~* -,~,,,.,--~*~,-,,o ~,-- ,~; .... *~ ....... ,-,~o,-.o ~,,,-~..,~,- · lli ll~4& l,.d~tl.~.~ll~.~.,41.1~,~l l~.dl I~.i?I I~41~.~N.~I ~,?lill~,..~l lq~41 dT I',.,~I ~.~J~.~l~l. 1,1~ II 11~I~,.4~.,4V kl~lll~ ~l I~ ~l~kl l~kl~l I ~I kl III kl ll~l I kl l~ ~I V k I l~kllYl IN. Implementation Measure CT-16.4(c ): For -"'~'~ ...... ~;~ mo ~ ......... ~ .,..~,,,..,,.*',.....,~ "¢ se"""'" ~r~D~ID' i i iv Vl~ Ul lull ~V~Vl ii iii iv ii ~i iv ~iv~v~v~ ~lVjVv~ iiiii ~i iv ~i lll~ ~1~111~ I~ v~l ~g] ~1 i ~1 I~ I iii vii ~i I i ~M Li iv kl~lll~ llll~Vk I l~l, ~v ~VVll I~ i lV~ ~v ~v ~l~l llllV~l Ik 4 Resolution No. General Plan Housing Element Update Attachment VI ~I I~ l~ll~llll I~ ~V~ ~ ~I I ~I I~I~ l~l lVVIVll .............. ~, ~ .... USI~ acce_ ed ~, ~ ............ provide a traffic engineering ~*~-~ m show how m .... ;~*'~ *-amc '";" U~Ull~Ul~ ~v ~1 iv ~lVjVvb~ ~1 III Villi I1~ ~1 IV II VUl ~1 I I II ~1 IV ~1 vjvv~ I~ vvu ~lV~ll I~ ~v v ~1 IV ~lUlllV ....~uv~ Ul lull~v ~VVlllV~ I IV~ Ul~lilll Ul UllU I IV lUl ~1 lVl ~1 lily Ul ~VVVlV~l I IVl I~ ~V~Vl I~1~1 ~vv~ I I ~Vl I~1~ Sen/ice below a Leva! of Sen:ice C for residentia! streets or Level cf II ~11~ ~l~j~ v~lll I~ I~ III ~ ~11~11~ iii ~11~ i~V~l ~1 ~ ~ i~11~ ~ll~ I VVl~Vl IVV Vl vVVVl l~ I1 ll[ Vl I ~l I V~IV[II I Vl I ~ I I III~ I VVI~Vl l[l 1 ii ~l I~I~ I i~i IVIII I ~1 vJv~ ~IV~ IVl ~i iv II IV V~l v ~ lll~l I ~l Ulll~ VV~l ~ ~ i~ ~l ~ ~ lV~ ll I I Implementation Measure CT-16.4(c ): Develop and maintain a cit.vwide traffic model to evaluate the balance between development and transportation. The City is currently completing a comprehensive traffic model which will correlate land use with existing and future traffic as part of the update and revision of this Element. Implementation Measure CT-16.4.(d): Continue to analyze project impacts on the capacity of the City's roadway system as part of CEQA review, and require design and mitigation measures in consultation with provider agencies. If CEQA review or other analysis of the traffic impacts of a proposed development project concludes that a proposed project would result in a significant deterioration of service or would cause level of service standards to be exceeded, respond in one of the following ways: (i) Require project redesign in order to prevent service from deteriorating or capacities being exceeded, provided that economic use of the property is not prevented. 5 Resolution No. General Plan Housing Element Update Attachment # (ii) Condition the pro_iect on developer funding of improvements needed to maintain services and/or provide additional traffic improvements. (iii) Approve the project if it can be found that it will' Generate substantial overriding public benefits; Be in compliance with all of the other goals and policies of the General Plan, and Benefit the public health, safety and general welfare of the community. Implementation Measure CT-16.4. (e): Adopt the following intersection Level of Service standards on an interim basis until the citywide traffic model is completed: (a) At intersections with signals or four-way stop signs: operation at LOS D. (-b-) At intersections with stop signs on side streets only: operation at LOS E, except where side streets have very. Iow traffic volumes, in which case LOS I- conditions may be acceptable CHAPTER VI: LAND USE Page 15 Narrative text 4.05.01(B) Second Units: delete the entire section. Page 15 Narrative Text 4.05.01 (C) Density bonus and affordable housing incentives: delete the entire section. Page 17 Narrative Text Section 4.05.02(B) RR land use classification. '~,.~V'~.~II~.=~ ~WfViiiiI ~,,=~. ~'IUVIVLiVii~,m~ij ~ ~11 I~1~ ~11~ ~lV~l vi ~ VVII~ILIVIi~i ~~ ~11111~ ~l~lllll LII ~ Page 18 Narrative text Section 4.05.03(B) Low Density (LDR) Residential with! Page 20 Narrative Text Section 4.05.04(B): Medium Density (MDR) Residential ........ r- ..... , ,n~,,~,, ........, ,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,,.,..,..,,, ,,.,,.,,., , ,, ,,.,, ,,.,, (" ,-, ,,, ,., ,., ,, n, , ,Dural, , , I VVI 1%,,~ VLV I ~ ~,~-~j,-,, p,-,,.-,-,,-,,- ~,~;,-,,-,~ r.,-,,,,,-.,,-,, ,.,,. p ,,,.,,y ~.-o;,~..,,+;~l ,,;,h., ~ .... I ,-,, · a, D ............... , ................. , ,.,, O ~"~"'"C ~f I:q (" 6 Resolution No. General Plan Housing Element Update Attachment # ,,, J '"' 7 Page 21 Narrative text Section 4.06.01(B) Commercial Maximum Building Intensity: With the exception of the Downtown Master Plan area when off-site parking is provided through a parking district, the maximum lot coverage shall be forty percent of the gross land area. Residential densities are up to twenty-eight dwelling units per acre provided that both public water and sewer are available· On rc~ds with ~ !~v~! cf s'""';"~ E or F, il i~ i i i~flll i i i i ~1~ ii i · ~ i ~ll~Vl l~l.~lk,i~ l~.~ VI IV ~.l~lll~.l~llll l~ I,.~l~l V · l~ lVk ~ i~ Page 22 Section 4,06.02(B) Industrial Examples of allowable uses: Prima~ uses: Processing and manufacturing, public facilities, places of assembly, business parks, office parks, mixed commercial, office and industrial sites. Limited live/work uses shall also be permitted. Page 35 Table Vl.4~ Population Densi~ and Building Intensity. Delete this table. Add the following te~ and table: State law requires general plans to establish standards of population density and building intensity. Estimates for population in the land use categories are based on an averag~ household of 2.5 persons= except for the High Density Multifamily Residential desionation, which is based on an average of 2.1 persons per household. If there is a discrepancy be~een dwellino units per acre and persons per acre= the number of dwelling units per acre shell govern, Table V1.4,44 REVISED Land Uses Designation Maximum Population Maximum Building Intensi~ Densi~ Agricultural Land Use (AG) 0.062 persons per acre 1 dwelling units 40 per acres Range and Resource Lands 0.015 persons per acre 1 dwelling units 160 per acres (RL) Remote Residential (RMR) 0.062 persons per acre 1 dwelling units per 40 acres Rural Density Residential 2.5 persons per acre 1 dwelling unit per acre (RR) Low Density Residential 15 persons per acre 6 dwelling units per acre (LDR) ~ ............................................................................................................................................................. ~ ................................................................................................................................................................ ~ ................................................................................................................................................................. Medium Density Residential 35 persons per acre 14 dwelling units per acre (MDR) High Density Residential 58.8 persons per acre 28 dwelling units per acm Commercial (C) 58.8 persons per acre 28 dwelling units per acre FAR 0.4 Industrial (I) 4.2 persons per acre 20 live/work units per acre Public n/a FAR 0.4 ..................................................................................................................................................... ~ ..................................................................................................................................................................... ~ ................................................................................................................................................................ Note: This table does not reflect the actual population density or buildin~ intensi~ for existinq development= rather it illustrates the maximum potential for vacant and underdeveloped parcels. 7 Resolution No. General Plan Housing Element Update development along a major transportation corridor to the downtown core, and to promote business and economic development. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 6:55 p.m. Commissioner Puser thanked staff for the presentation of a nice project, and she supported it with the conditions imposed. Commissioner Jennings requested clarification regarding the approach to reconfigure Perkins Street to accommodate a right turn lane into the project. Mr. Keefer responded the existing curb would be moved back approximately 10 feet to accommodate a right turn lane into the project and an acceleration lane to exit the project. ON A MOTION by Commissioner Puser, Seconded by Commissioner Edwards, it was carried by an all AYE voice vote of the Commissioners present to approve Negative Declaration for Major Use Permit No. 03-40 with Findings 1-5, as outlined in the staff report and as discussed above. ON A MOTION by Commissioner Puser, Seconded by Commissioner Edwards, it was carried by an all AYE voice vote of the Commissioners present to approve Major Use Permit No. 03-40 with Findings 1-9 and Conditions of Approval 1-35, as amended, and as outlined in the staff report and as discussed above. 8B. Final Draft General Plan Housing Element and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration: Public hearinq to review and formulate a recommendation to the City Council concerninq the Final Draft revised General Plan Housing Element, which is the City's housing strategy for the next 5 to 7 years. The Final Draft, which was preliminarily approved on April 14, 2004, includes responses to the comments and findings made by the State Office of Housin,q and Community Development, the comments made by the Planninq Commission, and the suggestions made by the Housing Element Update Committee. The Commission will also consider and act on a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. Planning Director Stump reported a series of public workshops/hearings have been conducted to review, provide input, and make recommendations concerning the revised Draft General Plan Housing Element. The Commission also conducted a public hearing on the proposed minor amendments to the General Plan Transportation/Circulation and Land Use Elements that are necessary to maintain consistency with the new Housing Element, including the review of a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Final Draft Housing Element and a Negative Declaration for the minor General Plan amendments. The Planning Commission formed a preliminary recommendation to the City Council at the regular April 14th meeting to adopt the Final Draft Housing Element and approve the minor amendments to the General Plan Transportation/Circulation and Land Use Elements. He recommended the Commission review the Final Draft Housing Element for any additional modifications prior to taking the following actions: , . Approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Final Draft Housing Element and recommend its adoption to the City Council Approve the Final Draft Housing Element and recommend its adoption to the City Council. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 5 May 12, 2004 Attachment #_ ~ ~'~ . . Approve the Negative Declaration for the minor amendments to the General Plan Transportation/Circulation and Land Use Elements. Approve the minor amendments to the General Plan Transportation and Circulation and Land Use Elements and recommend their adoption to the City Council. Mr. Stump reiterated the General Plan "Housing Element" is part of the City's General Plan for growth, development, and conservation, and establishes the community's housing policies and programs for the next five to seven years. The primary intent for implementing a housing strategy and new programs is to promote and provide the opportunity for creative infill and mixed-use development. Additional new programs would include allowance for an aggressive housing rehabilitation program to be funded by State Community Development Block Grant money, revision of the Zoning Ordinance to facilitate infill and mixed-use development and "smart growth" planning principals, consideration for adopting an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, consideration for adopting a Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Ordinance, consideration for establishing "smart lot" subdivision standards, and consideration for increasing the Redevelopment Agency's affordable housing setaside allocation. He advised that the proposed amendments to the Circulation and Transportation and Land Use Elements are minor in nature, and involve minor policy changes to the street LOS standards, the addition of language addressing second units, and simplification of the population density and building intensity table. Mr. Stump advised that a letter was received from the State Department of Transportation - Department of Aeronautics commenting on the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, noting that although comments were made, none of the comments specifically identified any inadequate language, findings or conclusions in the documents. He recommended the comments be noted for the record, advising that no formal response is necessary to comply with the CEQA requirements. Commissioner Puser inquired regarding the status of the City pursuing the implementation of a municipal bond for infrastructure improvements to the City Water/Sewer Treatment Plant to assist new affordable housing projects. Mr. Stump replied he intends to discuss this topic with the City Council during discussions on the Housing Element. He advised that staff is still working with prospective financial advisors on the matter of potentially floating a municipal bond to generate additional funding for the Water/Sewer Treatment Plant infrastructure improvements. The City has not yet selected a financial firm that could assist in this regard. One issue to be determined is whether or not the money could be used for "affordable housing" or if a specific project must be identified. Commissioner Puser referred to "Strategy 6" that reads, "Consider increasing the Redevelopment Agency's affordable housing setaside allocation," and recommended language be created that reads, "consider the implementation of a bond measure to fund incentive programs and affordable housing projects." Mr. Stump supported Commissioner Puser's recommendation, advising that this issue would be a topic of discussion with the City Council. Commissioner Puser stated it was important for the City Council to be aware that the Planning Commission supports the concept of implementing a bond measure to fund incentive programs and for affordable housing projects. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 6 May 12,2004 It was the consensus of the Commissioners present to support Commissioner Puser's recommendation concerning the implementation of a bond measure. Commissioner Puser addressed page 2 of Attachment 3, Planning Commission Recommendations, Question 6, "The Element should include a general discussion and/or strategy of redevelopable land; and identifying the downtown as a high priority area." She noted the second paragraph, first sentence that reads, "Because the City is nearing buildout, an increased interest in redeveloping land that contains older developments will occur." does not reflect the recommended change from the term, "older developments" to "substandard developments." The purpose for this change is to demonstrate that just because a building is older does not necessarily imply it needs to be redeveloped. Mr. Stump stated staff would make this change to the document. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 7:05 p.m. No one from the audience came forward. Mr. Stump commented he received an e-mail from Chairman Mulheren regarding some typographical errors in the document that will be corrected. Also, staff received correspondence from Ms. Lori Leaf recommending the element of flexibility be implemented in the Housing Element for a variety of housing types. He advised that she supports the concept of providing alternative housing opportunities. He stated, in his opinion, the element of incorporating "flexibility" into the Housing Element has been achieved. PUBIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:12 p.m. ON A MOTION by Commissioner Edwards, Seconded by Commissioner Jennings, it was carried by an all AYE voice vote of the Commissioners present to recommend to the Ukiah City Council adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Final Draft General Plan Housing Element with Findings 1-4, as outlined in the staff report, and as discussed above. ON A MOTION by Commissioner Edwards, Seconded by Commissioner Puser, it was carried by an all AYE voice vote of the Commissioners present to recommend the City Council approve the Final Draft General Plan Housing Element, with the recommended changes, and as outlined in the staff report, and as discussed above. ON A MOTION by Commissioner Edwards, Seconded by Commissioner Jennings, it was carried by an all AYE voice vote of the Commissioners present to recommend the City Council approve the Negative Declaration for General Plan Amendment 04-02, as outlined in the staff report, and as discussed above. ON A MOTION by Commissioner Edwards, Seconded by Commissioner Puser, it was carried by an all AYE voice vote of the Commissioners present to recommend the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment 04-02, as outlined in the staff report, and as discussed above. 1 ONGOING EDUCATION The Value of Downtown, Todd Litman, Victoria Transport Policy Institute. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 7 May 12,2004 06/10/2004 11:21 91632'72643 HPD PAGE 82/03 DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT .. Division of Housing Policy Development laoo Third Street, Suite 43O S~mmen(o. C.A 94252-2053 - ' , ....... (91 a) 323-3177 FAX (91e) 327-2643 June 10, 2004 Mr. Charley Stump, Director Planning and Community Development Departm~t City of Uldah 300 Semin~, Avenue Ukiah, California 95482 Dea~ Mr, Stump: RE: Review of the City of Ukiah's Revised Draft Housing Element Thank you for submitting the City of Ukiah's revised ~ housing element r~c~iv~ for our review on April 27, 2004 along with additional revisions on May 6, 2004. As you Icno~v, the Department of Housing and Communi~ Development (D~artm~x) is r~uir~d to review dry,fi housing elements and r~on our findings to the locality pursuant to Governm~t Code Section 6~ 5g:~(b). Our review was assisted through communications with Mr. Paul Andr~ Schabracq, th,.' City's consultant, between March and May 2004. We are expediting this review to facilitate yo~r application for Community DevelOpment Block Grant (CDBG) funds. We are pleased to fi_ad the ravised element ad~ thc statutory requiremeats descn'bed in the Department's February 26, 2004 r~ricw. The element will be in full complianc= with State housing element law (Article 10.6 of the Government Code) when adopted and submittei to the Department, pursuant to Government Code Section 65555(g). We appreciate the City's efforts and commitment to develop meaningful .he,using and land. uSe strategies and address its share of the regional housing need. The Dep~utmcnt p~icularly commends the City's commitment to facilitate the development of mixe~i-usc projects with residential components in commercial corridors and the housing for farmwork~ and its program strategie~ to develop single-room occupancy units and em~ency shelters. We thank you and Mr. Schabracq for your cooperation during the course of ~.ur review and look forward to receiving the City of Uldah's adopted housing element. If you ]~ave ally additional questions, please contact Paul Mc DougalI, ofour staff, at (916) 322-7995. ' In accordance with r,xlucas pursuant to the Public Records Act, we arc forwarding copies o[this l~tter to the p~rsons and organizations listed below. Sincerely, Cathy E. ~re~'wcll Deputy Director ITEM NO: MEETING DATE: June 16, 2004 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE APPROVAL OF REVISED PUBLIC SAFETY SALES TAX ORDINANCE FOR NOVEMBER 2004 ELECTION At the June 2, 2004 City Council meeting, the Council discussed wording for the proposed November 2004 public safety sales tax ordinance. Based on Council's direction, staff has written this ordinance to reflect Council's direction and it is attached for reference. Staff is recommending that the Council discuss the ordinance and determine whether further changes are desired. