HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin 05-16-01MINUTES OF THE UKIAH CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting
Wednesday, May 16, 2001
The Ukiah City Council met at a Regular Meeting on May 16, 2001, the notice for which
had been legally noticed and posted, at 6:32 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers,
300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. Roll was taken and the following
Councilmembers were present: Larson, Smith, Libby, Baldwin (arrived at 6:34 p.m.), and
Mayor Ashiku. Staff present: Public Utilities Director Barnes, Airport Manager Bua,
Community Services Director DeKnoblough, Police Administrative Captain Dewey,
Assistant City Manager Fierro, City Manager Horsley, Associate Planner Lohse, Deputy
Public Works Director Seanor, Public Works Director/City Engineer Steele, Planning
Director Stump, Executive Assistant to the City Manager Yoast, Police Chief Williams, and
City Clerk Ulvila.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Ashiku led the Pledge of Allegiance.
URGENCY ITEM
Mayor Ashiku advised that there is an Urgency Item that needs to be included on the
agenda. There is a need to take immediate action came to the attention of the City
subsequent to the agenda being posted. The Urgency Item concerns "Resolution
Approving Downtown Rebound Program and Pre-Development Grant for Seismic
Assessment of the Palace Hotel."
M/RC Smith/Larson to add the urgency item to the agenda as under New Business, item
#12i; carried by unanimous consent of Council._
6:34 p.m. Councilmember Baldwin arrived at the meeting.
3. PROCLAMATION
3a. Ukiah Area Diversity Awareness Day: May 20, 2001
Mayor Ashiku read the Proclamation declaring May 20, 2001 as Ukiah Area Diversity
Awareness Day and urged all citizens to participate in Diversity Awareness Day activities
and discuss diversity issues in appropriate venues.
Robert Ducharme accepted the Proclamation and provided a poster and flyers concerning
the event. He thanked Council for their support.
3. PROCLAMATION
3b. Alternative Transportation Week: May 14-18, 2001
Mayor Ashiku read the Proclamation declaring May 14-18, 2001, as Alternative
Transportation Week in the City of Ukiah, and urged all who are able to take advantage of
the benefits offered to those who ride a bicycle, walk, or ride an MTA bus to do so.
Regular Meeting
May 16, 2001
Page ] of 28
Valerie Lawe and Sanj Balajee accepted the Proclamation and discussed the festivities
planned for the event. They thanked the sponsors of the event and Council for their
support.
3. PROCLAMATION
3c. Public Access on Cable
Mayor Ashiku read the Proclamation declaring that the City Council is supportive of the
concept of having an effectively functioning public access television station serving the City
of Ukiah, willing to explore the feasibility of earmarking revenues for use in support of
public access television if needed to augment the funding provided by other governmental
entities and the cable franchisee, and shall endeavor to include conditions pertaining to
franchisee support for public access television in the renewal agreement with Adelphia
Cable that is currently being negotiated.
4. INTRODUCTION OF EMPLOYEE
4a. lntroduction of New Emplovee: Peggy Yee, Recel~tionist/'rvpist Clerk
Executive Assistant to the City Manager Yoast introduced Peggy Yee as the City's new
Receptionist to the Administrative Wing. She is responsible for greeting customers,
answering the switchboard, and maintaining contact with the crews in the field by radio.
Peggy came to the City with excellent customer service and clerical experience that has
made for a very smooth transition into her new position. In her spare time, she enjoys
gardening and traveling with her husband. Peggy also enjoys working with computer
graphics.
Peggy Yee stated it's an honor and she is please to work for City.
4b. Certificate of Honorable Mention to City Clerk Marie Ulvila
City Manager Horsley explained that the City submitted an "Award of Distinction
Nomination Form" to the California City Clerks Association on behalf of City Clerk Ulvila.
The basis for the nomination was City Clerk Ulvila's excellent organizational skills and
exemplary service record. In response, the Association sent a "Certificate of Honorable
Mention" in recognition of her service to the City of Ukiah and the City Clerk's profession.
Mayor Ashiku read the Certificate of Honorable Mention for City Clerk Ulvila from the City
Clerks Association of California.
City Clerk Ulvila accepted the Certificate.
5. PRESENTATION
5a. Presentation from Nichols Consultin.q En.qineers, CHTD., Re.qarding the City of
Ukiah Pavement Management System
Deputy Public Works Director Seanor explained that the Mendocino Council of
Governments (MCOG) established a work element in their overall work program for fiscal
year 2000~2001 to update the Pavement Management System database (PMS) for Ukiah,
Willits, Fort Bragg, Point Arena, and Mendocino County. MCOG issued a Request for
Regular Meeting
May 16, 2001
Page ~ of 28
Proposals and awarded a contract to Nichols Consulting Engineers (NCE) in February
2001 to update the Pavement Management System. Since then, NCE has inspected all
streets and roads in the incorporated cities and the County.
George Wang, representing Nichols Consulting Engineers, explained that the population
of Ukiah is approximately 15,000 and consists of 53 centerline miles/112 lane miles of
streets. A PMS consists of a pavement database to store inventory information, condition
of the pavement, costs for certain treatment to pavement, and any maintenance history.
The PMS can create a pavement deterioration model, it is a cost benefit analysis tool, and
can be linked to a GIS.
A PMS is a very powerful tool for engineers to assist with planning and programming of the
streets, it is a requirement for state funding, helps to project future street conditions, helps
to make cost effective decisions, and provides citizen satisfaction. A Pavement Condition
Index (PCI) is a rating of the paving condition on a scale range from 9 to 100, and the
higher the PCI values indicate, the better the pavement condition.
He advised that the Network PCI is 67 and is a "good" condition category. He continued to
describe the conditions of the streets. He continued to explain condition categories. He
displayed photos of East Perkins, Oak, East Church, and Brush Street and their PCI's. He
discussed the saying "Pay now or pay later" and noted that pavement rehabilitation follows
that saying. He discussed the cost effectiveness of treatments to pavement, the
percentage of streets in each condition category, and the percent of budget for each
condition category. He continued to discuss four budget scenarios and a comparison of
each. Deferred maintenance comparison and network condition comparisons were
discussed. He explained that it is more affective to keep the streets that are already in
good condition, "in good condition", than to wait until they fall into the category of "very
poor" and try to bring it back into a "good condition". A needs analysis was conducted and
it was determined that it would cost approximately $10.5 million over five years in order to
get the PCI in the mid 80s.
In summary, he recommended the City adopt a City Standard Network Pavement
Condition Index. At a minimum, the City should maintain the current PCI of 67. He
recommended the City implement a Balanced Pavement Management Program, and that a
minimum budget allocation of 10% goes toward deferred maintenance and preventive
maintenance every year, and that Council direct staff to identify funding options for
allocating more resources to pavement rehabilitation.
Discussion followed regarding linking !he PMS to a GIS that is currently being developed. It
was noted that the PMS would also allow the City to interface with the County's road
system surrounding the City.
Councilmember Larson inquired if the PMS addresses traffic volumes and potential
impact of those volumes on the deterioration of the pavement.
Regular Meeting
May 16, 2001
Page 3 of 28
Mr. Wang explained that the PMS takes into consideration whether a street is an arterial
collector or residential collector and this information can be stored inside the PMS.
Mr. Seanor explained that around 1995, the City worked with MCOG and they hired a
consultant at that time, and developed a PMS for the City. It is recommended that every
three to five years that an inspection of all of the City streets be conducted to determine if
the pavement has changed and to assess the conditions of the streets. A portion of this
project included resurveying all the streets and to enter that data into the database.
