HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin 10-17-01MINUTES OF THE UKIAH CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting
Wednesday, October 17, 2001
The Ukiah City Council met at a Regular Meeting on October 17, 2001, the notice for which
had been legally noticed and posted, at 6:30 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, and Mayor Ashiku. Staff
present: Public Utilities Director Barnes, Electric Supervisor Bartolomei, Community
Services Director DeKnoblough, Finance Director Elton, Assistant City Manager Fierro,
Interim Fire Chief Grebil, Risk Manager/Budget Officer Harris, City Manager Horsley,
Associate Planner Lohse, City Attorney Rapport, Community Services Supervisor
Sangiacomo, Deputy Public Works Director Seanor, Public Works Director/City Engineer
Steele, Planning Director Stump, Police Chief Williams, and City Clerk UIvila.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Councilmember Baldwin led the Pledge of Allegiance.
3. PRESENTATION
3a. Presentation by Assemblywoman Virginia Strom-Martin's Office Re.qardin_o_
City-Owned Electric Utility
Kathy Kelley, representing Assemblywoman Virginia Strom-Martin's office, presented a
Resolution passed by the California State Assembly in recognition of the nation's public
owed utilities during this time of power shortages. October 7-13, 2001 has been
designated National Public Power Week.
Mayor Ashiku, Public Utilities Director Barnes and Electric Supervisor Bartolomei
accepted the Resolution on behalf of the City of Ukiah.
3. PROCLAMATION
3b. Proclamation: October 14-20, 2001 as Ukiah Valley Association for Habilitation
(UVAH) Week
Mayor Ashiku read the Proclamation designating October 14-20, 2001 as Ukiah Valley
Association for Habilitation (UVAH) Week in recognition of its 40th anniversary, encouraging
participation in the Awards and Anniversary Dinner on October 19, and congratulating the
UVAH Board of Directors, staff, and volunteers for their significant contribution to our
community and a job well done over these last 40 years.
Roy Smith, Executive Director of UVAH, accepted the Proclamation.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
4a. Regular Meeting of September 5, 2001
City Clerk Ulvila recommended the following corrections to the minutes:
Page 5: last paragraph, second sentence should read "Section 2827 requires that electric
utilities offer net metering to residential customers who install and operate solar electric
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page 1 of 31
generating facilities of 10 Kilowatts (Kw) or less to their residences."
Page 6: third paragraph beginning with Director Barnes, second to last sentence should
read "He explained that under the Investor Owned Utilities, and SB5x monies and 29x
monies customers under the Investor Owned Utilities are able to receive up to $5.50 per
Kw installed back."
Page 7: second paragraph beginning with Director Barnes, delete the second decimal from
all references to monetary value in sentence two.
Councilmember Smith recommended a correction to page 11, eighth paragraph, that the
"0" at the end of the sentence be deleted.
M/S Smith/Larson approving the minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 5, 2001as
amended; carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Larson, Smith,
Libby, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None.
5. RIGHT TO APPEAL DECISION
Mayor Ashiku read the appeal process.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
M/S Baldwin/Larson approving items a through e of the Consent Calendar as follows:
a. Approved Disbursements for Month of September 2001;
b. Authorized One-Time Payment to Mendocino County Department of Transportation and
Approved Budget Amendment for the City's Share of the Cost to Rehabilitate Vichy
Springs Road;
c. Received Report of Acquisition of Five Replacement Computer Systems From Premio
Computer, Inc. in the Amount of $6,662.89;
d. Rejected Claim for Damages from William H. Parducci, and Referred to Joint
Powers Authority, Redwood Empire Municipal Insurance Fund;
e. Received Report to Council Regarding Public Notification Regarding Vacancies on
Traffic Engineering Committee.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Larson, Smith, Libby,
Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None.
7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
No one came forward to address Council.
9. NEW BUSINESS
9b. Approval of New Development Permit Coordinator Position and Salary
Classification
City Manager Horsley advised that the proposed position would provide technical
assistance to the Building, Planning, and Public Works Departments, for the specific
purpose of facilitating and coordinating the permit process, thus eliminating these duties
from the current staffs. The position would replace the now vacant secretarial position that
was formerly assigned to these departments. This new classification would result in an
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page 2 of 3 ]
estimated increase to the Planning, Building, and Engineering budgets of approximately
$7,300 each ($21,914 total through the end of the current fiscal year).
M/S Smith/Baldwin Approving "Development Permit Coordinator" job description and
salary classification.
Discussion followed related to how the position would benefit the public with quicker permit
processing. It was noted by staff that it would be a full time position.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Larson, Smith,
Libby, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None.
6:48 p.m. Recessed.
7:00 p.m. Reconvened.