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discuss and approve revised public safety sales tax ordinance. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Determine that additional changes to ordinance and desired and provide direction to staff. Citizens Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Candace Horsley, City Manager Candace Horsley, City Manager David Rapport, City Attorney 1. Proposed public safety sales tax ordinance Approved: ' - Candace Horsley, City ger 4:CAN/ASR.RevisedSlsTxOrd.061604 ATTACHMENT 1 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ADOPTING CHAPTER 8C OF DIVISION 1 OF THE UKIAH CITY CODE IMPOSING A TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX TO BE ADMINISTERED BY THE STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION The City Council of the City of Ukiah hereby ordains as follows: SECTION ONE. Findings. The City Council and the people of the City of Ukiah hereby find: 1. The City of Ukiah is 4.7 square miles in size, but is surrounded by additional urban areas and residential subdivisions within an unincorporated portion of Mendocino County. The Ukiah Valley is the most populous portion of Mendocino County, containing, at least, 2/3 of the total county population. 2. The California Department of Finance estimates the population of the City of Ukiah ("City") as of January 1, 2004, at 15,900 people. 3. Ukiah is the County Seat for Mendocino County and a commercial center for Mendocino County, Lake County, Southern Humboldt County and Northern Sonoma County. 4. As such during business hours, the City population swells to perhaps as many as 40,000 people, including people who work, shop and receive services in Ukiah. 5. Ukiah also is located on U.S. Highway 101, which is the major north-south highway west of Interstate Highway 5, and links southern California to Northern California and Oregon. 6. Consequently, a small city with a population of 15,900 people must provide law enforcement, fire protection and emergency medical services to a day time population of 40,000, and respond to emergencies within the City, on U.S. Highway 101, and on a mutual aid basis within the larger Ukiah Valley. 7. Public safety services is a general fund obligation of the City, which receives revenues from ad valorem property taxes, sales taxes and vehicle license fees. The City receives only 1% of the gross receipts from taxable retail sales within the City and less than 10% of the property taxes collected from real property located within the City. 8. Due to the State of California's budget deficit, the City has seen its general fund revenues decrease in the last two years. In the 2003-2004 fiscal year, the City saw a reduction of over $300,000 in revenue from the 2002-2003 fiscal year and is projecting a deficit of over $700,000 for the 2004-2005 fiscal year. ATTACHMENT 1 9. As a result, the City is faced with a substantial deficit for fiscal years 2004-2005, which may require lay-offs or other reductions in expenditures for public safety services in the City. 10. The total calls for police service has increased from around 2500 calls in 1969 to 24,000 in 2003, or by almost 1000%. Just in the period between 1999-2003, crime reports taken have gone from 3900 in 1999 to 4300 in 2003. Calls for service have increased in virtually every category, including assaults with weapons, burglary, thefts and shoplifting, drags, sexual assaults and domestic violence. In addition, the Police Department responds to over 400 traffic accidents per year. In 2003, the average peace officer in the City answered 1800 calls for service, wrote 288 crime reports, made 97 misdemeanor and 48 felony arrests, and wrote 127 traffic tickets. 11. In contrast, between the years 1969 and 2003, the number of patrol officers in the Ukiah Police Department has remained constant at 14 officers. Except in 1999, when the number increased to five, the number of detectives has remained constant at four detectives. There are not enough sworn peace officers in the department to have three officers on every shift in a 24- hour period. 12. The police department responds to a substantial number of calls from City businesses, many of these involving shoplifting. For example, in 2003 the department responded to almost 1000 calls from just seven businesses. 13. At the same time, the vehicles and equipment of the police department have not kept pace with the demands on the department. The department has a total of eight patrol vehicles, which range in age from 12 years to 2 years. Every protective vest used by its sworn peace officers is past its useful life of five years. Many of its vehicle light bars, radios and other equipment are no longer supported by their manufacturers. 14. The Fire Department provides fire prevention services, public education and information, disaster preparedness, emergency response services, not only to fires and medical emergencies, but also rescues, hazardous materials spills and other disasters. In 2003, the Depamnent responded to calls for 79 fires, 1582 medical and rescue calls and an additional 523 miscellaneous calls for assistance. 15. The City currently has an excellent Insurance Services Office ("ISO") rating of '3' for a city its size, with' 1' being the best and' 10' the worst. With the potential for reduction in staffing and equipment, any increase in the ISO rating will substantially raise insurance rates within the City limits. ISO recommends a minimum of one ladder track, if the City has buildings over 18,000 square feet or three or more stories in height. The City has 31 buildings over 18,000 square feet and 22 buildings that are three stories or more in height. Its existing ladder truck is due to be replaced at a cost of approximately $650,000. 16. At its current staffing, the Fire Department has a minimum staffing of four personnel on each shift, 24 hours per day assigned to staff one ambulance and one fire engine. The Fire Department needs to add additional paid staff over the next year to augment staffing shortages on the Engine Company. If the call volume continues to increase as it has for the last several years and the city continues to approve new commercial and residential construction as well as possible annexations, the department projects that within the next 10 years they will need to additionally staff the ladder track and a second ambulance. In order to meet this projected demand the ATTACHMENT 1 staffing levels need to increase. The Department also believes that adequate training will require an increase in the annual amount per employee currently spent of $600 to approximately $2000. 17. Of the City's three ambulances, one has 1 year before it should be shifted to reserve status. Another is 8 years old and should be in reserve status. The third is 11 years old and should be replaced. Much of the other equipment essential to the Fire Department mission is past its useful life and should be replaced, including all its self-contained breathing apparatus, all mobile radios, portable generators, rescue air bags, one of the depamnent's two jaws of life, which are used in vehicle rescues, and 66% of its fire hose. Other equipment is due to be replaced within 2 years, including paramedic equipment, and personal protective gear. 18. Unlike the current 7.25% sales tax, all of the sales tax produced by this ordinance will remain in the City of Ukiah and be placed in a special fund that must be used exclusively to fund public safety services. In addition, this ordinance would prevent the City from reducing the amount of general fund revenues below the amount it spent in the 2003-2004 fiscal year on public safety services. This ordinance also requires the City to maintain the current level of public safety services and to increase the number of sworn peace officers in its Police Department by four and to commit, not less than, $150,000 per year to equipment and capital improvements for the Fire Department. 19. If this ordinance is adopted, the City will have sufficient funding to provide adequate statTmg and equipment for both its police and fire departments. Without the additional sales tax revenues produced by this ordinance, the City may be faced with further reductions in staffing within its public safety departments and the use of outdated and fully depreciated equipment. SECTION TWO. A new Chapter 8C of Division 1 is hereby added to the Ukiah City Code to read as follows: Article 1. General. §1735: TITLE: This ordinance shall be known as the City of Ukiah Transactions and Use Tax Ordinance. The City of Ukiah hereinafter shall be called "City." This ordinance shall be applicable in the incorporated territory of the City. §1736: OPERATIVE DATE: "Operative Date" means the first day of the first calendar quarter commencing more than 110 days after the adoption of this ordinance, the date of such adoption being as set forth below. §1737: PURPOSE: This ordinance is adopted to achieve the following, among other purposes, and directs that the provisions hereof be interpreted in order to accomplish those purposes: A. To impose a retail transactions and use tax as authorized by Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7285.91 in accordance with the provisions of Part 1.6 (commencing with Section 7251) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code and Section 7286.24 of Part 1.7 of Division 2 which authorizes the City to adopt this tax ordinance which shall be effective and operative if a 2/3 majority of the City Council adopts this ordinance and a 2/3 majority of the ATTACHMENT 1 electors voting on the measure vote to approve the imposition of the tax at an election called for that purpose. B. To adopt a retail transactions and use tax ordinance that incorporates provisions identical to those of the Sales and Use Tax Law of the State of California insofar as those provisions are not inconsistent with the requirements and limitations contained in Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. C. To adopt a retail transactions and use tax ordinance that imposes a tax and provides a measure therefor that can be administered and collected by the State Board of Equalization in a manner that adapts itself as fully as practicable to, and requires the least possible deviation from, the existing statutory and administrative procedures followed by the State Board of Equalization in administering and collecting the California State Sales and Use Taxes. D. To adopt a retail transactions and use tax ordinance that can be administered in a manner that will be, to the greatest degree possible, consistent with the provisions of Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, minimize the cost of collecting the transactions and use taxes, and at the same time, minimize the burden of record keeping upon persons subject to taxation under the provisions of this ordinance. E. To raise revenue for public safety services as further provided herein. § 1738: CONTRACT WITH STATE: Prior to the operative date, the City shall contract with the State Board of Equalization to perform all functions incident to the administration and operation of this transactions and use tax ordinance; provided, that if the City shall not have contracted with the State Board of Equalization prior to the operative date, it shall nevertheless so contract and in such a case the operative date shall be the first day of the first calendar quarter following the execution of such a contract. Article 2. Transactions and Use Tax §1739: TRANSACTIONS TAX RATE: For the privilege of selling tangible personal property at retail, a tax is hereby imposed upon all retailers in the incorporated and unincorporated territory of the City at the rate of one-half of one percent (.5%) of the gross receipts of any retailer from the sale of all tangible personal property sold at retail in said territory on and after the operative date of this ordinance. §1740: PLACE OF SALE: For the purposes of this ordinance, all retail sales are consummated at the place of business of the retailer unless the tangible personal property sold is delivered by the retailer or his agent to an out-of-state destination or to a common carder for delivery to an out-of-state destination. The gross receipts from such sales shall include delivery charges, when such charges are subject to the state sales and use tax, regardless of the place to which delivery is made. In the event a retailer has no permanent place of business in the State or has more than one place of business, the place or places at which the retail sales are consummated shall be determined under rules and regulations to be prescribed and adopted by the State Board of Equalization. ATTACHMENT 1 §1741: USE TAX RATE: An excise tax is hereby imposed on the storage, use or other consumption in the City of tangible personal property purchased from any retailer on and at~er the operative date of this ordinance for storage, use or other consumption in said territory at the rate of one-half of one percent (.5%) of the sales price of the property. The sales price shall include delivery charges when such charges are subject to state sales or use tax regardless of the place to which delivery is made. §1742: ADOPTION OF PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW: Except as otherwise provided in this ordinance and except insofar as they are inconsistent with the provisions of Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, all of the provisions of Part 1 (commencing with Section 6001) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code are hereby adopted and made a part of this ordinance as though fully set forth herein. §1743: LIMITATIONS ON ADOPTION OF STATE LAW AND COLLECTION OF USE TAXES: In adopting the provisions of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code: A. Wherever the State of California is named or referred to as the taxing agency, the name of this City shall be substituted therefor. However, the substitution shall not be made when: 1. The word "State" is used as a part of the title of the State Controller, State Treasurer, State Board of Control, State Board of Equalization, State Treasury, or the Constitution of the State of California; 2. The result of that substitution would require action to be taken by or against this City or any agency, officer, or employee thereof rather than by or against the State Board of Equalization, in performing the functions incident to the administration or operation of this Ordinance. 3. In those sections, including, but not necessarily limited to sections referring to the exterior boundaries of the State of California, where the result of the substitution would be to: a. Provide an exemption from this tax with respect to certain sales, storage, use or other consumption of tangible personal property which would not otherwise be exempt from this tax while such sales, storage, use or other consumption remain subject to tax by the State under the provisions of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, or; b. Impose this tax with respect to certain sales, storage, use or other consumption of tangible personal property which would not be subject to tax by the state under the said provision of that code. 4. In Sections 6701, 6702 (except in the last sentence thereof), 6711, 6715, 6737, 6797 or 6828 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. B. The word "City" shall be substituted for the word "State" in the phrase "retailer engaged in business in this State" in Section 6203 and in the definition of that phrase in Section 6203. ATTACHMENT I §1744: PERMIT NOT REQUIRED: If a seller's permit has been issued to a retailer under Section 6067 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, an additional transactor's permit shall not be required by this ordinance. {}1745: EXEMPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS: A. There shall be excluded from the measure of the transactions tax and the use tax the amount of any sales tax or use tax imposed by the State of California or by any city, city and county, or county pursuant to the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law or the amount of any state-administered transactions or use tax. B. There are exempted from the computation of the amount of transactions tax the gross receipts from: 1. Sales of tangible personal property, other than fuel or petroleum products, to operators of aircraft to be used or consumed principally outside the County in which the sale is made and directly and exclusively in the use of such aircraft as common carders of persons or property under the authority of the laws of this State, the United States, or any foreign government. 2. Sales of property to be used outside the City which is shipped to a point outside the City, pursuant to the contract of sale, by delivery to such point by the retailer or his agent, or by delivery by the retailer to a carder for shipment to a consignee at such point. For the purposes of this paragraph, delivery to a point outside the City shall be satisfied: a. With respect to vehicles (other than commercial vehicles) subject to registration pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 4000) of Division 3 of the Vehicle Code, aircraft licensed in compliance with Section 21411 of the Public Utilities Code, and undocumented vessels registered under Chapter 2 of Division 3.5 (commencing with Section 9840) of the Vehicle Code by registration to an out-of-City address and by a declaration under penalty of perjury, signed by the buyer, stating that such address is, in fact, his or her principal place of residence; and b. With respect to commercial vehicles, by registration to a place of business out-of-City and declaration under penalty of perjury, signed by the buyer, that the vehicle will be operated from that address. 3. The sale of tangible personal property if the seller is obligated to furnish the property for a fixed price pursuant to a contract entered into prior to the operative date of this ordinance. 4. A lease of tangible personal property which is a continuing sale of such property, for any period of time for which the lessor is obligated to lease the property for an amount fixed by the lease prior to the operative date of this ordinance. 5. For the purposes of subsections (3) and (4) of this section, the sale or lease of tangible personal property shall be deemed not to be obligated pursuant to a contract or lease ATTACHMENT 1 for any period of time for which any party to the contract or lease has the unconditional right to terminate the contract or lease upon notice, whether or not such right is exercised. C. There are exempted from the use tax imposed by this ordinance, the storage, use or other consumption in this City of tangible personal property: 1. The gross receipts from the sale of which have been subject to a transactions tax under any state-administered transactions and use tax ordinance. 