5. PRESENTATION
5b. Report on Status of Fiber Optics in Mendocino County - Cyndee Logan
Mayor Ashiku advised that this presentation has been postponed until the next City
Council meeting.
6. MINUTES
6a. Regular Meeting of March 21,2001
M/S Smith/Larson approving the minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 21,2001, as
submitted; carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Larson, Smith,
Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: Councilmember Libby stated for the record that her
vote is "no" because "1 stated that the Council action in regards to the City Clerk's pay
raise was a slap in the face to the public, and the minutes surrounding this issue have
been toyed with and do not project the essence of the positions taken that evening. I don't
feel these minutes are credible and I will not vote for the approval of them." ABSENT:
None. ABSTAIN: None.
Mayor Ashiku requested that in the future, if there is any objection to any item, that
Councilmembers state their views prior to the vote.
6. MINUTES
6b. Regular Meeting of April 4, 2001
Councilmember Larson called attention to an error on page 11, the second sentence of
the paragraph that begins with "Mayor Ashiku", that the sentence should read: "There was
a review of the current energy crisis and it is now being projected that there will be between
200 and 300 hours of statewide blackouts based on the resources available."
M/S Baldwin/Larson approving the minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 4, 2001, as
corrected; carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Larson, Smith,
Libby, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None.
6. MINUTES
6c. Adjourned Regular Meeting of April 12, 2001
M/S Larson/Baldwin approving the minutes'of the Adjourned Regular Meeting of April 12,
2001, as presented carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Larson,
Smith, Libby, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
Regular Meeting
May 16, 2001
Page 4 of 28
6. MINUTES
6d. Special Meeting of May 3, 2001
M/S Larson/Baldwin approving the minutes of the Special Meeting of May 3, 2001, as
presented carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Larson, Libby,
and Vice-Mayor Baldwin. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: Councilmember
Smith and Mayor Ashiku.
7. RIGHT TO APPEAL DECISION
Mayor Ashiku read the appeal process.
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Baldwin requested that item "8d-Award of Bid for Jet Fuel Truck
Purchase to Alternate Supplier, Valley Oil, in the Amount of $53,450" be voted on
separately from the other Consent items.
Consensus of Council approved the request to consider item "8d" after the Consent
Calendar.
M/S Larson/Smith approving items a through h, excluding item "d" of the Consent
Calendar as follows:
a. Approved Disbursements for Month of April 2001;
b. Awarded Bid to Western States Electric, Inc. for the Purchase of Three
Padmount Switches in the Amount of $60,237.93;
c. Received Report to Council Regarding Emergency Purchase of Two Dispatch
Computer Workstations from Dell Computers in the amount of $8,538.60;
e. Received Report of the Acquisition of Services from Peterson Tractor Company in the
Amount of $9,352,63;
f. Received Report Regarding Replacemer~t of Ace Aerial Service Hangar Doors with
Schweiss Bi-Fold Doors in the Amount of $7,652 and Approval of Budget Amendment
to Airport Fund;
g. Adopted Resolution No. 2001-54 Waiving the 60-Day Notification Requirement for
Establishing a County Facility in the City (290 East Gobbi Street), Pursuant to
Government Code §25351;
h. Received Report to Council Concerning the Execution of a Consultant Contract to
Prepare Grant Applications for Implementing the Master Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Larson, Smith, Libby,
Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None.
8d.Awarded Bid for Jet Fuel Truck Purchase to Alternate Supplier, Valley Oil, in the
Amount of $53,450.
M/RC Larson/Smith approving item 8d, Award Bid for Jet of the Consent Calendar; carried
by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Larson, Smith, and Libby. NOES:
Councilmember Baldwin and Mayor Ashiku. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None.
Regular ,Meeting
May 16, 2001
Page 5 of 28
9. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
No one came forward to address Council.
10.. PUBLIC HEARING (7:00 P.M.)
10a. Consideration and Action on Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to
Conditionally Approve the Edge Wireless/City of Ukiah Communications
Tower Use Permit
Planning Director Stump advised that the project concerns a Use Permit to allow the
replacement of an existing 100-foot tall tower with a new 100-foot tall tower, where 40-feet
is the maximum height permitted in the P-F (Public Facilities) Zoning District. He explained
that the City of Ukiah Police Department has been looking to replace the existing 100-foot
tower for some time. The existing tower is in need of repair, maintenance crews will not
climb it to fix it, and the tower needs to be replaced. The Police Department looked at a
variety of alternatives, one of which they are pursuing is to enter into an agreement with
Edge Wireless/AT&T, to have a new tower placed on the site, at the same height. The
tower would be larger at the base and slightly larger in mass, but at the same 100-foot
height. It would differ from the existing tower in that it would also have digital cellular
phone panels at the top.
The Planning Commission considered the Use Permit for the height exceedence in March
and many issues were discussed. At the end of that meeting, the Planning Commission
conditionally approved the Use Permit by a 4-0 vote, due to one Commissioner recusing
them from the vote. That action was timely appealed to the City Council.
He explained that the Planning Commission talked about a number of issues and made
certain findings regarding the excess height, the aesthetic qualities, etc. of the new tower.
They also imposed conditions on the project and focused primarily on the mitigating visual
impacts of the base of the tower and also the associated small equipment building that
would be at the base of the tower. They required the construction of a fence that would
match the architecture of the Civic Center of six feet or higher, as well as an aggressive
landscaping plan to help mitigate or resolve the wider base of the tower as it touched the
ground. This action was appealed to the City Council and is the topic of tonight's hearing.
He advised that Council needs to be aware ~)f one topic he included in the staff report in
regards to "Scope of Review". It was revealed at the Planning Commission that the
Federal Telecommunications Act does limit the Council's ability to regulate the placement
and location of towers in regard to environmental or health issues. This concerns radio
frequency energy. He noted that there is quite a discrepancy of opinion of radio frequency
energy and it is important to understand about this tower is that the cellular panels would
employing digital cellular technology which emits substantially less Radio Frequency (RF)
energy than the more typical analog cellular panels.
The other part of the "Scope of Review" deals with the Use Permit, which focuses on the
exceedence of height of the tower. Public communication facilities like this are an allowed
Regular Meeting
May 16, 2001
Page 6 of 28
use on Public Facility grounds; however, they are not allowed to exceed 40 feet in height.
The previous tower was built at a time when there was no height limit. Since the recent
revisions to the regulations, there is now a height limit of 40 feet. The Planning
Commission made the findings to approve the height of 100 feet.
The issues before Council concern the height and aesthetics of the tower. One of the
issues of the appeal addressed possible degradation of property values. Even though
Council is limited in its Scope of Review with regard to health risks, there are issues that
Council and the public should be open to dialoging on. The RF energy emitted from the
proposed tower would be less than 1% of the federal threshold. He noted that other
countries have different thresholds and there is quite a controversy about that. He noted
that there was public testimony at the Planning Commission meeting regarding the
potential health affects, even though their scope of review was limited. The applicants do
have experts that they brought to the Commission meeting regarding this type of
technology and are also present at this meeting. He explained that one of the statements
made in the Commission minutes was that the amount of RF digital energy coming from
this tower would be less than if you wrapped yourself in an electric blanket. It is a
debatable topic and he reminded Council of their Scope of Review.
Since the preparation of the Staff Report, the applicants have submitted additional plans
and are suggesting that there is an alternative available to the City that would include a
smaller structure at the base of the tower. I~stead of a 10-foot triangular base, they can
engineer a base that would be about 6.5 feet at the base and taper upward. Those plans
have been submitted to Council for review.