8. PUBLIC HEARING
8a. Public Hearin_cl Regardin_q Notification of Award of Federal Law Enforcement
Block Grant, Determination of Fund Allocation, and Approval of Budget
Amendment
Police Chief Williams explained that the City of Ukiah's application for grant funding, FY
2001/02, from the Federal Bureau of Justice Assistance was approved in the amount of
$32,045 with a local City match of $3,561, for a total project award of $35,606. The Local
Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) would be used for the Officer Transcription Project
at a cost of $20,000 and the remaining funds of $15,606 for the on-going Radio
Communications Improvement Project.
Public Hearing Opened: 7:02 p.m.
No comments received
Public Hearing Closed: 7:02 p.m.
M/S Smith/Larson approving the Officer Transcription Project ($20,000) and Radio
Communications Improvement Project ($15,606) at a total cost of $35,606 as an
expenditure program for the 2001/02 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant, and approving
amendment to the 2001/902 budget increasing revenue in account 207.0900.488.002
(2001/02 grant revenue) to $32,045, increasing revenue in account 207.0900.905.000
(miscellaneous revenue) by $1,061, decreasing expenditures in accounts
207.2001.250.000 and 207.2001.690.000 by $3,000 and $2,000 respectively, increasing
expenditures in account 207.2001.711.000 to $15,606, and increasing revenue in account
698.0900.905.201 to $15,606 for Transcription Activities and Radio Communication
Improvements; carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Larson,
Smith, Libby, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
8. PUBLIC HEARING
8b. Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Temporary Use Permit No. 01-34:
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page 3 of 3]
Ukiah Recycle, 1080 Cunningham Street
Associate Planner Lohse advised the Planning Commission considered Temporary Use
Permit No. 01-34 on September 12, 2001, to allow the establishment and operation of an
outdoor recycling center designed to serve as a temporary replacement facility for the
recycling center housed in a recently damaged structure on the eastern half of the subject
property. The proposed temporary outdoor facility would allow the recycling business to
continue operation until a determination could be made regarding the damaged structure.
The Planning Commission denied the Use Permit on a 3-2 vote, based upon the four
findings made by the Commission referenced on Page 5 of the September 12, 2001
Planning Commission minutes. The applicant timely appealed the Planning Commission's
decision to deny the project on September 21,2001.
The proposed site plan has been modified to include a chain link fence creating a barrier
between the dilapidated building and the outdoor operation and additional bins would be
added for glass collection. The outdoor recycling operation would be utilized for aluminum
cans, glass, plastic, metals, and larger recyclable items would not be collected at this
facility. Staff concluded prior to the Planning Commission hearing, that a workable plan
had been prepared whereby staff recommended approval of the proposed project subject
to various Findings and Conditions of Approval designed to address concerns relevant to
the temporary operation as well as the problems existing with the original recycling center
operation. He noted neighborhood property owners expressed concern the temporary
operation would exacerbate the existing problems including such impacts as noise, trash
and debris not appropriately maintained, fence screening, and the lack of landscaping
maintenance which was originally required in 1997 when the Use Permit establishing the
recycling operation was approved.
He noted regarding the appeal consideration, the Planning Department has changed its
recommendation to support denial of the temporary Use Permit based on the concurrent
Planning Commission Findings and the fact that the site has not been properly maintained
since the application was submitted. He emphasized the importance of the applicant
cleaning and maintaining the site. He addressed the modified Site Plan and noted no major
changes have been proposed. However, installation of a chain fence and increasing the
number of bins would be advantageous. The applicant is requesting a 45-day extension
on the Use Permit application and staff has provided alterative actions in the Staff Report,
dated October 17, 2001. He reported staff received several letters supporting
reinstatement of the project. The applicant is working with the owner of the building to
determine whether the permanent building would be renovated or rebuilt. Staff reaffirmed
there has been project modifications proposed that would be beneficial to maintaining the
site once it is cleaned, such as construction of the fence, placement of portable restroom
facilities and recycling bins, and sufficient visual screening.
Public Hearing Opened: 7:15 p.m.
Wayne Reynolds, Ukiah, applicant, clarified he is requesting a 45-day extension to
continue his operation to allow time to improve the property to include construction of a
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page 4 of 3 ]
wooden or slat fence around the parameters of the operation and placement of recycling
bins to keep material off the ground. He explained that the property owner has agreed to
renovate the building.
Councilmember Baldwin inquired regarding the applicant's original letter and what items
the recycling center would no longer accept.
Mr. Reynolds explained the operation would no longer accept cardboard, iron, tin and/or
other similar materials. The recycling center would accept aluminum cans as well as
aluminum siding if appropriately bundled for shipping.