2. Other than fuel or petroleum products purchased by operators of aircraft and used or consumed by such operators directly and exclusively in the use of such aircraft as common carders of persons or property for hire or compensation under a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued pursuant to the laws of this State, the United States, or any foreign government. This exemption is in addition to the exemptions provided in Sections 6366 and 6366.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California. 3. If the purchaser is obligated to purchase the property for a fixed price pursuant to a contract entered into prior to the operative date of this ordinance. 4. If the possession of, or the exercise of any right or power over, the tangible personal property arises under a lease which is a continuing purchase of such property for any period of time for which the lessee is obligated to lease the property for an amount fixed by a lease prior to the operative date of this ordinance. 5. For the purposes of subsections (3) and (4) of this section, storage, use, or other consumption, or possession of, or exercise of any fight or power over, tangible personal property shall be deemed not to be obligated pursuant to a contract or lease for any period of time for which any party to the contract or lease has the unconditional right to terminate the contract or lease upon notice, whether or not such fight is exercised. 6. Except as provided in subparagraph (7), a retailer engaged in business in the City shall not be required to collect use tax from the purchaser of tangible personal property, unless the retailer ships or delivers the property into the City or participates within the City in making the sale of the property, including, but not limited to, soliciting or receiving the order, either directly or indirectly, at a place of business of the retailer in the City or through any representative, agent, canvasser, solicitor, subsidiary, or person in the City under the authority of the retailer. 7. "A retailer engaged in business in the City" shall also include any retailer of any of the following: vehicles subject to registration pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 4000) of Division 3 of the Vehicle Code, aircraft licensed in compliance with Section 21411 of the Public Utilities Code, or undocumented vessels registered under Chapter 2 of Division 3.5 (commencing with Section 9840) of the Vehicle Code. That retailer shall be required to collect use tax from any purchaser who registers or licenses the vehicle, vessel, or aircraft at an address in the City. D. Any person subject to use tax under this ordinance may credit against that tax any transactions tax or reimbursement for transactions tax paid to a district imposing, or retailer liable for a transactions tax pursuant to Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code 7 ATTACHMENT 1 with respect to the sale to the person of the property the storage, use or other consumption of which is subject to the use tax. Article 3. Permissible Uses of Transactions and Use Tax §1746: EXPENDITURE PLAN: A. Use of the tax proceeds. The money received by the City from this one-half cent tax may only be used to provide public safety services within the City. These monies may not be used for anything else. "Public safety services" means law enforcement and crime prevention services provided by the Ukiah Police Department, and fire protection and prevention and emergency medical services provided by the Ukiah Fire Department. These taxes may be used to pay for such public safety services expenses as the training and salaries, including overtime and specialty pay, and fringe benefits, of public safety officers and support staff working in the Police Department and of firefighters, emergency medical technicians and support staff working in the Fire Department. These funds may also be used for operating expenses, and the purchase of vehicles, equipment and supplies, and capital improvements used exclusively by the Police and Fire Departments. In any fiscal year commencing with the 2004-2005 fiscal year, the City must set aside exclusively for public safety services all of the following: (1) money produced by this tax; (2) the amount of general fund revenues budgeted for public safety services in the 2003-2004 fiscal year, not including revenues produced by the Police and Fire Departments, such as income from the ambulance service, grants for public safety services and fees for service ("Public Safety Revenues"); and (3) Public Safety Revenues. The combination of these funds shall be called '~dae Public Safety Services Fund." The City shall maintain a minimum level of public safety services, but nothing in this Ordinance prevents the City Council from establishing a higher level of public safety services or prevents the City from reorganizing or changing the method of providing public safety services. The minimum level of public safety services shall be the level of such services available in the City in the 2003-2004 fiscal year, plus the following: (1) the equivalent of four additional full-time peace officers as defined in Penal Code Section 7 and Title 3, Part 2, Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) assigned to patrol services, and (2) not less than $150,000 per year for capital expenditures benefiting the Fire Department, including, but not limited to, the purchase or improvement of equipment, vehicles and facilities. "Patrol services" as used herein means a uniformed assignment within the Police Department that provides general or specific law enforcement duties, including, but not limited to, Community Oriented Policing and Traffic Enforcement. Every five years after the Effective Date of this Ordinance, the City Council shall appoint five people to an "Oversight Committee" the only function of which shall be to review the City's budget for public safety services and the expenditure of the revenues so budgeted. The persons appointed to the Oversight Committee shall represent a broad range of interests in the City, including business owners, racial and ethnic minorities, firefighters, peace officers, persons providing emergency medical services, homeowners and tenants. ATTACHMENT 1 The City Manager shall provide the Oversight Committee with any information it requests which is not exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act and shall assist it in organizing and analyzing the information so provided. The Oversight Committee must prepare a written report which shall be presented to the City Council at a noticed public hearing and which shall be available to the general public for not less than 10 calendar days prior to the scheduled hearing date. The report shall contain an analysis of the level and types of service provided by the City's police and fire departments, the expenditure of the Public Safety Services Fund, and the unrestricted reserves within the budgets for those departments. It shall also make recommendations concerning the future use of these funds and levels and types of service. The Oversight Committee shall dissolve after it files its report with the City Council, until a new Oversight Committee is appointed for the next five year review. B. Accounting for tax revenue. All revenues produced by the tax imposed by this Ordinance and all interest on said revenues shall be credited to the Public Safety Services Fund and shall be designated for use and used only in accordance with subsection A of this Section 1746. The income to and expenditures from the Public Safety Services Fund shall be accounted for separately in the financial reports and records of the City of Ukiah. Article 4. Miscellaneous §1747: AMENDMENTS: All amendments subsequent to the effective date of this ordinance to Part 1 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code relating to sales and use taxes and which are not inconsistent with Part 1.6 and Part 1.7 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, and all amendments to Part 1.6 and Part 1.7 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, shall automatically become a part of this ordinance, provided however, that no such amendment shall operate so as to affect the rate of tax imposed by this ordinance. §1748: ENJOINING COLLECTION FORBIDDEN: No injunction or writ of mandate or other legal or equitable process shall issue in any suit, action or proceeding in any court against the State or the City, or against any officer of the State or the City, to prevent or enjoin the collection under this ordinance, or Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, of any tax or any amount of tax required to be collected. SECTION THREE 1. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance relates to the levying and collecting of the City transactions and use taxes and shall take effect immediately upon its approval by the voters as provided in Section 1737.A. Approved on Council: ., 2003 by the following roll call vote of the Ukiah City AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Eric Larson, Mayor ATTACHMENT I ATTEST: Marie Ulvila, City Clerk 10 Possible revision language to the 3r~ paragraph of the 'Expenditure Plan', page 8. The City shall maintain a minimum level of public safety services, but nothing in this Ordinance prevents the City Council from establishing a higher level of public safety services or prevents the City from reorganizing or changing the method of providing public safety services. The minimum level of public safety services shall be the level of such services available in the City in the 2003-200~, fiscal year; plus the following: (1) the equivalent of four additional full-time peace officers as defined in Penal Code Section 7 and Title 3, Part 2, Chapter ~,.5 (commencing with Section '830) assigned to patrol services, and (2) not less th~n thc~ arno~nt ¢f f~n~ls necessary tO au_qment Rre Depart~nent ~taffin~ needs and tO becj/n the repl~cernent Qf can/fa/equipment with/n the F/re Department. "Patrol services" as used herein means a uniformed assignment within the Police Department that provides general or specific law enforcement duties, including, but not limited to, Community Oriented Policing and Traffic Enforcement. AGENDA ITEM NO: MEETING DATE: Ob June 16, 2004 SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING HOPLAND BYPASS FUNDINGmVlCE-MAYOR BALDWIN This agenda item was discussed briefly at the June 2, 2004 City Council meeting, but due to lack of time, the Council continued the item. As requested by Council, staff has contacted Phil Dow, Director of Mendocino Council of Governments, and determined that he is unable to attend the June 16 Council meeting. RECOMMENDED ACTION' Discuss funding of Hopland bypass and provide direction to staff. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizens Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Phil Baldwin, Vice-Mayor Candace Horsley, City Manager Phil Baldwin, Vice-Mayor 1. June 2, 2004 Agenda Item Approved' . ~.~,.-~. ~. ~.~ "'~'~'"~~..~ canda~e I--Iomley, City~anager 4:CAN/ASR.HoplandBypass.061604 AGENDA ITEM NO: MEETING DATE: SUMMARY REPORT Attachment June 2~ 2004 SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING HOPLAND BYPASS FUNDING--VICE-MAYOR BALDWIN Vice-Mayor Baldwin has requested a discussion and possible action regarding the recent Mendocino Council of Governments (MCOG) decision for funding of the Hopland bypass. The MCOG Board approved the funding of $5 million per STIP cycle (every two years) through 2012 for the Hopland bypass. The 2002 STIP cycle allocated $18 million for the Mendocino County regional area. CalTrans has accepted this proposal and thus kept the Hopland bypass on their list of projects. They eliminated 20 out of 40 possible projects due to the lack of staff, time and money that it takes to do the environmental review and right-of-way acquisition. Mr. Dow has indicated that STIP funding is not only for local streets, but also for regional projects whereby local agencies share project costs with the State. A question and answer sheet from MCOG is attached. The first phase of the project, which will include design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction, is estimated at $120 million. The' State has allocated $7.2 million for environmental review, which is expected to begin three-and-a-half years from now. MCOG has allocated $20 million up to 2012. Additional phases, once the bypass is completed, will construct a continuous four-lane highway to the south of Ukiah. Attached for Council's information is a letter from Vice-Mayor Baldwin, as well as two letters to the Ukiah Daily Journal that he has submitted for Council's review and discussion. Vice-Mayor Baldwin is asking for action from the City Council to formally oppose the funding by MCOG for the Hopland bypass. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discuss funding of Hopland bypass and provide direction to staff. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizens Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: Approved: N/A Phil Baldwin, Vice-Mayor Candace Horsley, City Manager Phil Baldwin, Vice-Mayor 1. Letter from Vice-Mayor Baldwin 2. Letters to the Editor regarding the Hopland bypass 3. MCOG question and answer sheet ager' Attachment # May 27, Fellow Councilmembers, I ask this Council to formally oppose.any City.of Ukiah, County of Mendocino, or Mend°Cino. Council of Governments funding, for the Hopland Bypass. Nt~t only are there far more critical transportation projeCts in Mend0cino.County and not only is this a project inspired by State masterminds rather than local-need, but it is a project that will induce auto-dependent; sprawling subdivisions here and in Lake County by Cutting commute time to Santa Rosaand San Francisco. Attached find.two letters _from lOcal citizens making'the case for this .position better than I. Thank you for considering this. issue. Phil Baldwin . .I 4,- THURSDAY'·APRIL 29,:.2004: ~' .' . .'. · . · ,, -.Lette.rs..-'fro. mour.read.er-s! - · ,~, ~ . . ' . , ... :' · . .'® .. - ..'. ,/ - . . · · "ins 'b_'aSsm Hopland- : Aga ....... g ..-.. - Totlie Editbr:' - . -'-~ :':..- . · ' L~t me see 'ff'I get. this s~aight.· Caltrans i. ,, .,is going" ahead-with'Plans'to' bypass the - wonder,hillY, ~mag..cOi~.~~ of H°p).a~.d .~ '". · even'though California is"i~_ one..oL .me, :: ..' .. · ;,,.,oo ',;~,~,1 erlsis's', in its. history, v~mt .:' .. · ' th'"PrOg being cloged; putting:thousands of pebpleS, - : . liveg-at risk;-and. Calt/ans' wants to sp.e. nd :- ' millions On something"that is jUst. Plain sm..-- ;, picL -,~ ..'...- . .. "" ' . The' damage''to the environment alone ~ -'should be enough to' tell..Caltrans"t° back off. The traffic in H0P!and is not.a, problem;.. A person, can.e~'en cross ~e...street.without putting'~eir life in danger.-most:°f the 'time. . ~" -What is. Ca!trahsthinking?.'. ',. '" ' "' " .This 'is just an0ther:exampte of jU'st'h0w ' out of fOuch'..Pe0ple'"' ih" S, acramento arc.. Projects like'this shod. Id 1~. put..laCfore th. · voters of Menfl6CihO C .o'.tm.ty?0 that we can. :set priorities;when ii.:comes, to th.e' ~hat is . · done here, · .. ·. ". ~...-' "' "' All: the money beiiig.: .spe. nt o~:flii~' lame".i-" bi;ained idea Could be put ~:int°. '~e. much needed bypass"of.W'fllits;.and ma'y,'b~ some of .the money could!be' ~seA. to :iii~e :sure that people with,m.c, ntal...::flln_ess are"'n°t 'forced int0,1ong-term loCked.'.' facilifies s.'m? ply'becauge the state refuses to-set priori- ties. ~ .They, 'obViously d° not 'care what ..we want or. what ,we ne, cd. a~d arc 'willing to '. spend tons of. money .on. projects that offer no help .to-us at all. Th6 only people that Would want Stich/l.terrible'project t° hap, -' pen are'ttiose/wh° WoUld' end up Selling their land. ' - If Caltrans would only.'co'me up heke.md '. ..,ask us What. we want. and what we'-need, they would see:just how:.wrong they. have " been over the years..:!deas would include"a straight :road to 'the eoast,'..'the, redesign of. the off ramps at Perkins,. and .'getting-the'..... · ' Willits".bypass. done .as soon .as possible. . · (CaltranS ,is' the' .enl. ~. gr6uP' thkt..'.,is 're'.all'y "' keeping.ir'from' getting.staited), · .-i', . · All-they'need to 'do is' ask what. we want, }instead of. telling 'us ~vhat they :want:. We 'live here and.are impacted by what they' do.... We ar~ the ones ,who'surf? from', their sm-" :pidity.-' · '" - ..... """ ':' I. urge everyone to'write to Caltratis and .' .derrianit. that .they 'pgt 0z~ imm' edia!e'ha!t't_0 '..- 'any l~lans that:wduld spend~ t/illlions'°f del' · lars no one has On a project no One in their} fight'~mindwants' William Fren~h' '; .. · ..-. :'..:.. ....... - ...:... ........ , - .. / ....... - · ' '-.-':'. ' -;. i.i . :' "~'.'/· i..= .::i '. ' ..... ' ' ' '.' ~':'--:-~:'~~ ~~~i.:~'~r~ ..... '"~.~u~e.sts that if-'the ~con6~- -"::- :' .'" ' .' :: ~~=~-": ~'-"~ -~'": ' -':" "".'~ '":":: ""~ '""~'ti't"~i ...... e';.'it'will--be evefl'hirtler-:~or" · . '- '-" ' ' "._ '.. :..'.':.': :. "."-:.:'-... '~'..:,...: ' ...'.',.:..i ". '.: MCOG..toreduce'this. fuii,?~'.ga.P., '. '. '"'? .":' ·" Letters, fr0.m.....our '..,.. :~..."~ ;~/ :..- -". :..' .": .' ;.-:?-:":.:..-,-'-,.. /': ';-:, '.:'.:.t:' [':. '..' . -'.~RTIF.~{~id~,'.3:tle:~port'assU.~.. ,' .,,.. "?'. '..' ' . :,~,~ .......:..?.....::~;,,!.:,::...-.j..;.: :.!~.,.-...~]~:,~:.~;~:2L:~,'~;.:~.~ '.,~. .~.. ..... ~diil6.~'the,S~ate to.Moild~cine:.w, ill':: '..... ~.. .. :. '.',r...-~'e. lt.a'O~:.~l~ .umu.'-;.~. :- .. · . ~'.. ,. ,-.. --.-. .' -, .:... .:.~."O~C, ie ,tt .... ~...:.., .,.:.. ,...~.~. ...... .~. -...'?.; . ',. '.- '~¢ ~' ,e'. 'IOnltlholi/ ear(so M~OO: ..... ........,.. :.:....,,.~ .. ,,. ?..-. ,.< ~.....,~.:. .: -... :: . .~. .... .... , a. ~. ~. . ~ .... . ......Y . . .. ..... ~. . . bvp~s.': ::,'~"-:-~'.!-";:'" ~?: ~:~:..?-'.',.;'-?~ ~i".' ~:?::; ~'....:-. r.-': '.! '.' ~woul'.d.;,be.'¢o_~~:'h~:~ its a,v.e..ra..,S...e_h~.:.-.. -:. V:' .':, j'.:., :-': .... ':" '-'-:-~-j !i..,::~.~i~.:.:.~..i'...:..."..'..:': ..."/!i!~.;:"i',i~' ....? "..!:- Ho_wev. g~;:if ta~':pfes~t. ~re~. ss.io.n c0...~n~..-.'~::...:' .... , .. · T0-'.~.~ ::' .'-:'--'- '.' .... '.'.,'~:.:".:~;::.:i~" :.'~';': '; -'~ ~o~',:.'~;'~i~ira.'~?a~:n~.v~.r.~"m~tgl. P4,t'.::~.-''. ~.: '-"' ~0r.d.at ~..,.?:......??.~'....-i;: ,' ..~t~$5,'~n..~.'-Y~.~A.S~:,'~e.~o~' aS~i:P:~:i~l :'"',~::L~.'.~..:':?'. .. ' C~[d I:er. left:~.i~.a.;f.~,~'"~ ¢0~tm.~.e.n,t,:i!~-:::i' "'.- ..-' ;~, · ,~ ~,~ ' .. .,~ ,.-.~... ..... , , .- , .-.,... . . ... , 'ua.u., .... --:, '- "::;~'~" '" ' "': ":'"'" ': """ "" """ tO ia ' '" ' :. ' ' '.C..o~.m.' ":,:.-......-. ;:--:' ',/'. '- :..'... ~.'irbridlts. reasoI!.ablii, ablh'.tY. .P Y, :. ':..'.:........' ' . ~ ' · '.', ,' ' .'". . :' 'f · .- ' -,' :-?'- ' "i' "' .... ~"' '" '"'"" ;' ' '"" ..... ~t' ' ", ' ' H~l~.',i~ '~'.; L- ....... ~7,.-.'~ .." ~yond thc-.ft~.".ding !ss.u..es, ,t.d..oesn if~"' "':' :'"' ' "" ? :. :'."iii. -. mit"'i0;...,f0 '~F. -'' '.' :~..:i" ' b~'ii~.e'~:B~s.;Wbuld beJl an0mer.t'ac=-: :'.......... .- req :!..-!, '"/~'~t :~!:.f.'.'l'..' :':' ..'.'..'."l~,po~:_:'how"' '.. ,:.'! .p,y'i i. _ .... _ :/."..?.~."::..!.;.~.':.....':..."~ '..': fUnds :~ ",~: ' "'i.!.i':~"'! ' ..,;: '.." · ~al.~~-'in~lhCing. e~ffe, ct'~Ot- ~e ::'." !:":.. ".i ' .'. '. '. years Or ,:-:":"..'/'.: ~?[:'"i:' ~..". "~asV2.;~OO:'laeli~'amabdat~'to fiicili:.:?',-. ~ .'.."......"' in ,',:...!;' :' '-.'..' '- .,,acfi6n. :~ .this;:it,.should .-".make :sure:.it':nas'~ :;-':':-,..~. "./' .' .- ........ ' ° ' '" un ' '. .... . .th~..~ppor~;of:the resi.'d~htS..,of.,theCo. ~,..::: .'