In conclusion, staff evaluated the Planning Commission decision, explored the issues
raised by the appellant, which concern the degradation of property values, possible health
risks, aesthetic concerns, and concerns about the agreement between the City of Ukiah
and Edge Wireless. Staff also conducted additional research and were able to clearly
conclude that these issues surrounding the placement of communications towers, whether
its digital or analog, are complex and controversial. Health, property value, and aesthetic
impacts can be argued with passion from various perspectives. However, based on the
City's limited scope of review, the fact that the proposed tower is replacing an existing
tower of the same height, and the determination that the tower will not result in significant
visual impacts, particularly if the alternative design is selected, staff is able to conclude that
the Planning Commission's decision was reasonable and appropriate. Staff is
recommending Council conduct a Public Hearing on this matter, and then deny the appeal
and support the decision made by the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Larson inquired if the City Council members are required to abide by the
quasi-judicial action related to visiting the project site.
City Attorney Rapport advised that the quasi-judicial actions regarding a specific site
require Councilmembers to view the site, not speak to anyone while visiting the site, and to
record, for the record, that they have seen the site.
Regular Meeting
May 16, 2001
Page 7 of 28
Mayor Ashiku polled the Council and all Councilmembers advised that they had visited the
site of the proposed project.
Councilmember Baldwin inquired regarding the cost of to purchase the tower, excluding
equipment that will be attached to it.
City Manager Horsley explained that the equipment would need to be purchased because
our current equipment is very old and out of'date. The current tower has deteriorated to
the point where there is only one company that will service the City because they don't
want to send their employees up the tower. Therefore, the City will have to replace the
tower and the equipment on the tower. She stated that if the City built the tower, it is
estimated to cost $70,000.
Councilmember Libby inquired as to when the current tower was installed and the
number of complaints received about the tower.
Ms. Horsley stated that the City has had the tower for over 30 years.
Mr. Stump advised that during his seven-year tenure with the City Planning Department,
he has not received any complaints about the tower. He described the landscaping around
the tower, as recommended by the Planning Commission, and noted that they left the
details to the discretion of the Planning Director.
Public Hearing Opened: 7:30 p.m.
Jennifer Puser 309 Jones Street, advised that she is the Planning Commissioner that
appealed the Planning Commission's decision on the project. She stated that the way in
which this project was presented to the Planning Commission is much different than the
way it is being presented to the City Council at this meeting. The main reason she
appealed the project is because she felt there is the potential for negative impacts on
property values. She addressed issues of lack of information provided at the Planning
Commission meeting, and the neighbors are unaware of how much radio frequency
emissions are presently being emitted, and she did not think we should rely on Edge
Wireless to tell us what is already there, even though they say it will be less. She noted
there is a lack of community discussion and addressed issues concerning the contract with
Edge Wireless. She inquired about liability to the City concerning the potential for negative
health affects from the tower in future years. In pushing the Use Permit ahead of the
contract, she felt the City is opening itself up to liability from the company, the neighbors,
and the community. She felt there was a lack of case law during the Planning
Commission. She felt there is a need to think about how to protect the City and not just
push the project through.
Marlene Leaf, 1105 Clay Street, understood the need for a new tower, however she
opposed the project because she felt the installation should be the property of the City and
Regular Meeting
May 16, 2001
Page 8 of 28
not a private entity, and visually the proposed tower seems to be more obtrusive than the
existing tower because of the large base. She presented a letter from Nancy Rocca for the
record.
Greg Borgea, 618 South Oak Street, expressed concern about the health affects and felt
the tower should be denied because of lack of information provided to the neighbors and
felt there should be more public input on the matter.
Mr. Stump explained the legal notification process in that all property owners within 300
feet are sent notification and that there are postings around the boundary of the site. Upon
questioning by Councilmember Larson, Mr. Stump further advised that the Planning
Commission approved the project to the plans and specifications submitted, and if the
project changed in the future, it would need to be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
Tom O'Donaghue, 328 Jones Street, advis(~d that he lives over the fence from the tower.
He was of the opinion that the tower should not be a hindrance to the public since it is
situated in a residential neighborhood and felt there is a need to set a precedent on height
limit for towers. He recommended Council work with the neighbors and he submitted a
letter from Estok Menton into the record.
Bruce Hester, 323 Jones Street, voiced his support for the tower and felt there are no
standards to base the assumption that property values will be lowered. He is not totally
opposed to the project, however he is opposed to the lack of information and input from the
neighbors. There is a need for further information to assess the issues.
Paul Andersen, 309 Jones Street, was of the opinion that the proposed tower will be
significantly larger than the existing tower. He has an issue with Edge Wireless owning the
tower outright and that the City is pushing the project so they will make money off of it.
He discussed the potential for a decline in property values and discussed lawsuits and
property values in other cities. He felt the City is open to liability. He agreed that the
existing tower needs to be replaced, but opposed the project if it would benefit a private
entity on City property.
Michael Mattox, Oak Knoll Road, recommended the City check into the minimum FAA
requirement and it be stipulated in the Use Permit. He continued to discuss emissions
from the tower, relocating the tower, and putting the project on hold until further information
is gathered.
Lynn Adams, 321 Jones Street, resident across the street from the tower, advised that
she did not receive renotification to the Planning Commission public hearing. She inquired
if the neighborhood would be held to the 40-foot limit, even though the City's project is 100
feet.
Jim Morgan, Holden Street, advised that he visited with residents in the neighborhood and
discussed a potential lawsuit related to the public noticing of the project. He voiced his
Regular Meeting
May 16, 2001
Page 9 of 28
opposition to the project.
Alex Sands, 414 West Clay Street, discussed case law regarding cell towers on the
Internet, property values decreasing, and lowering the height of the tower. He expressed
concern with the aesthetics and hoped that Council would take into consideration the best
interest of the neighborhoods.
Peter Good, 418 West Mill, voiced his opposition to the Use Permit based on a decrease
on his property values. He urged Council to obtain further information before making a
decision on the project.
Bill Sangiacomo, resident of Guideville Reservation Road, voiced his support for the
residents of Ukiah and recommended Council listens to the people who have spoken about
various issues.
Eric Crawford, Holden Street, expressed concern about his property values decreasing.
He explained that many of his neighbors did not know about this meeting and were unable
to attend. He opposed the project.
Sanj Balajee, Holden Street, felt a new tower is needed, however, the people need to be
heard as well.
Silvia Rashaud, advised that she rents a house across the street from the Police Station
on Oak Street. She expressed concern with children, the elderly, and those people with
health problems.
Dennis Maas, street person, expressed his concern with the many unanswered questions
concerning the tower and did not feel it is right to have a private enterprise on City
property.
Hiawatha Blake, 517 South Oak Street, felt Council should consider the concerns of the
citizens that have spoke at the meeting tonight and obtain further information before
making a decision on the project. He is opposed to the tower.
Leif Farr, 616 Grove Street, was of the opinion that there is a need to look at what's built
and if it applies to City regulations. Council should make sure that all of the mitigations that
could be placed on this project to reduce the visual impacts be made in order to make it a
better project. He felt the City is giving an unfair business advantage to Edge Wireless
over other companies and cautioned Council. to look at the needs of the City and build their
own tower.
Allen Waters, Project Manager for Edge Wireless in California and Oregon where they are
building a digital PCS system, explained that the existing tower is unsafe and should be
removed immediately. He discussed the construction of the existing tower and noted that it
is designed to have guide wires come from various points of height to support it. In
Regular Meeting
May 16, 2001
Page l0 of 28
addition, the Icad on the tower currently exceeds what that type tower is designed for with
guide wires. He referred to the sign on the tower that states it will not support a man. He
stressed the importance of having a tower that is structurally sound that can be climbed.
The proposed new design has the tower slightly larger at the base and slightly larger, as far
as the tower structure in the visible areas, but the profile of the tower is the same or slightly
smaller than the existing tower due to the fact that the seven or eight omni antennas on
arms that are approximately three feet in .length each. They prepared some photo
simulations for Council's review. He continued to discussed the various designs Edge
Wireless is willing to work with the City in every way possible, using any technology, to
replace the tower, with the least visual impact. They have designed a smaller tower, with a
six-foot triangular base, that will accommodate the needs. They will have a colored co-ax
cable to blend in with the skyline and tower. They will attach the co-ax cable to the legs of
the tower to further make it disappear. Basically, it will be a structure that is translucent,
with three antennas from the City requires (replacing the existing antennas) on a one-foot
arm instead of a three-foot arm, and the overall profile will be lessened. He discussed their
antennas that will be painted to match. They will also provide a shelter that houses radio
equipment to the City. He noted that visual impact is the issue with wireless
communications and RF emissions are not. This company is trying to mitigate this issue by
finding existing structures and go onto them. Roughly 38% of their two-state system is on
existing structures so that do not have to build new towers. He noted that other locations
that have been suggested are not allowed to have a 100-foot tower, which is required by
the Fire Department for their transmission. Edge Wireless does not require that height and
their equipment will be located below them. The location of the tower is such that they are
taking advantage of some existing trees to where the lower section of the tower will be
better screened than it currently is. He advised that there have been no discussions by
him with regard to attorneys or lawsuits. There is a definite law regarding consideration of
RF issues and zoning approvals for them. The reason is because the emissions are so Iow
that the FCC, FDA, IIEE, and every organization in this country, and worldwide has
determined that PCS emissions are so Iow that they are not an issue, but become an issue
when misinformation is circulated and it arouses suspicion of those people who do not
understand. He read a portion of the FAA guidelines with regard to limits. He felt there are
many benefits to the community because it saves lives. The RF emissions of the City's
equipment far exceed the RF emissions of PCS antennas because it is different
technology. He stated that this is not a cellular tower, which is an analog tower, but rather
a personal communications system and is digital wireless, not analog wireless, and the
emissions are greatly reduced by this system relative to analog. He discussed towers in
other countries. He explained that some of the benefits of the tower, which included that
the battery life is about three times longer, you get text, video, and broadband, and saves
the lives of many worldwide in many ways on a daily basis.
Mayor Ashiku inquired as to the source for a back up power supply and the absolute
minimum height for their use of the tower. He also inquired if Edge Wireless intends to
increase capacity in the near future.
Mr. Waters explained they would rely on the 'City's generator. He noted that they typically
Regular Meeting
May 16, 2001
Page 11 of 28
only require back up power supplies in remote locations. They require about 80 feet in
height. He noted that this height is restrictive to other sites in the Ukiah area. He advised
that they do not intend to increase capacity in the near future, however, it they did, and it
would require new approval. He continued to discuss he benefits for these types of towers.
He addressed the issue of depreciation of property values and noted there is no clear
evidence to support this issue.
9:00 p.m.: Councilmember Baldwin left meeting.
Bruce Foster, 323 Jones Street, discussed the history of standards for electromagnetic
field exposure that is acceptable and the standards that have been set by the government.
9:02 p.m.: Councilmember Baldwin returned to the meeting.
9:02 p.m.: Mayor Ashiku left the meeting and Vice-Mayor Baldwin conducted the
meeting.
Councilmember Larson inquired about the completive bidding process for this type of
project.
Mr. Waters explained that the selection of the tower is carrier specific and it depends on
the RF engineering.
9:05 p.m.: Mayor Ashiku returned to meeting.
9:06 p.m.: Recessed.
9:20 p.m.: Reconvened.
Public Hearing resumed at 9:20 p.m.
Susan Kanuff, Ukiah, advised that although she will not be able to see the tower from her
home, she is concerned with the visual impa. cts of the proposed tower. She felt that the
fire training tower and the golf cart barn are very unattractive. She is opposed to a light on
top of the tower.
Mayor Ashiku announced that item 11a, Status Report and Discussion Regarding
Potential Skatepark Facility Locations" has been pulled from the agenda and will be heard
at the next Council meeting.
Marc Labelle, 316 North Main Street #4, he is not a property owner but is concerned with
the aesthetics of the proposed tower. He discussed his experience in research and
development of microwaves, radar, and RF power systems and recommended that Council
take a careful look at the information presented and obtain an independent assessor and
scientist before making a decision on the matter.
Tom O'Dongahue, 328 Jones Street, noted that during the winter months, the trees lose
Regular Meeting
May 16, 2001
Page 12 of 28
their leaves and the tower becomes more visible. It was his opinion that the height limit
needs to be determined.
Mr. Waters stated there is no light required for the tower.
Public Hearing Closed: 9:30 p.m.
Mayor Ashiku inquired of the City Attorney as to the City Council's obligations are under
existing law for this appeal.
City Attorney Rapport advised that it is clear that the 1996 amendments to the
Telecommunications Act prohibits local government from considering the environmental
affects of RF emissions from these towers as long as the tower meets the FCC standards.
Under both the Telecommunications Act amendments and State law, the Council has to
base its decision on substantial evidence in the record that is before the City Council.
Council's obligation on the Use Permit is to make findings and if Council denies the Use
Permit findings are made that the permit is contrary to public health, safety, or welfare, and
there has to be substantial evidence in the record to support those findings. Substantial
evidence is actual factual information. He felt that from the testimony presented by citizens
during the Public Hearing tonight, there is no factual information presented to the City
Council regarding property values. He explained that it was the congressional intent to
prohibit a city from considering the environmental affects of the RF emissions, and the
committees in both the House and the Senate said that the intent was to preclude
consideration of those emissions directly or indirectly. He continued to discuss the matter.
He explained that the use of a tower for communication purposes in a public facility is an
allowed use in this location. The issue that requires the Council to consider this a Use
Permit is the fact that this tower is going to be 100 feet rather than 40 feet in height. The
fact that it is going to be used for communication purposes isn't an issue for the Use Permit
because you could use it for communication purposes without a Use permit, but the height
of the tower would need to be limited to 40 feet.
Mr. Stump noted that for public facilities there was no height limit when the existing tower
was constructed.
City Attorney Rapport advised that with the issue of the lease for the license, scheduled
later on the agenda is a separate issue. He continued to discuss the evidence presented
and findings that Council needs to make co.ncerning the Use Permit. There was further
discussion concerning the matter of the license agreement.
City Manager Horsley discussed Edge Wireless contacting the Police Department
because of the public safety radio equipment on the tower. The tower also has utility
radios and Public Works radio frequencies, and all of the City's emergency and call out is
through the radios on the tower as well. The Public Safety Department originally worked
with Edge Wireless and then they brought it to her attention when Edge Wireless was
going forward with the Planning Department staff. She continued to discuss the history of
Regular Meeting
May 16, 2001
Page 13 of 28
the tower.
Councilmember Baldwin inquired if the previous location of the Police Department is in
the Flight Zone.
Mr. Stump explained that according to the cQrrent Airport Master Plan it is not a key issue
if the tower is located within a Flight Zone.
Police Caption Dewey provided examples of what other public safety departments in the
Ukiah valley are doing. If the tower is moved from this site, they would have to either
microwave or come up with new technology to have the transmission to that tower and
then transmitted out from there.