~ . ...... ~.: ;...,,, . .. ~9':i{j~i..~t!'.stat,..or~.~:al'ru-,.~g!...:.!:':..'~-.''· .:. Caltrans ts /is' .' i '? '" sho""~d b~ ma~i~'Jav, ailabie~'i. Bv. enlff ~la!~s;.: ." ::-.: :...".:.": '" '.:? ..' ..' ..... · ". .',:.'~,'"~.'.'"', ...... :",i '.:' ~0" .am""': ,' '"-' :' .... · far :. ~ : - ~s,'g~ o_n.~L~$~..e..!t, to~l'":de-p .gr.~,... · . ...... ~ .. .. ~ .~ . .. . ~[ .' . . .~.;.,: ' .. · tlie~6i~land:'By~,~ ff.~MCOO.do~m .../ ..! . . *,.... ,. :.. ,.. .... : 0. - ,., .3..... .. · . ~ .,.~ . , ... . · :' ~' : - .... ' .... "'r~ .....-25,' rcent~ that.do~sn t .' :. :..' .... commit to,.fii ~g. pe ...... _ . ... : .... · ;.?..!' ,'. '.c~o~a:':In ~¥e_...'..:~; ~.tuer~ ~,,.m. or:e-~uo.~ ..:.:.:. :-...... !::~:~.'-: '-'' ..:' ~ia!':di~a-fff-~'~· a~st~i, proi~t..,.t~.'L '." ' ~:: i.i .. '.':: '.'" ~iiea.~'n' '.:.:~a"~i siae i~ .aing'-.for: .: ':-:....: '. :' :.':. ~.-'..:.:i' :' :-: · i~.~-s"~::~"must¢~a.".'/'.:''. .... ':" ":- light ~f~ isii~,'aridL'~geM~ca-~'t° : .Y.' ' . : · "- as~.:Ca~.tb:look.' ,ls~W~,m-for..~'".'.. '.... -:i' ".. ".. :,-'"';:. '!. · .' ..... ~.' '.'~.:' ~'.."Pr~idenL Golden ;~.-~?' '":..' . -'. ". ', -' ..': ~.::. '",:.- -.: .. 'Hoplan~ needS. O~." COurity . . ....::;... :.....:.,, .... ..... ~...":.";."' shape,.;and.da~,.g~us;c°ndi_~Ons:0n;.., , ' 'i" '.:.' '"..":i'i~!.;.'' i":. i ":..". roadS.:~b.'Viuldbe MCOO,s,.first ~,n'onty..m ..'. ' ' ...;. ..?.. .. ....'- :',: :.. .,.. '. ..... . theen~iith..e CoUn~-sinipl:r c".a,n t.aff0rd'io:'' :' .... ":~ ' ~."'~ ;;.".'.- ': .' '. :.': ':.'.. ftmc~i, th~.~H.op!iind:.Bypa~s.. :{... / .:... .... ,.:. ';,:..,~:-? .j' ~. ~'. i.,: .::,.~i~':ji.!i .?..'. ::.:" .?..'../..'i.':.- :'. .... · ' ~' 'Y~Ur; ~ff.. to: MCOG als6: doesn..t :tell .: ', '..:' .' i;: ~": ::'.~;~ :: '~i~'..-' ":.: '. ::: ": ."..' ':.. ,:::. commi~ent..t~jftt6~i.thele~iviro~ental'~~'~':.'.' · (. '- ': '-./:~;;;:~' --" "'.:. ~.'.-'?.. ' :. :. ...::': j/ :. '-.:.. ¢Oidd~e~.l~end6c~o. county'at mat... · ' %" ..- .:."::::~ :.../'.....,...'~.. " ,Hobs0n s. ch°{cei s0meh0W,~ :' i': .i,: ~.-. -' '.",.:,':i!~'.-".-.:. "- ..--.' . :: · :.. .. ?. ~: :. -,.... ... .! ' ...'....'.... .., · i.~,' '-,:,¥. -.:. ... · i:' ' '" '~;:"" ' ""' .... :!" ' "1 ' "' · ':'~i.'..' .... ". · ...,:..:' ...': ' .. .:- , .-.. . Attachment # ~-~ HOPLAND BYPASS PROJECT INFREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS March 16, 2004 What is the purpose of this project? The project purpose is to provide an interregional transportation facility that will relieve congestion, reduce operational conflicts by separating local traffic from inter-regional traffic, accommodate future traffic volumes and improve safety. What is the need for this project? The need for this project is centered on the following concerns: Congestion, Operational Conflicts and Delay- Within project limits the existing roadway is a conventional highway with numerous at- grade public and private road connections. Existing peak hour level of service is "E". US 101, functioning as "Main Street" carries 70% inter-regional travelers. Truck passing lanes in North Hopland segment are the only passing opportunities. · Safety - While the overall corridor has collision rotes below the statewide average, the fatality rote is 1.7 times the statewide average for similar facilities. As volumes increase over time and capacity is exceeded more frequently, collision rotes will increase. · Regional Improvement Priorities- The Hopland Bypass has been the top rated improvement priority of the North Coast Counties Supervisor's Association since the Willits Bypass project was removed. The Hopland Bypass and North Hopland continue to be short-range priorities in the Regional Transportation Plan. · Concept Facilities- The existing roadway is not consistent with the Caltmns "Interregional Transportation Strategic Plan" and the District 1 Route Concept Report for Route 101. Both reports call for a four-lane facility in the Hopland area. Rome 101 throughout the state is one often "Focus Routes" identified by the California Transportation Commission for improvement. What are the benefits of this project? This project would provide a safe, modem facility to ac.~ommodate both existing and future peak hour volumes. It would also provide gumanteed passing opportunities, and would meet the facility concept established through State and Regional planning efforts. The project would reduce travel time through the corridor. The construction of a freeway bypass would significantly reduce collisions and operational conflicts on the existing Route 101 segment. Statewide -1- collision rates on four-lane facilities are three times lower than for two-lane conventional highways. Specifically, the project would: · Reduce congestion by providing guaranteed passing opportunities · Increase the level of service and reduce delay time · Accommodate future growth (expected 70% increase in volumes over 20 years) · Enhance safety of corridor (four-lane facilities are safer than two- lanes) · Enhance safety within Hopland by removing inter-regional traffic and reducing operational conflicts · Close the last two-Iane gap between the Bay Area and Willits · Enhance air quality and noise levels in the Hopland community · Reduce energy consumption by eliminating stops/acceleration Won't construction of this project induce growth in Mendocino County? Market fOrces such as housing costs, salary levels, and the comparative differences between where housing is located and where jobs are located are the key factors affecting growth. Access improvement alone seldom provides the impetus for land use development change or change in intensity. Since we know that construction is still many years away, the need to resolve traffic issues in Hopland will already exist prior to construction. Any additional growth that a bypass might induce would be incidental to growth that is already projected. Since this facility would be a four-lane freeway/expressway, access to the bypass would only occur at interchanges. No oppommity to provide direct (therefore improved) land access will occur. In contrast (although not being proposed), a new conventional (two-lane) highway mute could open up new access to land, thereby inducing growth. How long has this project been around? The Hopland Bypass project and the North Hopland project (also known as Crawford Ranch) have been identified as needed projects in Caltrans documents and the Regional Transportation Plan for over 25 years. How long does it take to complete a major project like the Hopland Bypass? Like many things, the controlling factor is finding the funding to commit to the project. If funding were secured though, it would still take many years until the facility is ready for traffic. Projects in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) are generally funded by four separate activities: Environmental (PA & ED), Design (PS&E), Right-of-Way (ROW), and COnstruction. -2- · Environmental- This phase considers all the environmental impacts of several alternatives (including the No Build alternative). For normal projects this phase takes 5-6 years. If there are significant impacts to species, archaeological sites, wetlands, etc., this phase could take longer to complete. · Design - Preparation of plans, specifications, and estimates could take as little as two years, but typically takes three years on larger projects. · Right of Way- This phase could take 2-3 years depending on the complexity of the final alignment. Some of this work could take place concurrent with the design phase. · Construction - Large projects such as this, especially in areas like the North Coast that experience winter work suspensions, will take about 3 years. To sum this up, if we had funding commitments in place today, it would probably take at least 12-13 years to complete this project. More realistically, we would be very close to Year 2020. Where are we now in this long process? With their share of the State Highway Account funds in the 1998 State Transportation Improvement Program, Caltrans programmed $5 million for the Environmental Phase of the Hopland Bypass. Just a few months later, in conjunction with the 2000 State Transportation Improvement Program, Caltrans programmed $2.2 million for the Environmental Phase of the North Hopland project. The environmental phases of the two projects were eventually merged for the purposes of efficiency and environmental consistency. Work began on the project in 2001, and in 2003 a Community Advisory Committee was created. Current projection for completion of Project Approval and the Environmental Document is December, 2007 for the entire corridor being studied (Russian River bridge to Burke Hill). So now why is the Hopland Bypass project being considered for elimination by Caltrans? Over the past two years, we have become very familiar with the financial situation of the State in general and the financial situation of the State Transportation Improvement Program in particular. This year Caltrans is facing staff reductions that will impact their ability to work on all the projects that they had planned. There are currently about 40 projects statewide that are only in the first phase (environmental) of development. About 20 of these have to be cut to match the available personnel. Projects that are further along than Hopland (proceeding into -3- the fight-of-way acquisition and construction phases) are much harder to cut due to the mount of resources previously committed. Why don't we just drop Hopland until we have funding and there is a greater need? It takes a great deal of effort and resources to get a project rolling. To date there have been Value Analysis studies, open houses, environmental studies, field surveys are 90% complete and the Community Advisory Committee has been in place for over 14 months. By all accounts, the project is progressing smoothly. We know from past recoveries that trained personnel may not be available to work on projects when the money again, becomes available. There is always a lag period that is measured in years. We know that environmental work has a certain life expectancy. It will have to be repeated if there is a significant interruption in the environmental work. We also know that the need for the project will not diminish over time. Costs for right-of-way acquisition are likely to increase substantially. Our work with the Wine Country IRP indicates that the jobs/housing imbalance between Mendocino and Sonoma counties is expected to increase. What is Caltrans asking of MCOG? Cheryl Willis presented a report on the Hopland Bypass status at the March 1, 2004 MCOG meeting. The crux of the issue is that the State has to reduce its work load. It wants some reassurance that the projects that it continues to work on will be eventually supported (financially) by their partners in the inter-regional system (regional agencies). If there is no reassurance that the design, right-of-way, and construction phases will be funded, the Hopland Bypass will become a good candidate for the axe. We need to recall that all the funding to date for the Hopland Bypass has been provided through the Inter-regional Improvement Program. There have been no Regional Improvement Program funds programmed for this project to date. Cheryl Willis presented the following options for clarifying MCOG's financial support for the Hopland Bypass: · MCOG may declare its intent to seek GARVEE bonding for funding ROW and capital needs of the Hopland Bypass · MCOG may designate, by Resolution of the Board, all of its RIP funds in future STIP cycles until funds sufficient to meet 25% of project costs are reserved · MCOG may take no action, in which case Caltrans will likely recommend de-programming the Hopland Bypass project. -4- Didn't we just deal with this issue last year? At the March 3, 2003 meeting the MCOG board passed Resolution M2003-3 that committed $2 million of its un-programmed funding toward future needs of the Hopland Bypass. This same Resolution recognized that participation in cost sharing of the Hopland Bypass project will be greater than 15% and may be as much as 25%. This action was enough to avoid cutting the Hopland Bypass last year. As we all know, the situation has worsened over the past year and another round of project cuts is imminent. How much are other regional agencies participating in these Caltrans/regional partnerships around the state? Information on partnerships from the 2002 STIP cycle apparently was not published, but information from the 1998 and 2000 STIP cycles indicates that partnership projects show that the average financial sharing for these projects is close to 50/50. Then why is it that MCOG has previously asked to come up with less than 50% of the costs for the Hopland Bypass? MCOG and other small regional agencies have argued that we are disadvantaged when it comes to delivering very large projects. The statewide 50/50 average is heavily influenced by the 17 counties that have active transportation sales taxes in place. A 50/50 cost sharing for very large projects like Willits and Hopland push them out of the range of affordability. District 1 has been supportive of a lower participation rate and has been at least partially successful with Caltrans Headquarters in establishing a 25% local target for these large projects. Other than MCOG's commitment to the Hopland Bypass, does Caltrans Headquarters have other concerns with this project? Yes. Construction of the entire corridor under environmental review will cost well over $250 million. This is a lot of money in any part of the state. It is unrealistic to assume we can construct all components of the project at one time. In order to produce a fundable project, the Caltrms design team continues to work on staging options that include: · Decreasing the project limits to only include about 4 miles around the community of Hopland (postmiles 8.8 to 13.0) · Including only one interchange, at State Route 175 These staging options would produce a project in the $130 million range, leaving the other components for future years. -5- How much funding capacity can MCOG expect to receive in the 2006 and subsequent STIP cycles? Attached to this report is a bar graph entitled "Post SB 45 STIP Funding" that clearly indicates that the STIP cycles have varied substantially since the first Post SB 45 cycle in 1998. In 1998 it was over $17 million: this year it is $0. Variables that go into the fund estimate include Federal as well as State revenue projections, commitments to the State SHOPP (State Highway Operations Protection Plan), commitments to mandated programs (seismic retrofit), loan repayments, debt service, etc. There is no "average" STIP cycle. In some cycles (as this year) we have $0 new capacity, but we nearly hit $18 million in 2002. Somewhere in between zero and $18 million would be a responsible guess of future revenues. DiSregarding the 2000 STIP but adding in the 2000 STIP Augmentation, the average over 5 STIP cycles is over $10 million. Recognizing that some STIP years could be $20 million and others $5 million or zero, $10 million per cycle is a ball park estimate. What other obligations does MCOG have for its Regional Improvement Program share? The Willits Bypass Project is not fully funded. Although not exactly known until the preferred route is selected and approved, we remain about $40 million short of completing this project. MCOG has committed to a 15% share of this project. At a $40 million cost, our share would be $6 million. We have applied for federal funding through the federal re-authorization process for the Willits Bypass. MCOG has requested $23.5 million. Prospects for receiving this funding are currently unknown, but receiving federal funding would reduce the funding gap to about $16.5 million; our share then being about $2.5 million. The Regional Transportation Plan mentions other major long term projects such as Leggett to Red Mountain Creek and a bypass of Laytonville. Caltram recently received federal emergency funding to re-route the Confusion Hill portion of the Leggett to Red Mountain Creek segment. Needs for substantial improvement of other portions of that segment may be re-assessed in the future. A bypass of Laytonville certainly remains in the long term and may be re-assessed in the future. There are other projects of regional importance that may emerge as well: Route 20 passing lanes (Fort Bragg-Willits) Redemeyer Road extension to Lake Mendocino Ramp improvements in Ukiah Valley on US 101 North State Street widening Brooktmils second (and third?) access -6- Caltrans identified GARVEE bonds or commitment of aH future STIP funding as options, to save this project. What are GARVEE bonds? GARVEE bonds are grant_anticipation revenue ve.__~eles. They can be used to fund projects with the debt service to be repaid as revenues accrue to the state and to our local share. A sheet describing GARVEE bonds is attached to this report. A number of Self-Help (transportation sales tax) counties are now using GARVEE bonds to continue with STIP projects that would otherwise have been delayed due to the current revenue shortfall. Can staff identify other options than those identified by Caltrans that may save the Hopland Bypass Project? Yes. Staff believes that it is important to preserve this project to meet existing safety needs and future capacity needs. Letting this project lapse will result in dealing with Hopland in a reactive mode 20 years too late. Meanwhile, options which may be now available could become precluded by development, environmental regulations, costs, or a number of other things. Reviewing draft financing plans for the Hopland Bypass, staff concludes that approximately $5 million each over the next two (2006 & 2008) STIP cycles will be enough for MCOG's share of project design and fight-of-way for this project. Construction amounting to $90 million (MCOG share $22 million) would await future funding cycles. MCOG may wish to consider a counter-proposal to Caltrans that commits $5 million per.cycle for the 2006 and 2008 STIP periods to ensure that the environmental phase is complete, design is funded, and right-of way is locked up. MCOG may wish to consider continuing the $5 million commitment through the construction phase as a minimum guarantee. It is expected that by 2008 or 2010 there will be at least one "good cycle" with programming capacity well over the $10 million average. PJD 3116104 -7- AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. ].0a DATE: June 16, 2004 REPORT SUBJECT: REPORT DESCRIBING THE CITY OF UKIAH'S PROCESS FOR DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS PROPERTY The purpose of this report is to describe the City of Ukiah's process for disposal of surplus property. The City of Ukiah's Procedure for Sale of Surplus or Obsolete Materials, Used Equipment and Supplies dated September 18, 1996 (attachment #1), and the City Code Section 1533 (attachment #2) are the guidelines used for this process. The first step of the process is declaring an item as surplus. Each department is responsible for this action. An item is declared surplus for several reasons: 1. The department declaring the item surplus no longer has a need for it (the purpose for having it has gone away). 2. Maintenance or repair is no longer cost-effective. 