Mayor Ashiku inquired about the minimum height that is required for Police and Fire
Departments, as well as ambulance communications
Captain Dewey explained that he contacted Mastersons, the City's current radio
communications provider, regarding the height limitations, and they suggested that
currently our radio communication has acceptable transmissions. If the Police Department
were to lower its antenna down 20 feet, they would still be able to transmit from West Road
to Burke Hill, but there would be problems in town with the buildings. The portable radios
for the firefighters, ambulances, and police officers would have difficulty communicating
back to the location and have blind spots. In response to Mayor Ashiku's inquiry about
using microwave repeaters as an alternatiye, Captain Dewey discussed the Sheriff's
Department having multi-repeaters and multi-microwaves and noted they have spent
millions of dollars, Countywide.
Councilmember Baldwin inquired if this issue has been brought before Council for
discussion during the past few years.
Ms. Horsley explained that the issue was discussed at budget hearings about two years
ago during a review of public safety and in discussions of capital costs and equipment, it
was noted at that time that the tower and equipment would need to be replaced. At that
time, the estimated cost was $125,000 to replace the tower and equipment.
Councilmember Baldwin thought that about a year ago Council discussed notification to
renters and he thought that Council voted to have both owners and renters of dwellings
notified who live within 300 feet of any project.
Mr. Stump confirmed that previously Council directed staff to notify both the owners and
renters. Staff erred in not notifying renters concerning this project but only notified property
owners concerning this matter.
Councilmember Smith inquired if staff has checked alternate sources of information with
regards to RF emissions to determine if the information that Edge Wireless provided is
Regular Meeting
May 16, 2001
Page ]4 of 28
reasonable.
Mr. Stump explained that staff did a lot of researched and found there is debate on both
sides of the issue.
Ms. Horsley explained that staff ordered several studies that covered both sides of the
issue.
City Attorney Rapport advised that given the evidence standard, Council would have to
have substantial evidence in the record that the RF emissions from this facility would be
harmful to human health before it could den~, the project on that basis, even if there were
no federal law on this subject.
Discussion followed concerning the option of continuing the public hearing to another date,
the time limit to make a decision on the appeal, and also whether to direct staff to provide
findings.
Councilmember Larson felt it is the job of the City to set a good example in architectural
excellence and be a good neighbor. He stressed the importance of the behavior of the City
as a neighbor adjacent to a residential area is something for Council to consider. The City
should work toward improving its relationship with its neighbors. He felt Council needs to
explore other alternatives for communications and direct staff to seek further information
and research.
City Attorney Rapport advised that if the Council does not make a decision on the Appeal
within the 60-day time frame, then Edge Wireless would have a cause of action against the
City to compel it to act. Council should endeavor to comply with its rules.
Discussion followed concerning the timeframe for responding to the appeal and it was
noted that June 6th is the date for the next regularly scheduled Council meeting.
Councilmember Smith echoed Councilmember Larson's concerns and felt there are
many unanswered questions. He felt there is a need to look at alternatives and
independent consultation, and supported a continuance of the hearing and o direct staff to
provide further information and research to Council by the June 6th meeting.
M/S Larson/Ashiku to continue the Public Hearing to June 6, 2001, directing Staff to
provide Council with research on alternatives to the existing communications tower,
including remote repeater towers, stations, etc., site availability, cost estimates, any
technological enhancements that are required, and alternative designs to the 100 foot
tower.
Discussion followed concerning the motion.
Councilmember Baldwin thought it is important for Council to tell Staff whether they think
Regular Meeting
May 16, 2001
Page ]5 of 28
the tower is aesthetically appropriate in order for Staff to develop findings for the project.
There was continued discussion concerning the aesthetics of the existing and proposed
towers. It was noted that should Council deny the proposed project and seek an
alternative, findings would need to be developed. Discussion followed concerning a town
meeting to discuss the project. It was noted that there might be issues related to the
neighborhood trusting the information that Edge Wireless would provide related to the
proposed project.
Mayor Ashiku requested Councilmember Larson work with the City Manager to coordinate
a neighborhood meeting.
Council member Baldwin discussed the federal government taking power away from local
governments because they are being bought by an industry. It was his opinion that we
should think about what new technology and if it will affect the community. He
recommended we make a finding that the proposed structure is not good for our souls and
that the City find a different location for both the fire tower and a new communications
tower.
Councilmember Larson called for the question, and then withdrew his request.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Larson, Smith,
Libby, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None.
Mayor Ashiku thanked the audience for sharing their concerns with Council.
11.
11a.
Mayor
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Status Report and Discussion Regarding Potential Skatepark Facility
Locations
Ashiku advised the matter has been continued to next meeting.
12. NEW BUSINESS
12a. Approval of Agreement with Edge Wireless
Consensus of Council was to continue the matter to the June 6, 2001 meeting.
11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
11b. Report and Approval of Fire J.P.A. Subcommittee Action
City Manager Horsley advised that the City Council directed staff to conduct a
subcommittee meeting that consisted of Ukiah paid Firefighters and Volunteers, Ukiah
Valley Fire District (District) Firefighters and Volunteers, two District Board members, and
two City Councilmembers. The meeting was held on April 25, and was facilitated by
Attorney Elizabeth Silver. She submitted an outline that has been revised based on the
comments from the committee meeting and is included with the Staff Report. She outlined
the objectives discussed at the meeting. Direction was given by the District Board and
Council representatives to Ms. Silver to continue with the development of the agreements
Regular Meeting
May 16, 2001
Page ]6 of 28
that are necessary for the subcommittee to review on May 30, 2000.
Councilmember Larson explained that there was some focus concerning getting into the
specific aspects of our joint powers agreement and separating that from the issues with the
professional staff. There was some effort to become focused on the actual agreement that
is in the process of being drafted. Questions arose concerning liability issues.
Ms. Horsley advised that staff received an initial draft of the agreement that was reviewed
by the City Attorney, Fire Chief, and herself today. There are many things in the
agreement that need to be discussed because it is based on the city of Tracy's agreement
and some things do not apply to Ukiah. It is anticipated that changes will be made to the
agreement by the end of the week so that it is more appropriate to Ukiah's situation and will
be distributed to the subcommittee.
Councilmember Larson noted we should give some thought to the composition of the
JPA Board and how the decision-making powers should be distributed equably. He
requested direction from Council concerning the matter.
Interim Fire Chief Grebil advised that at the District Board meeting they discussed the
composition of the committee to consist of a Councilmember, City Manager, two District
Board members, and a fifth person that would be appointed by these four members. He
discussed Tracy's agreement that consists'of a four-member committee and there are
alternates for every position. They need to have a three-fourths vote on any action and it
was specified on budget items that the vote be unanimous. There were provisions to
adjourn the meeting if they did not have a full quorum and it creates a position that issues
need to be debated and worked through in order to get compliance from a majority of
commissioners. This will be drafted into the agreement that is being published for
discussion purposes at their next committee meeting.
Mayor Ashiku inquired as to the type of action needed in which to dissolve this
agreement.
City Attorney Rapport advised there is a clause in the agreement whereby either party
must provide one year's notice to terminate the agreement.
Discussion followed concerning the termination clause in the agreement. It was noted that
each party involved would have their equipment listed and attached to the agreement to
identify the assets of each agency. There was some discussion of having a four-member
Board instead of five members.
City Manager Horsley explained that the Ci'~y would provide all personnel services for the
Authority. Ms. Silver's told them that in order for the City to do that, the Authority would
have to have a contract with the City to provide those services. The reason they decided
to do this is because the City has a Personnel, Payroll, and Finance Department, whereas
the District uses a lot of County services. It made sense for the City to continue this
Regular Meeting
May 16, 2001
Page ]7 of 28
service and add on the extra employees.
Chief Grebil advised that the early on determination was that the workers comp rates and
retirement rates within the City structure were lower. There would be higher rates if it were
done vice versa.