3. The item has become obsolete. After the item is declared surplus, other departments are informed of its availability via e-mail or direct contact. If the item can be used elsewhere, it is transferred to that department. This is a common occurrence. If it cannot be used elsewhere, and it is still reasonable to assume that it can be sold, the department who has declared it surplus holds on to it until the City participates in the next auction. Auctions are conducted by the Redwood Empire Auctioneering Company at the Mendocino County Fairgrounds. They charge a 10% commission on sold vehicles, and a 20% commission on everything else. The City of Ukiah has participated for about Seven years. (Continued on page 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION' Receive Report And Provide Direction To Staff. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Paul Andersen, City Councilman Prepared by: Mary Horger, Purchasing Agent Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager, and Gordon Elton, Director of Finance Attachments: 1. Procedure for Sales of Surplus or Obsolete Materials, Used Equipment and Supplies Statement 2. City Code Section 1533 3. Copy of Mendocino Solid Waste Management's website page showing electronic charges. APPROVED: , Candace Horsley, City Ma~1,ager Page 2 June 16,2004 REPORT DESCRIBING CITY OF UKIAH'S PROCESS FOR DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS PROPERTY Prior to that, City staff would hold their own auctions at the City yard. Using the auction company has minimized the investment of staff time that is necessary to conduct a sale of this type. It has also provided the City with maximum exposure to possible bidders due to the participation with the County of Mendocino, and the amount of advertising the auction company provides. The Purchasing Agent then coordinates with other departments moving of all items to the fairgrounds. Minimum bids are indicated only when the item to be sold has a significant market value. Each department is responsible for this determination. In regard to the auction that occurred on April 3, 2004, minimum bids were not set. 58 items were auctioned, with a result of $1,305.26 net in sales. Of the 58 items, 44 items (75%) were computer monitors, CPU's, and other miscellaneous items. These brought in $202.00 - about 15% of the total sale. These were in surplus and sold because they were old, could no longer be used for parts, or were incompatible with existing equipment. Had we not participated in the auction, we would have gone with our other option, which would have been to have it recycled or disposed of. The recycling of the monitors alone, based on the rates of Mendocino Solid Waste Management (attachment #3), would have cost the City $175. In the case of specialty items, or extremely large items which cannot be moved to the auction, these items are advertised for sale. A good example of this is the landfill equipment that was recently sold. After going through this process, and it is determined an item cannot be sold or recycled, items are disposed of by a safe and lawful method. PROCEDURES FOR SALES OF SURPLUS OR OBSOLETE Aflochmef~ tit MATERIALS, USED EQUIPMENT, AND SUPPLIES 9/18/96 In order to process materials or equipment found to be surplus or obsolete within each City Department. the followlng procedure is established: le 2' e Se On a quarterly basis (July 1, CL-tober 1, January 1, April 1), each City Department Head completes and submits a prescribed form listing all materials and equipment found to be surplus or obsolete to the Director of Rnance for approval Copies of the completed form are distributed to the City Manager and Purchasing/Warehouse Supewisor. Those items listed as surplus will continue to be housed within the Department requesting dispositlen until a sale Is completed or date of auction. Copies of the items listed as surplus are distributed by the Director of Finance to all Department Heads for possible recycling. Purchasing Officer shall have the authority to dispose of surplus and file a report with the City Council. serdng fon,~ a description of sale by the close of the agenda for the next regularly scheduled meeting, The Purchasing Department will follow City Code Section 1533, Procedures for Sale of the Surplus Items. ' Purchasing Department will solicit bids on surplus wire and scrap iron from local and outside dealers of these commodities. be Purchasing Department will coordinate publio auctions with the County of Mendoclno, joining -...: .... with them for the sale of surplus Items. The auctioneer will pubUcize the date of auction and · items available for sale. Ce de Purchasing Department will coordinate the moving of surplus items to the auction site dudng the week immediately preceding the auction. - Following the auclion, lhe auctioneer w~ provide a list of Items sold, the selling prices, and ,the funds received to the Purchasing Department. es Specialty items as approved by the Purchasing Officer or extremely large items which cannot be moved to the auction site, will be advertised for sale in the looal newspaper or through direct contact with governmental agencies or purchasers appropriate to the specialty surplus items by the Purchasi~ DeparlmenL The P~ing Officer shall have the authority to solicit on the open market. · During those limes of the year that items are c~eclared as surplus that cio nol~ coincide with'the annual public auction conducted by the County, items 'for sale will be advertised by the Purchasing Department and dosed bids will be a=cepted by the City Clerk. Bids wilt be opened at a.designated lime and the high bidder will be notified by the Purchasing Department. In the event of the high bid ending in a tie for any item, all bids will be rejected and the bid process wilt be repeated, with the tie bid as the new minimum bid. If after completing steps 1-5 above, any item is not sold or recycled, and it is not reasonable to assume that the item can be sold or recycled, Ih, purchasing age,it is authorized to dispose of such item by any safe and lawful method. § ! 530 §1534 _ 1. Recorded Explanation: The head of such department shall send to the Purchasing Officer a requisition and a copy Of the delivery record together with a full wrltlen report o! the circumstances of the emergency. The report shall be fi[ed wilh lhe Council as provided in subsection A1 above. · · 2. Emergency Procedure: The Purchasing Officer shall prescribe by rules and regulalions the procedure under which emergency purchases by heads of departments may be made. (Ord. 667, §2, adopted 1975} §153t: COOPERATIVE PURCHASING: The Purchasing Officer shall have the authorlly to Join with other units of government in cooperative pur(Shaslng plans when the best Interests of the City would be served thereby. (Ord. 667, {}2, adopted 1975) §1532: INSPECTION AND TESTING: The Purchasing Officer shall Inspect supplies .and equipment delivered to delermine their conformance with the specilicaflo~s set Iortlt in the o~der. The Purchasing Officer shall have authority to requlre chernlcal and physloal tests of samples submitted wtth bids and saml:)les o! deliveries which are necessary to determine thetr quality and conformance with speclllcations, (Ord. 667, §2, adopted 1975) - -0-§1533: SURPLUS SUPPLIES AND EQ'UIPMENT: All departments shall submit to the Purchasing Officer, al such times and In such forms as he shall prescribe, reports showing ~11 supplies and equipment which are no. longer used or which have become obsolete or worn oul. The Purchasing Officer sha[t have authority to exchange for or trade in on new supplies and equipment all supplies and equlpment which cannot be used by any agency or which have become unsuitable for City use, The Purchasing Officer shall have the authority 1o dispose of surplus.'property .by solicitation of bids or by public auction. (Ord. 667, {}2, -adopted. 1975} ~ {}1534: SEYERABILITY: l! any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause . or phrase of this ordirtance is for any reason held to be unoonstltutional or otherwise invalid, such Invalidity shall not affect tile validity of the enUre ordinance or any of the' remaining portions thereof. The City Council hereby declares that It would have passed this ordinance, and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause and phrase hereof, Irrespective o! the fact that .any one or more secUons, subsections, subdl, visions, sentences, clauses or ph. rases be declared unconstitutional or otherwise Invalid. (Ord. 667, §2, adopted .1975) t 1064 Now You Can Recycle Your Old Monitor or TVAttachmerJ Monitors and televisions can now be recycled'at the disposal sites in Mendocino County except Covelo and Laytonville. There is a charge for .televisions, monitors based on their screen size, ranging from $10 to $30 each. Console televisions are $40. Televisions and monitors can also be dropped off for recycling at the Ukiah Transfer Station, Willits Transfer Station and Caspar Transfer Station. The same charge will apply. There's an increasing disposal problem with electronics as millions of old monitors and televisions become obsolete and are replaced. It's a hazardOus waste issue because up to 20 percent of the weight of a monitor or television comes from the lead in the glass screen. California has banned televisions and monitors from its landfills because of lead contamination. We will ship the electronic items to a recycling company in South San Francisco. Monitor and televisions will be crushed so the glass can be recovered for recycling. These are the rules for the new Electronics Recycling Program. :CHARGE ITEMS: Televisions, monitors, Macintosh computers '8 15" screen & smaller: $10 each ~ 16" to 20": $15 ~ 21" to 25": $20 ~ 26" to 30": $25 ~ 31" & above:: $30 8 all console televisions: $40 NOT ACCEPTED: Copy machines Large in-line printers & plotters Kitchen electronics ~ Computers in original casing, except small screen Macintosh Apple 2 Computer printers Typewriters. Fax machines Circuit boards Disc drives http://www.mendorecycle.org/electronics.htm 6/9/2004 ITEM NO. 10b DATE: June 16, 2004 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE MENDOCINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO REQUEST THE COUNTY CLERK TO CONDUCT THE MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2004, AND TO CONSOLIDATE SAID ELECTION WITH THE GENERAL ELECTION HELD ON THAT SAME DAY The City of Ukiah historically has consolidated its elections with Mendocino County. Attached for Council's adoption is a proposed Resolution calling an election on November 2, 2004, consolidating the election with the Statewide General Election, and contracting with the County of Mendocino for election services. The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed Resolution. The election is necessary to fill the vacancies created by the expiration of two Council terms (Smith and Rodin) and the term of the Mayor (Larson). The cost for providing these election services is estimated at $15,000 and will be budgeted accordingly in the Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Elections budget. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt the Resolution Requesting The Mendocino County Board Of Supervisors To Request The County Clerk To Conduct The Municipal Election Of The City Of Ukiah On Tuesday, November 2, 2004, And To Consolidate Said Election With The General Election Held On That Same Day. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Choose not to consolidate the election with the County of Mendocino and direct the City Clerk to conduct the election. Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: N/A Prepared by: Marie Ulvila, Deputy City Clerk ,~Z,~-.~.z.~'-~ ~z;~t~.:~,,~.j Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager, David Rapport, City Attorney, and Marsha Wharff, Mendocino County Clerk Attachments: 1. Resolution for adoption APPROVED:L..~~ Candace Horsley, City- Man~er ASR: County Election Agreement Nov 2004 RESOLUTION NO. 2004- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH REQUESTING THE MENDOCINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO REQUEST THE COUNTY CLERK TO CONDUCT THE MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2004, AND TO CONSOLIDATE SAID ELECTION WITH THE GENERAL ELECTION HELD ON THAT SAME DAY WHEREAS, the City of Ukiah has called an election to be held in this City on Tuesday, November 2, 2004; and WHEREAS, Section 10002 of the Elections Code of the State of California authorizes the Clerk of the County of Mendocino to render specified services relating to the conduct of an election to any city or district which has by resolution requested the Board of Supervisors to permit the County Clerk to render the services, subject to requirements et forth in that section; and WHEREAS, the City of Ukiah election shall consist of the following election candidates: two City Council positions, the office of Mayor, the office of Treasurer, any ballot measure, and all other required election matters. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that pursuant to the above cited provisions, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Mendocino is hereby requested to permit the County Clerk to perform and render all services and proceedings incidental to and connected with the conduct of the municipal election of the City of Ukiah with the cooperation and assistance of the City Clerk of the City of Ukiah, such services to include, but not limited to the following: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) Establish voting precincts, secure locations for polling places, and secure the services of election officers for each precinct as required by law. Prepare and furnish to the election officers necessary supplies for the conduct of the election. Cause to be translated, as appropriate, and printed the requisite number of sample ballots, official ballots, rosters and other necessary forms. Make necessary arrangements for the delivery of supplies to the various precincts. Distribute absent voter ballots as required by law. Receive the return of elections material and supplies. Canvass the returns of the election, including the absent voter ballots. Furnish a tabulation of the number of votes cast in each precinct. Make all the necessary arrangements to pay the precinct board members and other costs of the election incurred as the result of services performed for the City of Ukiah. Publish a list of precincts, election officers; polling places and hours polls will be open. Verify signatures appearing on nomination papers. 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City Clerk shall be responsible for: Publication of Notice of Election. Distribution and receipt of nomination papers. Receipt of Candidates Statement and printing deposit. Publication of candidates as required by law. Receive campaign statements and disclosure statements as required by law. THE FOREGOING REOSLUTION WAS ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Ukiah City Council held on the 16th day June 2004, by the following roll call vote. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Eric Larson, Mayor ATTEST: Gordon Elton, City Clerk AGENDA ITEM NO: t o¢ MEETING DATE: June 16, 2004 SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: SELECTION OF SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS FOR THE SOLID WASTE The City's current contract with the franchise waste collection company requires that after two years of CPI formula increases to cover inflation, the audited financials be reviewed for determination of a rate adjustment in the third year. During this process, a Council subcommittee consisting of two members is appointed to participate in the negotiations between the City of Ukiah and Solid Waste Systems. Staff is asking for Council to select two members and would recommend that one of the members be Councilmember Andersen, who is the Council representative on the Mendocino County Solid Waste Authority. RECOMMENDED ACTION' Select Councilmember Andersen and one other Councilmember to serve on solid waste subcommittee. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS' Discuss and provide alternate direction to staff. Citizens Advised' Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with' Attachments: N/A Candace Horsley, City Manager Candace Horsley, City Manager N/A None Approved' Candace Horsley, 4:CAN/ASR.SolidWasteSubcmte.061604 Manager AGENDA ITEM NO: MEETING DATE: lOd June 16, 2004 SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION TO THE INLAND WATER AND POWER COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE The Inland Water and Power Commission (IVVPC) held their monthly meeting on June 10th, 2004, and scheduled a special meeting on June 17th to determine actions based on input from their board representatives. There are three items for discussion by the Council to advise our IWPC representative, Vice-Mayor Baldwin, for the Commission meeting on the 17th. 1) Corp of Engineers Feasibility Study sponsorship: The deadline for submission of sponsorship with the Corp of Engineers for the raising of the dam feasibility study is July 1, 2004. Initially, the IWPC had submitted a letter as the local sponsor for this study. The Mendocino County Water Agency (MCWA) subsequently submitted an additional letter, stating that they desired to be the sponsor for the study. The Russian River Flood Control District Board then also submitted a letter. As a result, IWPC and MCWA agreed to a joint sponsorship. However, in the last month, the Russian River Flood Control District Board sent another letter, based on advice from their attorney, to the IWPC expressing their inability to approve a sponsorship if MCWA was a sponsor. IWPC members must now decide whether they are willing to go forward as a single sponsor. The estimated total funding for the feasibility study is $4 million. The Corp is expecting local sponsorship to pay half, for a total of $2 million or $500,000 per agency. Originally, MCWA had offered to pay one-third of this cost, with the IVVPC members paying two-thirds. The MCWA had withdrawn from IWPC, as they are insisting that the RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discuss issues and provide direction to City's representative Vice-Mayor Baldwin. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Requested by: Prepared by: Attachments: Vice-Mayor Baldwin Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Vice-Mayor Baldwin's proposed revisions to the right of first refusal language in IVVPC's JPA 2. FERC Letter of Opposition Approved:~ __~'._,.~ L Candace Horsley, City IV~nager 4:CAN/ASR.IWPCSpecialMtg. 061604 right of first refusal language in the IWPC JPA document be eliminated. According to the IWPC attorney, this is one of the most important elements of the JPA language, and therefore the Commission is not willing to remove this language. IWPC is currently working on revising the first right of refusal language to submit to the Water Agency Board in an attempt to find common ground, but it will take several months to complete this process. In the meantime, there is a July 1 deadline to meet, or we will lose the Corp's portion of funding for the first year of the feasibility study. Vice-Mayor Baldwin will give further information on this item at the Council meeting. 2) Right of First Refusal Language: A revision to the IWPC's JPA right of first refusal language has been suggested by Vice-Mayor Baldwin. This revision is included (Attachment 1) for Council discussion and direction to determine if it is appropriate to send to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration, as based on the information provided in item one, above. 