Councilmember Larson explained that it is best that the JPA not be an employer at all,
and that everything it does should be by contract with the City, etc.
City Manager Horsley advised that the City Fire Department had their negotiator at the
meeting with them. Most of their concerns would be addressed in negotiations. It was
repeated by Ms. Silver that many of the items they were concerned about are negotiable
items that concerned personnel matters. They felt consolidation was a good idea and
would prefer to have the two agencies separate.
Chief Grebil explained that they liked the idea of consolidation but didn't like the current
model being proposed. They preferred to stay as two entities with a common chief. He
personally has seen a duplication of effort by the two entities.
Councilmember Larson suggested that the City Manager not be part of the JPA
governing body because of the necessity of her having to deal with the labor issues as a
contractor back to the JPA. It is a difficult and sometimes a conflicting role at times.
Mayor Ashiku felt the composition of the Board should be two City Councilmembers and
two District Board members, and the City Manager on the committee. He felt it is essential
for the City Manager to be on the committee to provide continuity.
Discussion followed concerning the composition of the Board and whether to have four or
five members, and whether or not the City Manager should be included. There was also
discussion concerning the share of cost,
M/S Libby/Larson approving the development of fire consolidation documents, and
supporting a five-member board composed of the City Manager, 1 Councilmembers, 2
District Board members, and one member being appointed.
Further discussion followed concerning the motion.
M/S Libby/Larson withdrawing the motion.
M/S Libby/Ashiku approving the development of fire consolidation documents, carried by
the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Larson, Smith, Libby, Baldwin, and
Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None.
12.
12b.
NEW BUSINESS
Approval of Professional Services Contract with Sterling Codifiers, Inc. for
Regular 'Meeting
May 16, 2001
Page ]8 of 28
Codification and Related Services and Authorization for the City Manager to
Sign Contract
City Clerk Ulvila advised that the City has had a contract with Sterling Codifiers, Inc. since
1991 for codification of the City of Ukiah City Code. Since that time, the City's needs have
changed, and new technology has been developed related to the codification process. The
new proposed contract includes Folio Views, which is a search engine used for search and
retrieval of information in the City Code. She discussed other items in the proposed
contract. Hosting the City Code to the City's Web Page will provide easy access by the
public. The City is happy with the services provided by Sterling Codifiers during the past
ten years, and codification of the City Code is up to date. She recommended approval of
the contract.
M/S Baldwin/Larson approving Professional Services Contract with Sterling Codifiers, Inc.
and Authorizing the City Manager to Sign the Contract, carried by the following roll call
vote: AYES: Councilmembers Larson, Smith, Libby, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES:
None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None.
12. NEW BUSINESS
12c. Consideration of Establishing Poet Laureate Program in the City of Ukiah
City Manager Horsley explained that typically the Poet Laureate is an honorary position
and the individual chosen is given the charge of raising the consciousness and
appreciation of the reading and writing of poetry. The Ukiah Writer's Read group feels that
Mr. Armand Brint would be an ideal candidate for this position and he has indicated that he
is available to fill the position should Council determine to make an appointment at this
time. There are wide ranges of methods to consider, which are included in the Staff report,
if Council chooses to establish a Poet Laureate.
Susan Sparrow, 9827 Irvine Avenue, Upper Lake, member of Ukiah's Writer's Read
group, thanked City Staff for their work on this proposal. She provided a petition signed by
approximately 40 members of the community for appointment of Armand Brint as Poet
Laureate of Ukiah, and recommended a committee to consisting of the director of the Sun
House or a delegate, representative from the Ukiah Writer's Read Poetry Series, and a
member of the City of Ukiah government and possibly a member of the library staff.
Armand Brint, 215 Thompson Street, stated that he is very honored by the nomination.
He provided biographical information to Council and noted that he has lived in Ukiah for the
past 12 years. It is his belief that one indictor of community health is the extent to which
the community embraces the arts and engages in dialog informed by literature.
Jim Lyle, Lakeport, advised that he was the first Poet Laureate for Lake County, and now
past Poet Laureate. He felt there are many things the Poet Laureate can do to benefit the
community, at no cost.
Doug Strong, Ukiah, felt it would be to the City's advantage to appoint a Poet Laureate
because creating the position of Poet Laureate gives recognition to an art form that has
Regular Meeting
May 16, 2001
Page ]9 of 28
flourished in America. It will also encourage the youth of the community to experience the
pleasure and to express themselves in this medium.
M/S Ashiku/Smith appointing Armand Brint as Poet Laureate to represent Ukiah as its
Poet Laureate, that the appointment be for one year, and in the interim the City shall
develop a policy and procedure for appointing future members by way of a subcommittee.
Discussion followed concerning the motion and the content of a committee to establish
procedures and policies.
Councilmember Libby recommended that the committee consist of a representative from
the Sun House, the Writer Reader group and the County Library, a Staff liaison, and an
interested citizen, for a total of five members. Once the committee has an outline of the
procedures, they should be presented to Council for review.
M/S Ashiku/Smith amending motion to include recommendations as presented by
Councilmember Libby regarding the composition of the committee.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Larson, Smith, Libby,
Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None.
12. NEW BUSINESS
12d. Approval to Extend Closure Date of Landfill Operations to October 31, 2001
Public Works Director/City Engineer Steele explained that the City landfill is nearing its
designed capacity and the Taylor Drive Transfer Station has been under construction has
been under construction for some time. However, the design and construction of the off
site improvements fell behind schedule and a decision was made that the Transfer Station
cannot begin to operate until after the improvements are complete, which is anticipated in
August 2001. Both the City and County franchise haulers have made other disposal
arrangements se that we may extend the life of the landfill. In order to continue to
accommodate self-haulers, staff is working with our local enforcement agency to develop a
stipulated agreement setting the ground rules for this continued, but temporary and limited,
operation.
M/S Larson/Smith approving the extension date of landfill closure to October 31,2001,
carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Larson, Smith, Libby,
Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None.
12. NEW BUSINESS
12f. Authorize Submittal of the Annual ;'Power Source Disclosure and Customer
Credit Program Report" for 2000
Public Utilities Director Barnes advised that California state law, SB 1305, requires any
retail supplier that makes specific claims regarding a power mix that differs from California
system power mix, which Ukiah chose to do, to submit quarterly and annual power source
disclosure reports to all customers and an annual report to the California Energy
Regular Meeting
May 16, 2001
Page 20 of 28
Commission (CEC). SB 1305 requires that the City Council approve submittal of the
annual report and executed by the Director of Public Utilities.
Consensus of Council authorized submittal of the annual "Power Source Disclosure and
Customer Credit Program Report" for 2000.
12. NEW BUSINESS
12g. Adoption of Resolutions Electing CALPERS Health Plans for the Fire and
Police Unit Employees
Personnel Officer Harris advised that the Police and Fire Units conducted an election and
the majority of the unit members voted for the CaI-PERS Health Plan. Their current health
plan contract ends June 30, 2001 and to affect a July 1, 1001 date, the City needs to
provide a Resolution from the City Council.
M/S Smith/Baldwin adopting Resolution 2001-55 electing to be subject to Public
Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act only with respect to members of the Fire Unit
and fixing the Employer's contribution for employees and the employer's contribution for
annuitants at different amounts; carried by the following roll call vote: AYES:
Councilmembers Larson, Smith, Libby, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None.
ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None.
M/S Larson/Smith adopting Resolution 2001-56 electing to be subject to Public
Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act only with respect to members of the Police Unit
and fixing the Employer's contribution for employees and the employer's contribution for
annuitants at different amounts; carried by the following roll call vote: AYES:
Councilmembers Larson, Smith, Libby, Ba. ldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None.
ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None.
12. NEW BUSINESS
12e. Discussion of Committee/Commission Appointment Process and Application
Forms and Possible Direction to Staff- Councilmember Libby
City Manager Horsley advised that Councilmember Libby requested this be on agenda for
Council discussion. All of the information that was requested at a previous meeting has
been provided to Council. Councilmember Libby will provide Council with an explanation of
her objectives.
Councilmember Libby explained that she specifically asked for discussion on the Airport
Commission and has asked for the process for selection of the Airport Commissioners be
brought before Council for a couple of reasons. She was of the belief that three
Commissioners' terms are set to expire in June of this year, and if Council were to make
any changes in the selection process, this would be an appropriate time to do it. She felt
the way in which the Airport commission is selected should be changed. "Unlike those
Commissioners who serve on Commissions and Committees, the Airpor~ Commissioners
do have action authority and spending authority. The Airport is going through growth and
more growth is anticipated in the future. There is a considerable amount of money that
Regular Meeting
May 16, 2001
Page 2] of 28
goes through the Airport, both in the course of normal business and in the construction and
operation of the various Airport businesses. The Airport is tucked away, and sometimes
we don't really don't see what is going on out there unless we make a visit or we get a
report. They operate from a City budget, they collect revenue and they spend money, and
to call them an advisory on the committee, I feel is loose interpretation of the words. The
Airport Commission is able to set their agendas and disband, and when they need
approval from the Council, often it is done, the spending is put on the Consent Calendar
and there is no discussion about it. I think we have an obligation to better know whom the
Commissioners are and the best way to achieve that is to personally interview the
Commissioners during the selection process as we do the Planning Commission. Because
we budget several hundred thousand dollars a year for Airport operation, because there is
new business out there, and because we have Commissioners who have businesses out
there, I would like to have more than just a piece of paper to work with in deciding who will
sit on the Airport Commission. I suggested' as time in Ukiah's growth and the Airport's
growth, to step up in the selection process and require Airport Commissioners go through
the interview process. I feel it would be a remiss on our part to do less." She advised that
this is discussion that she is bringing forward to the Council.
Mayor Ashiku was supportive of the concept of all Airport Commissioners being
interviewed and felt it is an excellent idea. It would give you a good sense of their
perspective. He inquired if there are any changes to the application that anyone would like
to see for the Airport Commission.
Councilmember Larson did not see the necessity of interviewing applicants for the Airport
Commission. He preferred calling up people on the telephone if he wants to interview
them.
Mayor Ashiku had a problem with Commissioners who do not deal respectfully with staff
or the public.
Councilmember Larson felt an interview process does not solidify the Council's
perception of someone or their abilities, etc. It's a political process. If Council wants to
take on the task of interviewing everybody for every position, including Poet Laureate, so
be it. He'll participate in it, but failed to see the necessity. He discussed commissions not
having the authority to spend money other than within a training budget.
Councilmember Baldwin advocated each Councilmember have the option of selecting a
commissioner. He discussed the nomination process.
City Attorney Rapport explained the rotation of Council for the nomination process. He
discussed the amount of commissions one person can serve on. Currently there is no limit.
Councilmember Larson discussed item 2c of the nomination process and felt this
procedure has not been followed: "When a Councilmember's nomination is approved by
the majority vote of the Councilmembers present or the Councilmember agrees to pass the
Regular Meeting
May 16, 2001
Page 22 of 28
nomination on."
City Attorney Rapport explained the intent of the policy when it was passed in 1995. The
intent was that each Councilperson, for each commission, would have the right to continue
making nominations until they were either successful (i.e. until their nomination was
approved) or they agreed to pass it on.
City Manager Horsley advised that she has asked the City Clerk to attach this Resolution
each time Council goes through the nomination process.
City Attorney Rapport stated that the interview is discretionary with the Council as to
whether they choose to do that or not.
Councilmember Smith had no problem with the interview process. It gives him an
opportunity to speak to the applicants.
Mayor Ashiku stated he preferred interviewing the Airport Commission, Parks, Recreation,
and Golf Commission, and the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Baldwin did not think the interview process works very well; that it is
awkward and demeaning. They want to give the answers that they know the Council wants
to hear. You get the viewpoint of the majority on these commission but you don't get every
viewpoint under the current system.
Councilmember Libby discussed interviewing someone that a Councilmember knows. All
Council has is the application and the answers they gave. Especially with the Airport
Commission, we should be able to talk to them. She did not have a problem extending that
to the Parks, Recreation, and Golf Commission.
M/S Libby/Ashiku changing the selection process to include a personal interview with the
applicants for the Airport Commission and the Parks, Recreation, and Golf Commission.
Councilmember Baldwin did not think the interviews serve that great of a purpose. He
hopes the whole process will be reconsidered in the future so that all the varied viewpoints
could be represented.
Councilmember Larson felt it is far more important that perspective commissions be able
to ask questions rather than answer them' because that's what their job is, and the
interview process doesn't do that. Perhaps they could give a speech.
Roll Call Vote: Yes: Councilmembers Smith, Libby, and Mayor Ashiku. Noes:
Councilmembers Larson and Baldwin. Motion carried.
Councilmember Libby was of the opinion that the general committee selection needs to
have consistent practices and there is a need to set up a policy. She discussed a previous
Regular Meeting
May 16, 2001
Page 23 of 28
appointment of a Planning Commissioner who failed to answer any of the questions on the
application, while there were two other well-qualified applicants who answered the
questions and went through the interview process, but were not selected. A short time
after that there was a Traffic Engineering Committee applicant that was appointed over an
applicant who also did not answer the application questions. The same Councilmembers
appointed both the Planning Commission and Traffic Engineering Committee applicants.
She felt there is a need for clarification as to the meaning of a "completed application."
She didn't feel that exception should be made for some and not for others.
Councilmember Baldwin discussed the last appointment to the Planning Commission in
which the applicant spent the least amount of time and had given brief answers to all the
questions. He thought that Councilmember Libby was referring to the appointment of Judy
Pruden to the Planning Commission who had served 4-6 years prior to that, had spoke to
Council on numerous occasions, and had a previous application on file. If Council doesn't
know where they stand or whether they can fill out an application, then they shouldn't get
appointed.
Councilmember Libby noted that it states that "completed" applications must be turned in
to be considered a legitimate application. She asked to set a policy and inquired if we
accept applications that are not completed?
Mayor Ashiku felt the standing policy has been that sitting commissioners are not required
to fill out "new" applications and that applications that are filed are considered complete
whether there is one or five sentences.
City Clerk Ulvila discussed the potential burden placed on her as filing officer to determine
if the applications are complete. This would require her to review each application whether
submitted in person or by mail. She felt there is a need for more definite criteria.
Councilmember Libby spoke about when the questions are not answered at all. "The
City Clerk should say that the completed application must be turned to be a qualified
applicant. You have said before that if you don't have to complete applications. I have
looked through the codebook and cannot find that anywhere." That's something that we
need to clarify. Are we going to say that if you are sitting on a commission already, you
don't have to answer the questions, even though their thoughts and ideas have changed in
four years?
Mayor Ashiku stated that when he was appointed to the Planning Commission, he was
called back and told that he didn't need to resubmit an application because the original was
on file. All he had to do was submit his intentions if he wanted to be reappointed. Maybe
it's not in the code but that's what the past policy has been. Maybe we need to state that's
the policy. That's how it's always been that he knows. He did not see any reason to see
why sitting Planning Commissioners should, fill out a new application. We have the old
application and an opportunity to interview them. He felt it fine to establish written criteria
so there won't be any confusion in the future as to whether the process is completed. It's
Regular Meeting
May 16, 2001
Page 24 of 28
up to Council to establish that sitting commissioners don't have to fill out new applications
and that the application, as filed, is considered a completed application.