3) Appeal of Federal Energy Regulation Commission Decision: The Federal Energy Regulation Commission (FERC) recently determined that it must approve the Eel River from Lake Pillsbury flow rate option that was submitted by NOAA Fisheries, since NOAA Fisheries is responsible for the fish population in the Eel River. This was not the option FERC most preferred, which was the Potter Valley Irrigation District option, as FERC felt this option was based on good scientific data. IWPC, along with other agencies, filed a re-hearing request regarding this decision in order to be able to file a lawsuit if a decision was final. FERC has sent it's final decision, stating that they are staying with the original NOAA Fisheries option. It is extremely interesting to read FERC's definite hesitation regarding this decision, as indicated in Attachment Two. IWPC must now decide if they are going to file an appeal of the FERC decision to the 9th Circuit Court. The estimate for the cost to file by the IWPC Attorney is $10,000- $15,000, or $2,500-$3,750 per agency. The issue at stake is that the NOAA Fisheries proposal will increase flows down the Eel River (which ironically is the opposite of what they are recommending for the Russian River), which could, in critically dry years, dewater Lake Pillsbury. At that point, they will most likely cut off the Potter Valley water flow diversion from the Eel River and there will be no water coming into Lake Mendocino to refill the lake for the flows going down the Russian River. There is strong evidence that this proposal was not based on science and that it will actually hurt the fish more than help, but that is a side issue. Vice-Mayor Baldwin is requesting Council's discussion and direction on these issues for the IWPC June 17th special meeting. IWPC CONCEIVABLE, JPA CHANGES_ Attachment # [, , (RIGHT OF PROJECT REVIEW & POTENTIAL PARTICIPATION?) Section 2.14. RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL. "Right of first refusal" means the fight set forth in Sections 602(A) (5) (A) and 602A (6). Within the jursidictional geographic bounds_ties of the Commission only, the Commission shall have the exclusive fight to apply for additional water fights or otherwise develop new water on its own behalf or on behalf of its Member Agencies, unless: ,L U, ,u:.,~o. ,^.~,..~,.,.~,,.,_ ...... *' ...~'- Subject to the Commission protecting the confidentiality' of the information provided by the Member Agency to the maximum extent permitted by law, a Member Agency has presented a written proposal to the Commission which contains, at a minimum: 1) The amount of water the agency wishes to apply for or develop: 2) The point or points of diversion and/or storage 3) . The dates of diversion and/or storage; 4) A description of the physical improvements required; 5) An estimate of project cost; 6) A schedule for making application and constructing the improvements; and 7) Such additional information as the Commission may reasonably request in order to evaluate the medis impacts of the proposal on member agencies (provided the information is reasonably available to the Member Agency without undue cost); and b. Within the time required by this subsection (b), the Commission has failed to notify the Member Agency ~u~, :, '-SP .~t.~ ~....u ~.. .... ~ .... ~-.~, ,u~: ......... ,~: ...... a ....... :,u ...... v ..... that it has made findings of si~ificant negative impac~ to aaother Mem~r Aeencv Co~ssion must provide s~d notice to ~e Memb~ Agency wi~n :~x five m~ths after sub~ssion of ~e pro~s~, or wit~ a sho~er pefi~ s~cified by ~e Mem~r Agency, if ~e Mem~r Agency c~ demons~te that a sho~er response time is ~asonably ~quimd to comply with the pro~sed schedule and the Mem~r Agency has sub~tted ~e pro~s~ wit~n a reasonable time ~ter it first beg~ to consider it; or c. the Project is forlO00 acre feet of water storage or less If findings have been made by the Commission that the Project will cause si~cant negative impacts to another Member Agency, that Member Agency (or the Commission?) shall have the fight to participate in the Project or require mitigation of its negative impacts 6.02 (A) (6) All future water applied for by the various agencies will be applied for by the Commission subject to an agency's fight to pursue a project if the Commission does not exercise its fight of first refusal as defined in section 2.14 with exceptions, and apportioned upon withdrawal. Attochmenf # I Z 0 ;> ? Z UKIAH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REGULAR MEETING CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 SEMINARY AVENUE June 16, 2004 8:00 P.M.* 1. ROLL CALL w 1 1 Se AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS The Ukiah Redevelopment Agency welcomes input from the audience. In order for everyone to be heard, please limit your comments to three (3) minutes per person and not more than ten (10) minutes per subject. The Brown Act regulations do not allow action to be taken on audience comments. APPEAL PROCESS Persons who are dissatisfied with a decision of the Redevelopment Agency may have the right to a review of that decision by a court. The Agency has adopted Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, which generally limits to ninety (90) days the time within which the decision of the City Boards and Agencies may be judicially challenged. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. Regular Meeting of May 19, 2004 NEW BUSINESS a. Receive Report from Greater Ukiah Chamber of Commerce Regarding Activities on Behalf of the Redevelopment Agency from January Through June, 2004 b. Discussion of Downtown Design Review Board - Commissioner Andersen Sm COMMISSIONERS REPORTS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORTS CLOSED SESSION 9. ADJOURNMENT- Adjourn to June 297 20047 2004-2005 Budget Hearing *Or as soon as the meeting may be held in conjunction with the City Council meeting. UKIAH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Regular Meeting of May 19, 2004 The Ukiah Redevelopment Agency met in regular session on May 19, 2004, the notice for which had been legally noticed and posted, at 7:57 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. Roll was taken and the following Commissioners were present: Commissioners Rodin, Smith, and Vice-Chair Baldwin. Commissioner absent: Commissioner Andersen and Chairman Larson. Staff present: Assistant Director DeKnoblough, Executive Director Horsley, City Attorney Rapport, and Recording Secretary Riley. 2. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS No one came forward to address the Agency. 3. APPEAL PROCESS Vice-Chair Baldwin reviewed the appeal process. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4a. Re_qular Meetin_~ of June 23, '2~3 M/S Smith/Rodin approving the minuteS:'::Of:::the Regular Meeting of June 23 2003 as submitted, carried by the following roll catlvote~.~:::,AYE~S· Commissioners Rodin, Smith, and Vice Chairman Baldwin. NOES: None. ABSENT~: None. ABSTAIN- Commissioner Andersen and Chairman: ~rson. ~ :: 4. APPROVAL.OF MINUTEs · b. Reqular Meeting~:~.i0f Apr!l':::21, 2004 :. M/S Smith/Rodin appr~ing :th~ minutes ofth:e Regular Meeting of April 21, 2004 as submitted, carriedby :the f0tl~Wing rOll:::~il:: ~bte: AYES: Commissioners Rodin, Smith, and Vice Chairman BaldWin, NOES:·None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN' Commissioner Andersen and ChairmanLarson:·!:~ 5. NEW,:::BUSlNESS 5a. AdoPtion of ResolUtion Expanding the Boundaries Along State Street for Facade Iml~roVement prO~ram : Assistant Director ~:Knoblough explained that the Facade Improvement Program would benefit from expanding its boundaries further along State Street to the north and south city limits. These areas are within the Redevelopment project area. The Agency has received requests from business-owners in these areas to participate in the program. Commissioner Rodin expressed a preference to focus on a smaller area. Vice-Chairman Baldwin requested clarification regarding the City's benefits from the program. DRAFT January 17, 2001 Page 1 of 2 Assistant Director DeKnoblough explained that as the buildings are improved, the neighborhoods are also improved. Furthermore, when a building permit is applied for, the building is reappraised, leading to increased property tax increment for the Redevelopment Agency. Vice-Chairman Baldwin asked if the Redevelopment Agency might be able to fund the undergrounding of utility lines on State Street. A brief discussion followed regarding the requirements for undergrounding utilities. Joy Beeler stated that, on behalf of the Main Street Pro she agreed with staff's recommendation. She requested that the Agency con§id ways to promote busin.ess and housing in the downtown area, like encoura~ina buSihe~ own~.r.~ tn ~nn~irt,-,r mixed use projects. She also noted that some of the P~evi~u~ fa(;ad~roje'~t-~-h'a~v~"l~'~'g~u"~ to deteriorate, and wondered if an applicant could ~ceiVe the benefi~ ~Ore than once. M/S Rodin/Smith approving Resolution 20( ndihg the Facade/~Provement Program; carried by the following roll call vote: 3ners Rodin, Smith, and Vice-Chairman Baldwin. NOES: None. ABSENT:NOne. ABSTAIN. Commissioner 7. EXECUTIVE TS Executive Director ~:rSley not~ that there Wasa recent letter to editor regarding the disrepair of the Pala( ~sted the Agency's permission to respond, By do so. There being n8 f~her buSihess, the meeting was adjourned to the 2004-02005 Budget Hearings at 8:16~!m. Shannon Riley, Recording Secretary DRAFT January 17, 2001 Page 2 of 2 ITEM NO. 5a DATE' June 16, 2004 UKIAH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: RECEIVE REPORT FROM GREATER UKIAH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REGARDING ACTIVITIES ON BEHALF OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FROM JANUARY THROUGH JUNE, 2004 The performance agreement between the Greater Ukiah Chamber of Commerce and the Ukiah Redevelopment Agency includes tourism and promotional services to be completed by the Chamber on behalf of the Redevelopment Agency. The agreement also requires the Chamber provide a report to the Agency regarding these activities. The attached report for the period of January 1 through June 30, 2004 provides statistics describing the number of tourist and relocation packets sent out by the Chamber and related costs. The Chamber also receives a significant number of public inquiries, which are included in the report along with associated costs. This item is being presented for the Agency's information and receipt. Chamber representatives will be present at the meeting to present the report to the Agency. RECOMMENDED ACTION: After discussion, receive report. ALTERNATIVE AGENCY POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: N/A Greater Ukiah Chamber of Commerce Larry W. DeKnoblough, Assistant Redevelopment Director Candace Horsley, Executive Director Attachment: APPROVED'LD/ZiP2 Candace Horsley, Execut~e ChamberReport0604.AsrRDA Chamber of Commerce Activities Report Director Greater ClJciaJq CJqamJ:)erc Commerce 200 South School Street Ukiah, GA 9,5482 {707) 462-470.5 fax {707) 462-2088 www.ukiahchamber.com info@ukiahchamber.com Executive I~oa~c] Chairman Bruce Foster Chairman P-[eot John Lattimore State Farm Insurance Vice Chairman Bernadette Byrne McDowell Valley Vineyards Chiet: Financial c)~Cicer Elaine Richard Mayacama Industries ImmecJiat:e Past: Chairman Jim Mulheren Ukiah Custom Cabinets Past: Chairman Ted Ultrich National Bank of the Redwoods J~oarc:J oJ: J)ired:ors George Feola NCC Radio Kathy Lehner Mendocino College Jarrod McNaughton Ukiah Valley Medical Center Robert Bruce Writer/Media Cansultant Rod Payne Menda Lake Office Products John Robertson Robertson Cahill & Associates CPAs Madi Lombardi Savings Bank of Mendocino County Rick Moore Sleep World Furniture Center Inc. Debra Watson Ukiah Hamptan Inn ~_x O~icio Directors Mad Rodin Council Member, City of Ukiah Hopper & Rodin Associates Richard Shoemaker Mendocino County Supervisor Green Lion Nursery Chede L. Blower President/CEO Para Wilson Office Staff Erica Ramirez Office Assistant June 9, 2004 Candace Horsley City of Ukiah 100 Seminary Ave. Ukiah, CA 95482 KE: City Contract Report Dear Candace and City Council Members, Following is a breakdown of the chambers staffing, promotion, and joint events cost as it relates to the Chamber's contract with the City of Ukiah. The requests for tourist & relocation packets are as follows: Requests for packets: January 24 February 35 March 38 April 37 May 28 June 55 Our best estimate for June, including the summer increase. 6 months total = 217 requests at our cost of 5.00 = $1,085.00 The inquiries were charted by each location in the office. May be 10% to 15% low for all categories. The reason is that when it gets busy you forget to mark each contact down as it happens, then when things slow down you try to remember just how many people and calls you got. I think it does probably represent a reasonable proportion statement. Inquiries January- May 31st 2004 & June estimate Telephone Walk ins Totals Averages/week Tourist/Visitor 343 345 688 26.46 Relocation 297 151 448 17.23 City 247 243 490 18.84 Conf. Center 307 343 650 25 Subtotals 1194 1082 2276 87.53 Chamber 687 414 1101 42.34 Other 187 111 298 11.46 Grand Totals 2068 1607 1399 141.33 Labor cost was extrapolated by diagramming the "basic week" coverage for the morning, lunch and the afternoon shifts. The costs were assigned based on actual employees and their status during the six-month period. Our volunteers saved a considerable sum for the city. January through June estimated labor costs to staff the front counter. $14,976.00 Cost for January - June 2004 City Contract; staff, promotion Cost for July - December 2003 City Contract, staff, promotion (Please see January 14, 2004 reporO Total for July 2003 - June 2004 Please feel free to call me with any questions you may have, 462-4705. $16,061.00 $18,186.70 $34,247.70 Sin~ce. rely, ~ Cherie L. Blower President/CEO ITEM NO. 5~ DATE: June 16, 2004 UKIAH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: DISCUSSION OF DOWNTOWN DESIGN REVIEW BOARD One of the primary areas of focus for the Redevelopment Agency since its inception has been the economic and physical revitalization of the downtown. The adoption of the Downtown Revitalization Master Plan on June 5, 1992 was the initial action to initiate the revitalization effort. Among several recommended programs and projects, the Master Plan called for the implementation of a downtown building Facade Improvement Program, the creation of Design Standards, and a Downtown Design Review Board. The Downtown Design Guide was adopted on March 18, 1992. This provided the downtown a base of design criteria intended to guide exterior building improvements in the district. The Agency then established a five member Downtown Design Review Board to review applications and implement the Design Guide. The Agency adopted Resolution 92- 8 establishing the Design Review Board on May 20, 1992. Several years prior to the Agency's inception, the Ukiah Main Street Program had initiated an advisory Design Review Committee who met with applicants on an informal basis to provide advice and recommendations on projects. Once the Agency created the Design Guide and the Facade Program, it was necessary to establish a review board under the auspices of the Agency with limited discretionary authority to approve fac,.ade applications. (Continued on Pa,qe 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive Report and provide direction, if any, to staff. ALTERNATIVE AGENCY POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizen Advised: Ukiah Main Street Program Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: 1. 2. 3. Councilmember Paul Andersen Larry W. DeKnoblough, Assistant Redevelopment Director,j--k.,~ i~ Candace Horsley, Executive Director Resolution 92-8 Resolution 95-4 Letter submitted by Councilmember Andersen Candace Horsley, ExeCutive Director LD/ZIP2 D R B Retrospect2.AsrR DA Throughout this entire process of completing the Downtown Master Plan and Design Guide, the Agency had worked closely with Main Street as a partner in the revitalization effort. As improving the quality of building design is also a primary charge of the State Main Street Program, the Agency determined it was essential to maintain a common thread between the informal Main Street Design Committee and its new Design Review Board. Consequently the original Design Review Board established by Resolution 92-8 consisted of the sitting members of the existing Main Street committee. This partnership was intended to be maintained as noted in Section 3 of Resolution 92-8, which required that subsequent members appointed to the Design Review Board be nominated by a joint committee of the Main Street Board of Directors and the Agency Board. In December 1994 the Redevelopment Agency adopted Resolution 95-4 revising the criteria for Review Board membership as terms of the original Board expired. At this time the Agency included residency and downtown property/business ownership requirements in addition to design expertise as qualifications. The resolution also required that Main Street would recommend individuals in addition to the same open recruitment process applied to other City commissions. The Agency has also revised the Facade Program on two occasions, increasing the scope of the Design Review Board. The Facade Program had originally been limited to the downtown core area. In 2000 and again in 2004, the Agency expanded the boundaries of the program, ultimately to include all of State Street within the City limits. These actions expanded the area of review by the Design Review Board for appropriate projects along the entire State Street corridor. At the time the Design Review Board was created the City of Ukiah did not have any specific design criteria for developers to follow. The creation of the Downtown Design Guide filled this void, at least for the downtown. This left the remaining commercial areas outside the downtown with no standards. As a result of this lack of comprehensive design standards for commercial areas outside the downtown, the Planning Commission recommended and the City Council adopted the City of Ukiah Commercial District Design Standards in 2001, which included the Downtown Design Guide as well as appropriate standards for all commercial development outside the downtown. This action provided the Planning Commission with a base of design criteria by which to review projects outside the downtown, while applying the existing downtown standards to new construction projects, reviewed by the Commission in the downtown. Staff is presenting this item to the Agency at the request of Commissioner Paul Andersen for the purpose of information and discussion. No specific action is requested at this time. 1 6 ? 9 10 11 19 15 15 16 19 21 2~ 25 26 Attachment URA RESOLUTION NO. 92-8 RESOLUTION OF THE UKIAH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ADOPTING THE DOWNTOWN DESIGN GUIDE AND ESTABLISHING THE DOWNTOWN DESIGN REVIEW BOARD WHEREAS, the Ukiah Redevelopment Plan calls for the Redevelopment Agency to establish and implement performance criteria to assure high site design standards and environmental quality and other design elements which provide unity and integrity to the project area; and. WHEREAS, through the work of the Downtown Master Plan Committee, a Downtown Design Guide including standards and procedures was prepared; and WHEREAS, on March 18, 1992, in order to achieve this goal the Ukiah Redevelopment Agency adopted Resolution 92-4 approving the DoWntown Design Guide; and WHEREAS, the establishment of a Downtown Design Review Board is necessary to implement the Downtown Design Guide and improve the process for project design review and approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that: 1. Pursuant to the goals and objectives established by the Ukiah Redevelopment Agency, the Downtown Design Guide (Exhibit A) is hereby adopted and the Downtown Design Review Board is hereby established; 2. The Board shall consist of five voluntary individuals with design expertise and community interest. The initial appointments shall be predominantly from the existing Main Street, Inc. Design Review Committee, including: 1 5 6 ? 8. 9 10 11 15 16 19 9.5 · · ae be ce 0 se Fontaine McFadden,.Chairman Judy Pruden, member Diane Daubeneck, member Barbara Eversole, member Arlene Hughey, member Of the members first appointed under this resolution, members listed as "a" "b" and "c," shall be appointed for a term of three (3) years. Members listed as "d" and "e" shall be appointed for a term of two (2) years. Successors shall be appointed by the Ukiah Redevelopment Agency Board based upon recommendation resulting from a joint interview conducted by a committee comprised of three (3) members of the Redevelopment Agency Board and three (3) members of the Ukiah Main Street Board of Directors. Successors shall be appointed by the Redevelopment Agency Board for terms of three (3) years. No person shall be appointed for more than two (2) full consecutive terms without a break of service consisting of at least one (1) full calendar year. The duties and respOnsibilities of the Design Review Board shall be limited to design review and project approval for renovation, alteration, demolition, and reconstruction projects within the Downtown Revitalization District-as defined by the Downtown Design Guide that only require a site. development permit. No additional site development approvals Will be required 1 $ 6 ? $ 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 19 20 21 for these projects. For projects consisting of new development or require discretionary permits other'than site development permits (such as a use permit or variance) which require approval by the Planning Commission, the Board will review and approve exterior architectural design components only, and Planning Commission review shall be limited to other aspects of these projects. Project review by the Design Review Board is intended to ensure compliance with the Downtown Design Guide and shall be limited to exterior architectural design elements of the structure and site components as described in the Downtown Design Guide. Appeal of a Design Review Board decision may be made by any interested party to the Ukiah Redevelopment Agency within 10 days of the Board's action. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of May, 1992, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Wattenburger, Shoemaker, Schneiter, and Chairman Henderson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner McMichael. ABSTAIN: None. (. IIAttest: ~ 2?llR:Res\~sign ~ 25 C.~!een B. Henderson, cha~irman 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 URA RESOLUTION NO. 95-4 AftclOh~ RESOLUTION OF THE UKIAH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MODIFYING THE APPOINTMENT PROCESS AND MAKING NEW APPOINTMENTS TO THE DOWNTOWN DESIGN REVIEW BOARD WHEREAS, the Ukiah Redevelopment Plan Agency by Resolution No. 92-8 established the Downtown Design Review Board and made the initial membership appointments; and WHEREAS, modifications to the process for appointing members to the Board and criteria for membership residency are necessary, and new appointments must be made to fill existing vacancies; and WHEREAS, it is appropriate to have a single resolution documenting the charges and composition of the Downtown Design Review Board. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that: 1. The provisions of Ukiah Redevelopment Agency Resolution 92-8 regarding the Downtown Design Review Board are superseded by this resolution. 2. The Board shall consist of five voluntary individuals with design expertise and community interest, of whom: two shall reside within the City of Ukiah; two or more shall own real property, or own a business within the City limits; and one Who may represent the community at large with no ownership or residency requirement. The members shall be as follows with Ann Ameson completing the unexpired term of Judy Pruden, and Arlene Hughey, being reappointed for a second term: a. Thomas Parducci, Chairman b. Ann ^meson, member c. Diane Daubeneck, member d. Donna Berry, member e. Adene Hughey, member All members are appointed for a term of three (3) years, the anniversary date being June , 30. Members listed as "a", "b", and "c", shall have their terms expire in 1995. Members · listed as "d" and "e" shall have their terms expire in 1997. Successors shall be appointed by the Ukiah Redevelopment Agency Board based upon recommendation from the Ukiah Main Street Board of Directors and/or through an open recruitment by public noticing. Successors shall be appointed by the Redevelopment AgenCY Board for terms of three e 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O . ,~l~~)r~. '~on shall be appointed for more than two (2) full consecutive terms without a break of service consisting of at least one (1) full calendar year. The. duties and responsibilities of the Downtown Design Review Board shall be limited to design review and project approval for renovation, .alteration, demolition, and reconstruction projects, which within the Downtown Revitalization Distdct as defined by the Downtown Design Guide, which only require a Site Development Permit. No additional site development approvals will be required for these projects. For projects consisting of new development or requiring discretionary permits, (other than Site Development Permits such as a Use Permit or Variance) with approval by the Planning Commission, the Board will review and approve extedor architectural design components only, and the Planning Commission review shall be limited to other aspects of these projects. Project review by the Downtown Design Review Board is intended to ensure compliance with the Downtown Design Guide and shall be limited to extedor architectural design elements of the structure and site components as described in the Downtown Design Guide. Appeal of a Downtown Design Review Board decision may be ma~le by any interested party to the Ukiah Redevelopment Agency within 10 days of the Board's action. AYES: PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of December, 1994, by the following mil call vote: Councilmembers Malone, Shoemaker, Wattenburger, and Mayor Schneiter NOES: None ABSENT: Councilmember Mastin 21 ABSTAIN: None 22 Attest: 2526 [[ "~ar~n Yoast, 'Red~_~lopment Secretary 2728 II 4:RES~)RB. 1 Fred Schneiter, Chairman PAUL NDE $EN 309 Jones St. "Ukiah, CA 95482 707-467-9508" paul@betterukiah.org June 10, 2004 Dear Fellow Councilmembers and Ukiah Residents, The design of our town is an integral part of our quality of life. A design review board made up of local citizens, architects, contractors, business owners, and officials is an excellent opportunity to involve the community in the design process and give people a voice in how their community looks. The City currently has a Design Review Board whose mission is limited to an as- needed basis for review of projects in the Redevelopment Area. I am asking Council to explore the feasibility of expanding the scope and mission of the Design Review Board to include: · Regularly scheduled meetings · Development of design guidelines throughout town · Advisory role to Planning staff, Planning Commission and City Council · Support role to applicants for projects within the city limits · Eventually, a review of all projects within the city limits I've attached a portion of the Design Review Guidelines for Downtown Development from the City of Seattle, which gives a succinct explanation of their design review process as food for thought. It is generally recognized as one of the most forward- looking processes for community design. I've also included an article from the Director of Seattle Department of Design, Construction and Land Use that provides some interesting points in reviewing Seattle's Design Review program. In conjunction with the Community Design Forum(s), an expanded Design Review Board will provide an ongoing venue for those concerned or interested in community design. Giving our residents a stronger voice in the design of our community will be vital in the years to come as growth and development pressures increase. Yours truly, Paul Andersen Councilmember es gr . evlew · m. m_,, m . . ! -' .. _ '1" ! m Acknowledgments CiD' of Seattle Paul Schell, Mayor Department of Design, Construction and Land Use Richard F. Krochalis, Director John Skelton Patrick Doherty Vince Lyons Mike iKirnelberg Jeffrey Overstreet Neighborhood Planning Office John Eskelin Strategic Planning Office Dennis Meier Seattle Design Commission Michael Read Downtown Urban Center Planning Group Urban Design Subcommittee: Dorm Anderson Steve Johnson Jerry Ernst Dennis Tate Gerald Hansmire Roger Wagoner Greg Smith Downtown Design Review Board Darrell Vange Mark Johnson Mark Hinshaw John Tumbull David Craven Design Review in Downtown Seattle What is design review? Design Review provides a forum for citizens and developers to work toward achieving a better urban environment through attention to fundamental design principles. Design Review is intended to assist new development to con- tribute positively to Seattle's downtown neigh- borhoods. Design guidelines offer a flexible tool--an alternative to prescriptive zoning re- quirements--which will allow new develop- ment to respond better to the distinctive char- acter of its surroundings. Design Review has three principal objectives: 1. to encourage better design and site plan- ning to enhance the character of the city and ensure that new development sensi- tively fits into neighborhoods; 2. to provide flexibility in the application of development standards; and 3. to improve communication and participa- tion among developers, neighbors and the City early in the design and siting of new development. Design Review is a component of a Master Use Permit (~tuP) application, along with other components, such as environmental re- view (SEP^), variances, etc., administered by the Department of Design, Construction and Land Use (DCLU). Like these other compo- nents, Design Review applications involve pub- lic notice and opportunity for comment. Unlike other components, projects subject to Design Review are brought before the Design Review Board for its recommendations. The final deci- sion on Design Review is made by the DCLU Director, together with the decisions on any other MUP components. This decision is ap- pealable to the Hearing Examiner. What is design review downtown? The downtown Design Review Board is respon- sible for reviewing the design of new buildings downtown for their contribution to the public's enjoyment of the building and the immediate vi- cinity. The downtown Design Review Board includes two downtown residents, and one rep- resentative each from the downtown business, development, and design communities. All five board members are appointed and confirmed by the Mayor and City Council. Design Review Board members discuss and weigh the merits of projects and proposed modifications, often recommending to DCLU specific changes or departures from regulations in the Land Use Code as a trade-off for better design. The measure that the Board uses to de- termine a building's success in the public realm focuses on the public's perception and use of the urban environment. Success occurs when: · the project's site planning and massing respond to the larger context of downtown and the region; · the building's architectural expression relates to the neighborhood context; · the building's street facade creates a safe and interactive pedestrian environment; · the project's public amenities enhance the streetscape and open space; and · the project's vehicular access and parking impacts on the pedestrian environment are Sustainable Design Seattle is a leader in environmental stewardship and is committed to the concept of sustainability. Project proponents are encouraged to design, construct, and operate buildings and landscapes in an environmentally responsible manner. Sustainable design and construction reduces energy and water use, reduces solid and hazardous waste, prevents indoor and outdoor pollution, and uses materials more efficiently. From conserving water and energy to recycling and reusing construction materials, sustainable design considers the costs and benefits over the entire life of the building, landscape and infrastructure. Review Department of Design, Construction & Land Use How Design Review Relates to Existing Policies & Regulations The Downtown Plan, the Seattle Land Use Code and DCLU Director's Rule 20-93 on Pub- lic Benefit Features together establish the poli- cies and regulatory context for development sites and proposals evaluated by the downtown Design Review Board. The guidelines for downtown design review bridge the gap be- tween these policies and regulations, making more explicit the intentions of both. The guide- lines provide a framework for discussing how design solutions for a specific proposal on a specific site can best address the urban design intentions of the downtown plan and code. In most areas downtown, zoning allows and of- ten encourages development of a radically dif- ferent scale and character than currently ex- ists. At a gross level, zoning serves to establish an acceptable function for the area in which the site is located. Zoning also identifies an ap- propriate scale for future development and through height and bulk limits, establishes scale relationships with development in adjacent zones. Many development standards further identify patterns of development and activity that new development is expected to facilitate (eg: re- quirements for street level uses and street walls which physically reinforce certain streets as pedestrian links even where existing devel- opment is not characterized as such). As a re- sult, often each street frontage on a given downtown block has a unique set of develop- ment staridards. The Public Benefit Features Rule (20-93) sug- gests what amenities complement the desired function of the zone and help maintain balanced conditions relative to the scale and density of development allowed. While the Downtown Plan, zoning, and Public Benefit Features Rule all apply to generalized areas and conditions downtown in a prescrip- tive manner, design review provides the oppor- tunity to consider the distinctive characteristics of each development site and its immediate surroundings in a discretionary manner. Through design review, the text and graphics of policy and regulatory documents are supple- mented with the assessment of diverse and representative review board members. The guidelines contained in this document serve to assist the Design Review Board in their deliberation and communication by the project proponents, city staff, and interested citizens. Projects Subject to Design Review New residential and commercial development meeting the following thresholds is subject to design review downtown. DOC-1 & DOC-2 use threshold office 50,000+ s.f. gross residential 20+ units other 50,000+ s.f. gross DRC, DMC, DMR, DH-1 & DH-2 use threshold office 20,000+ s.f. gross residential 20+ units other 20,000+ s.f. gross Design Review will not apply in Special Re- view Districts, Pike Market, or within the Harborfront-Historic Character area. Projects Electing Design Review A proponent of a new residential or commer- cial project not meeting the thresholds listed above and located in DOC-l, DOC-2, DRC, DMC, DMR, DH-l, and DH-2 zones may volun- tarily submit plans for design review. 6 Desigll Review Guidelines for Downtown Development Development Standard Departures Development standard departures are the means available to any project undergoing De- sign Review to achieve flexibility in the applica- tion of many of the Land Use Code's develop- ment standards. Projects for which Design Re- view is required, and those electing Design Re- view, may be granted "departures" from the prescriptive standards of the Code. In order to allow departure from development standards, an applicant must demonstrate that the departure from Land Use Code standards would result in a development that better meets the intent of the design guidelines. Through de- sign review, departures may be allowed from the following Land Use Code standards: · roof height · structure width and depth limits · setback requirements · modulation requirements · street-level use standards · street facade requirements · upper-level development standards · coverage and floor size requirements · wall dimensions · design, location and access to parking · open space requirements · screening and landscaping requirements To confirm the most accurate and up-to-date allowed departures from development stan- dards, please refer to Seattle Municipal Code, Section 23.41.012. Public benefit features which may yield in- creased Floor Area Ratios (Fa Rs) will not be considered justification for granting of develop- ment standard departures. Design Review Process Preapplication Conference The fa:st step in the Design Review process is a preapplication conference with DCLU project-review staff. At this conference the project proponent receives a copy of the design guidelines and learns about the review process. Application for Early Design Guidance Pro- cess Once the proponent decides to pursue the particular development project, he/she must ap- ply to DCLU to initiate the Design Review pro- cess. At a scheduled land use application in- take appointment, DCLU receives preliminary information regarding the site, its context, its zoning, and the proponent's general building program objectives. Early Design Guidance Meeting Once an application to begin the Early Design Guidance process has been submitted, DCLU staff con- vene an evening public meeting to which the Design Review Board members, the general public, and the project proponent(s) are invited. Notice of the meeting is provided in the DCLU weekly Land Use Information Bulletin, through mailed notice to residents and property owners within 300 feet of the site, and with a placard posted at the project site. At the meeting the proponents will present the site and context in- formation, as well as describe their develop- ment objectives, and citizens are invited to of- fer their comments to be considered in siting and designing a building for that site. The De- sign Review Board members will identify those design guidelines of highest priority for the site, as well as incorporate any community consen- sus in their recommendations. DCLU staff will summarize these priorities and recommenda- tions in a letter which will be sent to all parties in attendance at this meeting. Project Design The proponent(s) and archi- tect(s) are expected to employ the prioritized guidelines in developing their project design. Design Review Department of Design, Construction & Land Use Interim Review Depending upon the nature of the guidance offered by the Design Review Board at the Early Design Guidance Meeting, the DCLU staff person will determine whether to schedule an Interim Review meeting before or after the proponent applies for a Master Use Permit (MUP). At this evening meeting which is open to the public, the Design