Discussion followed.
City Attorney Rapport suggested that the Resolution could be amended that applicants
need only submit a "signed application" by the deadline, and then reviewed by the Council.
They don't have to go through the ordinance process.
Councilmember Smith inquired if the three Airport Commissioners up for reappointment
should submit new applications, or just sign an application stating that they want to be
reappointed? If they have been serving sincb 1998 or 2000, have we had any complaints
about their service?
Councilmember Libby stated that it's not part of the discussion.
Mayor Ashiku stated that if an existing commissioner has an application on file, they could
submit a signed statement by the deadline that they wish to be reappointed. A signed
application for new applicants ought to be considered a complete application. Then
Council can judge whether it meets its own criteria as far as completeness, answers, etc.
Councilmembers Smith and Baldwin voiced their support of Mayor Ashiku's
recommendation.
Councilmember Larson stated it's up to the judgment of this Council as to whether the
application is complete. Sitting commissioners don't have to fill out a new application
unless they want to add to their previous application. They should be given a copy of their
original application. They can provide additional information at their discretion. He did not
think applicants need to be subjected to an interview unless they desire it.
Councilmember Libby inquired, with regard to the three Commissions, if they had
been appointed once, would they have to go through a personal interview?
Councilmember Larson stated that it was his intent that the sitting commissioners don't
have to go through the interview process.
Mayor Ashiku felt that issue was taken care of in the previous motion regarding
interviewing all commissioners.
M/RC Ashiku/Baldwin to amend, by Resolution, the language that states that an
application is completed when signed for new applicants to all commissions and sitting
commissioners must only submit a signed letter requesting reappointment. He restated the
motion that new applicants must submit a signed application and that is considered a
complete application when submitted by the deadline. All sitting commissioners must
request reappointment, in writing, by the deadline, by submitting a signed letter.
Regular Meeting
May 16, 2001
Page 25 of 28
Councilmember Larson noted the motion implies that all candidates, including sitting
commissioners shall be interviewed.
Mayor Ashiku felt that exemptions should be given to elected officials and city staff, and
this would only apply to the public member on the Investment Oversight Committee, Traffic
Engineering Committee, Civil Service Board, the City's representative on the Library
Advisory Commission, Cultural Arts Advisory Board, and would not apply to the Disaster
Council or the other City Council committees. This is in reference to the application. He
felt that Councilmember Larson is correct.
Councilmember Larson asked if appointees (presumably for all committees that Council
wants to interview) and sitting commissioners would still be subjected to an interview?
Mayor Ashiku felt that question had been answered.
Councilmember Libby was not clear on the motion. They only need a signature on the
application and they don't have to answer the question? Why do we even have
applications with questions?
Councilmember Smith stated that for new applicants they had to do it, but sitting
commissioners' only need to submit a letter.
Mayor Ashiku felt that the reason we are asking them to have a signed application as
being complete. The interview process allows us to examine in further details as to why a
person failed to answer a particular question and allows this Council to weigh the merit of
that application. It puts the responsibility back on Council.
City Clerk Ulvila stated that in most cases, the applicant's previous application is
attached.
Mayor Ashiku said that for the future process, if anyone asks for reappointment in writing
but does not submit a new application, it would be very helpful to have the original
application with answered questions included in the record.
Roll Call Vote. AYES: Councilmembers Smith, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. Noes:
Councilmembers Larson and Libby. Motion carried.
M/RC Baldwin/Larson to amend the resolution concerning the procedure for appointing
commissioners to disallow serving on more than one commission after their current term
has expired.
Roll Call Vote: AYES: Councilmembers Larson and Baldwin. NOES:Councilmembers
Smith, Libby, and Mayor Ashiku. Motion failed.
M/RC Larson/Ashiku to directed staff to prepare an Ordinance to eliminate the number of
Regular Meeting
May 16, 2001
Page 26 of 28
terms that Commissioners can be appointed.
Discussion followed concerning the motion with regard to experience of commissioners
and the amount of term limits on each comm. ission,
Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Larson, Smith,
Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: Councilmember Libby. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
12. NEW BUSINESS
12h. Setting of Date and Time for Consideration of Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Budget
Accomplishments and Objectives
City Manager Horsley discussed options for setting the date and time for consideration of
the Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Budget Accomplishments and Objectives.
A brief discussion followed concerning the matter.
Consensus of Council set the date and time for consideration of Fiscal Year 2001-2002
Budget Accomplishments and Objectives for June 6, 2001 beginning at 4:30 p.m.
12. NEW BUSINESS
12i. Resolution Approving Downtown Rebound Program and Pre-Development
Grant for Seismic Assessment of the Palace Hotel.
Assistant City Manager Fierro advised that on May 15th staff received a year-end funding
opportunity from the State of California Department of Housing and Community
Development for the Downtown Rebound Program. The grant will provide a seismic and
structural assessment of the Palace Hotel and will help the City craft a "blueprint" for the
revitalization of the Palace Hotel based upon the hotel's seismic and structural integrity for
live-work housing, and mix-use development in the downtown. This grant compliments the
previous grant the City received earlier this year, which was aimed at researching what
"adaptive reuses" the Palace Hotel could hope to enjoy, given its design, location and age.
The study will concentrate on the presence of hazardous materials, such as asbestos,
lead based paint, and the remediation of those material to make the Palace Hotel fit for
habitation and development.
No matching funds from the City are required for this grant; however, the owner is required
to enter into an agreement with the City underscoring the owners' cooperation for the
revitalization of the Palace Hotel, based upon the findings of the study. In addition, the
owner much verify their continuing control of the Palace Hotel during the study period. He
recommended applying for $15,000 for the seismic assessment and $15,000 for the
structural assessment. He noted that the grant must be submitted by June 1,2001.
Councilmember Libby requested staff provide a status report at the next Council meeting.
Mr. Fierro advised that these are two separate projects and inspection of the facilities has
Regular Meeting
May 16, 2001
Page 27 of 28
occurred but the consultant has not provided a draft of conceptual ideas for use of the
Palace Hotel.
Discussion followed concerning the owner of the Palace making improvements to the
structure to make it more secure. Assessment of the structure was deemed an important
aspect for the private investor and for future development. Discussion of the benefits of
having this study to determine if, in fact, the Palace Hotel can be revitalized and inhabited.
The previous grant for the Palace Hotel in the amount of $35,000 was addressed.
Councilmember Libby expressed concern with the short notice to Council regarding the
proposed grant. She stated that she would not approve the project because it is her
opinion that the property owners should be doing this. She did not think it is right for the
City to use taxpayers' money to keep supplying services, such as structural exams.
Councilmember Smith was of the opinion that the study could provide the City leverage if
the study's outcome is negative, and to move on the abatement process.
M/S Smith/Larson Adopting Resolution 2001-57, Approving an application and contract
execution for funding from the Downtown Rebound Program Pre-Development Grant and
identification of the Palace Hotel, and its owner as the "target building" and "target building
owner," partnering with the City of Ukiah to proceed with an adaptive reuse strategy;
carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Larson, Smith, Baldwin, and
Mayor Ashiku. NOES: Councilmember Libby. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None.
13. COUNCIL REPORTS
None.
14.CITY MANAGER/CITY CLERK/DIRECTOR REPORTS
City Manager Horsley advised that she would be out of the office on May 17 and 18.
10. CLOSED SESSION
None.
11.ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the City Council meeting was adjourned at 12:15 p.m.
Marie Ulvila, City Clerk
Regular Meeting
May 1(~, 2001
Page 28 of 28