Review Board will offer additional guidance on the progress of the project design, based on the previously prioritized design guidelines and any concerns and recommendations expressed. Project Design The proponent(s) and archi- tect(s) are expected to employ the prioritized guidelines and interim guidance in further developing their project design. Master Use Permit Application When the pro-ponent applies for a MUP application, a De- sign Review component will be included, along with other necessary components, such as SEPA, Administrative Conditional Use, etc. A large sign will be placed on the site, mailed no- tice will be sent, and a public comment period will nm, allowing citizens to comment on any and all aspects of the project, including siting and design issues. Design Review Board Meeting Once the project design has been refined to respond best to the prioritized design guidelines, the DCLU staff person will take the application to the De- sign Review Board for their consideration at an evening meeting open to the public. After a presentation of the design by the proponents, summary recommendations from DCLU staff, and oppommity for public comment, the Board members will review the design in light of the concerns and recommendations expressed, as well as the previously prioritized design guide- lines. The Board may recommend approval or approval with conditions, but may not recom- mend denial of the project. Director's Decision The administrative deci- sion on the Design Review component of a MUP application is ultimately made by the DCLU Director. However, if the Design Review Board's recommendation was approved by at least four of the five members, this will be con- sidered a consensus decision, which the Direc- tor shall adopt in most cases: The Board's rec- ommendation may be overidden only if the Di- rector believes the Board has made a clear er- ror in the application of the guidelines, has ex- ceeded its authority, or has required design changes which contravene other, non-waivable local, state or federal requirements. Conversely, when the Board's recommendation is supported by less than four members, the Di- rector will consider the Board's recommenda- tion in reaching his/her decision, along with the minority opinions, staff recommendations and public comment. The Design Review decision will be issued to- gether with the decisions on other MUP compo- nents related to the project, with written notice to all parties of record, as well as notice in the weekly Land Use Information Bulletin. Appeals As with other discretionary MUP- component decisions, the Design Review deci- sion is appealable by any interested party. Appeals may be made during the 14-day appeal period by letter and a filing fee to the Seattle Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner must afford substantial weight to the Director's decision, basing his/her decision on a finding of clear error or omission. The Heating Examiner hear- ing is not a new oppommity to solicit a different opinion on the project's siting or design issues. There is no appeal of a Design Review deci- sion to the City Council. 8 Design Review Guidelines for Downtown Development Site Planning & Massing Responding to the Larger Context A-1 Respond to the physical environment. Develop an architectural concept and compose the building's massing in response to geographic conditions and patterns of urban form found be- yond the immediate context of the building site. The Streetscape Creating the Pedestrian Environment C-1 Promote pedestrian interaction. spaces for street level uses should be designed to engage pedestrians with the activities occuring within them. Sidewalk-related spaces should be open to the general public and appear safe and welcoming. A-2 Enhance the skyline. C-2 Design the upper portion of the building to promote visual interest and variety in the downtown skyline. Architectural Expression C-3 Relating to the Neighborhood Context B-1 Respond to the neighborhood context. C-4 Develop an architectural concept and compose the major building elements to reinforce desir- able urban features existing in the surrounding neighborhood. C- 5 Create a transition in bulk & scale. compose the massing of the building to create a transition to the height, bulk, and scale of development in neighboring or nearby less- intensive zones. B-2 Reinforce the positive urban form & architectural attributes of the immediate area. Consider the predominant attributes of the im- mediate neighborhood and reinforce desirable siting patterns, massing arrangements, and streetscape characteristics of nearby development. B-3 Design a well-proportioned & unified building. compose the massing and organize the publicly accessible interior and exterior spaces to create a well-proportioned building that exhibits a co- herent architectural concept. Design the archi- tectural elements and finish details to create a unified building, so that all components appear integral to the whole. B-4 Design facades of many scales. Design architectural features, fenestration pat- terns, and materials compositions that refer to the scale of human activities contained within. Building facades should be composed of ele- ments scaled to promote pedestrian comfort, safety, and orientation. Provide active--not blank-- facades. Buildings should not have large blank walls facing the street, especially near sidewalks. Reinforce building entries. To promote pedestrian comfort, safety, and orientation, reinforce the building's entry. C-6 Encourage overhead weather protection. Encourage project applicants to provide con- tinuous, well-lit, overhead weather protection to improve pedestrian comfort and safety along major pedestrian routes. Develop the alley facade. To increase pedestrian safety, comfort, and interest, develop portions of the alley facade in response to the unique conditions of the site or project. 2 oesign Review Guidelines for Downtown Development Public Amenities Enhancing the Streetscape & Open Space D-1 Provide Inviting & usable open space. Design public open spaces to promote a visually pleasing, safe, and active environment for work- ers, res/dents, and visitors. Views and solar ac- cess from the principal area of the open space should be especially emphasized. D-2 Enhance the building with landscaping. Enhance the building and site with substantial landscaping--which includes special pavements, trellises, screen walls, planters, and site furni- ture, as well as living plant material. D-3 Provide elements that define the place. Provide special elements on the facades, within public open spaces, or on the sidewalk to cre- ate a distinct, attractive, and memorable "sense of place' associated with the building. D-4 Provide appropriate signage. Design signage appropriate for the scale and character of the project and immediate neigh- borhood. All signs should be oriented to pedes- trians and/or persons in vehicles on streets within the immediate neighborhood. D-5 Provide adequate lighting. To promote a sense of security for people down- town during nighttime hours, provide appropriate levels of lighting on the building facade, on the underside of overhead weather protection, on and around street furniture, in merchandising display windows, and on signage. D-6 Design for personal safety & security. Design the building and site to enhance the real and perceived feeling of personal safety and security in the immediate area. Vehicular Access & Parking Minimizing the Adverse Impacts E-1 Minimize curb cut impacts. Minimize adverse impacts of curb cuts on the safety and comfort of pedestrians. E-2 Integrate parking facilities. Minimize the visual impact of parking by integrat- ing parking facilities with surrounding develop- ment. Incorporate architectural treatments or suitable landscaping to provide for the safety and comfort of people using the facility as well as those walking by. E-3 Minimize the presence of service areas. Locate service areas for trash dumpsters, loading docks, mechanical equipment, and the like away from the street front where possible. Screen from view those elements which for programmatic rea- sons cannot be located away from the street front. Design Review Department of Design, Construction & Land Use 3 Ci#zen.~; ~er~t~ cnmm,.~!y concarns, and DRB pre.~en~ sche.m~f;cs (scReViSed -~. ~ematics. ~ I 1 Design Review Process Summary Pre-a~ptica[ion w,~DCLU Apply FOr Early Design Guid- Public NOtlCe.__~ Eady Design Guidance a~"~ncd re onc o! e, gh! s~a,~d~ng ,evlow b~.~ IMUP Applicalio4~ 1 & Publ~ Notice ~ Public comment[~ Pedod and !.~~¢.¢,;,~;. I DCLU Review ~' D~t~!ff,'~ m',,i~v; docility.,'~ ade by D~; ~ctn. in conjun~. Director's t~r~ w,,ih ~,, r~ui~O ~,3d use a~vals: Page 1 of 5 Marketplace Surveys DJC,COM February 22, 2001 Seattle's design review: tips for success By PATRICK DOHERTY City of Seattle DCLU Coming up on the seventh anniversary of the design review program, the city of Seattle is looking back on its experiences and connecting with the program's stakeholders developers, architects and the general public--in order to help improve this generally successful program and find ways to make participation more effective and meaningful. This effort is still ongoing, with proposed improvements to be developed over the coming weeks and months. However, seven years of experience have yielded some fairly clear insights into what constitutes a successful interaction with the design review program and, conversely, what can lead to frustration and failure. First, a little background may be in order to understand better the purpose and intent of the design review program. Enacted by the City Council in 1993, after an almost two-year process that included the participation of a citizens' advisory committee, design review was a response to the city's last building boom when hundreds of new, poorly designed or out-of-scale multifamily and commercial buildings cropped up throughout Seattle's neighborhoods. It was also a response to years of complaints from designers and developers about the lack of flexibility in the city's zoning standards. Many said the city didn't allow for creativity or recognize unusual lot or siting configurations. The goal of the resulting program was to meld these two principal areas of concern: encourage better design and responsiveness to a site's contex, and allow for flexibility. To help balance these objectives, a set of design guidelines were formulated, providing general urban design and architectural Strict application of the land use code standards would produce a building with this siting and massing configuration. The design review process allows developers and city staff to negotiate departures from the code to improve the design. Through departures from the setback requirements along Queen Anne Avenue, the proposal was able to http://www.djc.com/news/re/11119151.html 6/11/04 Page 2 of 5 design principles that emphasized responsiveness to a site's context. The design review process was viewed as equally important. In order to represent all interests fairly in this balancing act between raising the bar on design quality and allowing flexibility, five-member design review boards assigned to seven geographic districts across the city were created, with representation of architectural, development and general community interests, as well as local representatives from the residential and business communities. The paramount process innovation, however, was the recognition that early involvement of the interested parties was the key to resolving most design and siting issues. provide more light and air to its neighbors to the rear, include a gracious entry courtyard off the quieter side street, and continue the solid, urban streetwall of Queen Anne Avenue. As a result, before any formal application for a master use permit (land use approval) is accepted by the city for a particular site development, a public meeting of the Design Review Board is held in the general neighborhood of the project site. At this meeting the site and vicinity are analyzed, early concepts are discussed and public comment is taken. The Design Review Board synthesizes this input and produces "early design guidance" for the proposed project. The resulting building continues the distinctive street wall pattern along Queen Anne Avenue, while providing a handsome design and generous use of brick, inspired by some of the early 20th century brick apartment buildings in the neighborhood. It is this key step in the design review process where a project proponent can lay the groundwork for a successful review process, or, perhaps, trip up and miss an opportunity for success. The early design guidance meeting is a forum in which the neighbors, the Design Review Board members, and project proponents can offer suggestions as to how the proposed multifamily or commercial project might take cues from existing, desirable architectural or urban design context in order to achieve the fight fit. Usually the issues at play at this early meeting can be as basic as site planning, massing or vehicle access issues. When a designer/developer team recognizes the value of the Design Review Board's early input, they can ensure success by coming to the early design guidance meeting with no more than concept-level site planning and design development--preferably with alternatives. In this way, design development is truly a collaborative process, with public and Design Review Board input coming at a time when it can make a difference. This not only engenders trust and a sense of cooperation among the players, but also leaves the architect with a sense of greater certainty that subsequent site http://www.djc.com/news/re/11119151 .html 6/11/04 Page 3 of 5 planning and design decision-making will ultimately be well received by the public, the Design Review Board and the city. In fact, over the past seven years it has been the city's experience that those project proponents who have engaged the early design guidance process as a meaningful part in their design development have seen a very smooth continuing review, with minimal need for redesign effbrts or multiple correction cycles during the Master Use Permit (MUP) process. On the other hand, project proponents who have made their design decisions before meeting with the Design Review Board and hearing public comment are running a fair degree of risk that the early design guidance might require redesign efforts. Worse yet are those situations when so much time, energy, money and even emotion have been invested in an early design scheme that the proponent team finds themselves in a defensive posture against the public and the Design Review Board. In those cases, not only are design modifications less likely forthcoming, but an antagonistic relationship can result among the players that can lead to a more complicated, and even lengthier, MUP process. Now, about that flexibility. The program allows for "design departures" in the application of zoning standards--a little less of a setback here, a little more lot coverage there. These departures are not simply the trade-offbuilt into the program to make developers happy (although it's fine if they help accomplish that!), but are genuinely seen as a necessary component in the collaborative process of achieving quality design, as envisioned by the original framers of the design review process. The theory goes that if the city, the public and the designer/developer team are going to be collaborating around the table on a project's design, then portions of the city's land-use code book should be up on the table, too. Projects are successful, both in achieving high-quality, creative and contextually appropriate design solutions, as well as making more sense for the developers and designers, when design departures are employed as a tool to achieve the right solution. City statistics show that the vast majority of projects include at least some level of design departure requests, and the vast majority of those requests are granted. However, sometimes a project proponent tries to go too far. Given that the sole criterion for approval of departures is that they help the project to "better meet the intent of the design guidelines," there are a lot of possible reasons for approval to be found among the 26 citywide design guidelines. Yet, there are those few cases where the project proponents seek departures that in essence are aimed at creating a bigger building, adding more units, or providing less open space for no apparent design-based rationale. It's not hard to understand why such projects undergo a more complicated, more rigorous http://www.djc.com/news/re/11119151 .html 6/11/04 Page 4 of 5 and perhaps lengthier review. The upshot of the city's experience with the design review process is that it contemplates early interaction among the interested parties in order to arrive at agreed-upon site planning, massing, vehicle access and design direction at the time when those decisions are still in play. When this is done, the design that is ultimately presented in a formal MUP application is usually reviewed in a timely manner and is well-received by the public and the Design Review Board. Similarly, design departures are a much- vaunted component of the process and are encouraged by the city to help lead to creativity, innovation and reasonable trade-offs in siting and designing buildings for each unique site. Yet proponents are wise to remember the criterion for their approval and not complicate their projects with unfounded requests. Although developers and architects might rush to view design review as yet another regulatory hurdle in the land use permitting process, the city hopes instead that they will view it as a way to help them achieve greater acceptance of their projects within neighborhoods. This acceptance did not exist during Seattle's last building boom, leading to citizen-initiated downzones throughout the neighborhoods, reduction in density and height in the multifamily zones, the drastic downzone of downtown by the "CAP" initiative and other reactionary moves. In this age of growth management, the city certainly hopes that Seattle can continue to accommodate the growth in housing and jobs anticipated by the comprehensive plan. Public acceptance of this growth is vital. Design review is a key tool in helping make growth more acceptable to the public and to help Seattle "grow with grace," as Mayor Schell so aptly states. Patrick Doherty is 1nanager of the city's design review prograln, having worked for the Departlnent of Design, Construction and Land Use for over 16 years. Doherty has a bachelor's degree in urban planning froln the University of Washington and a 1naster's degree in urban design and planning froln San Josd State University. Other Stories: · New workplace model: the old town._square · _O_f.fic~._rn_.a_rk_e_t_.s!o_~jng, bu_t.f_u__m_r~.J_.o_..o_k_s_go_..o_d- · Financing in an uncertain economy · N__W r..e_ta_iJ.:..mp_.r_..e._.bri_c_k_s_a~__dmo_r._e_..m._ort_a_r · _W_.._hy_.._w_e........s_ho_uJ.4n__.~./__ .w_..o. _ ._rryj.f,..i.N_'.W_..j.n.....c!..u.s.._tri.a!....m_..a.r.k.__e_t.._s_o._f_t..e_n_s_...a_bj. · Growth management can be good fbr business · 10 years of GMA: we've on!yjsu_s..t_begu_.n_ · ._T_e_n_ a_.n.t'_s_...!_at.n._e_n._t_;.....s.h..o._._u!.d...._I._~.t~gy...or._.~..h_.._.o._u.!.._d.J2g.o_.7 · 'NW lenders keep the green light on · What's rental ho'using's future? Watch TV · L_ ._ao._d_i_s_s_t_i!Lho.._t_.b.u.t.__s_.~..l__e.._s._p.a_c_.~_._co..o_.!j__ng http://www.djc.com/news/re/11119151 .html 6/11/04