Mr. Lohse noted the neighbors located to the north of the site are not supportive of the
project.
Councilmember Libby stated the Conditions of Approval relate to maintaining "good
neighbor" standards and site improvements to ensure a quality operation. She inquired
whether the applicant would be capable of completing the proposed project modifications
within 45 days.
Mr. Reynolds replied affirmatively. He briefly elaborated on the list of improvements
according to priority.
A brief discussion followed regarding the type of material and height requirements relevant
to the proposed new fence.
City Manager Horsley questioned whether the applicant would continue to operate for a
prolonged period of time within the fenced parameters should the property owner elect not
to renovate the existing building.
Mr. Reynolds replied the business could operate from cargo containers but he was not
supportive of this approach. If the owner elects not to repair the building he would make
plans to relocate his operation.
Councilmember Libby inquired from a public safety standpoint what legal measures
would be imposed on the owner to demolish and potentially reconstruct the building.
Planning Director Stump noted the property owner is aware of the pending building
condemnation procedures and this issue would be tentatively agendized as a nuisance
item for action at a regular City Council meeting. He also noted the property owner is
experiencing insurance problems in connection with the building. He clarified that the
applicant is seeking approval for the six month original Temporary Use Permit in addition to
the 45-day extension request. It would be beneficial if the applicant were to clean the site
within 45 days and noted, should the Temporary Use Permit be granted, the operation
would be allowed to continue for six months. It was noted the nuisance abatement
process could encompass many months and, therefore, reconstruction of the existing
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page 5 of 31
building could be delayed for a year.
There was a brief discussion relevant to the actual operation of the recycling business
specifically identifying what materials would be accepted and/or processed.
Public Hearing Opened: 7:15 p.m.
John McCowen, Ukiah, was supportive of the project and stated the business provides a
necessary service to the community. In his opinion, the recycling business was in
character with the existing neighborhood and was not aesthetically and/or visually
displeasing.
Bill Evans, Ukiah, stated it appears the business has not been operating within the
confines of the property when other businesses in the area are properly maintained and
professionally operated.
Michael Dunn, Ukiah, owns a business located behind the project and referred to the
recycling business from an aesthetic point of view as a "junkyard."
Lisa Dunn, Ukiah, did not favor the initial project when it was presented to the Planning
Commission on September 12, 2001, and stated the business does not comply
aesthetically with the standards of the neighborhood.
It was noted the project also encompasses public parking and traffic congestion problems.
John McCowen stated he has never observed parking and/or circulation problems with the
recycling business.
Chris Ruddick, Ukiah, owner of property in the vicinity, was not supportive of the project
as the business is not appropriately maintained and/or managed allowing the market value
of the existing properties to decline.
Public Hearing Closed: 7:41 p.m.
Councilmember Smith was not optimistic the property owner would accomplish the
necessary site improvements in compliance with the Conditions of Approval and Ukiah
Municipal Code within the six month period. He favored approval of the six month
Temporary Use Permit application to allow for continued operation, but encouraged the
applicant to begin looking for an alternative site as soon as possible.
City Manager Horsley advised staff would closely monitor the recycling operations to
ensure conformity with the provisions of the Conditions of Approval and the Code
requirements should the Council approve the Temporary Use Permit application.
There was a brief discussion regarding appropriate parking accommodations.
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page 6 of 3]
Councilmember Baldwin inquired regarding the provisions outlined in Condition of
Approval No. 5 and whether the applicant was already in operation.
Mr. Lohse reported the applicant's business is still in operation and it is the customary
procedure for the applicant to be allowed to continue operation while going through the
Use Permit process.
Councilmember Baldwin inquired as to how and when approval would be obtained
regarding the outdoor operation.
Mr. Lohse replied that the original Condition as submitted, would have allowed the
Planning Department the opportunity to inspect the site when the applicant was ready.
Staff changed its recommendation on the premise that appropriate changes were not
adhered to in accordance with the proposed Site Plan standards submitted.
Councilmember Baldwin questioned regarding Condition No. 5 as to whether the
applicant would be allowed to operate until the Planning and Public Works Departments
inspect and approve the site.
Mr. Lohse noted it could continue to operate if the project site corresponds with the Use
Permit application and the accompanying site plans. Staff would consider changing the
wording relevant to Condition No. 5 provided a specific time period was established for the
applicant to be in compliance with the Site Plan.
Councilmember Smith inquired about the written interpretation of Condition No. 5 and
whether the Use Permit could be issued effective immediately whereby the six-month time
period would also begin. He further inquired if the applicant chose to shut down the
operation while implementing the project modifications to comply with the 17 Conditions of
Approval, if the six-month period would begin upon staff's property inspection?
Mr. Lohse replied affirmatively, as worded in the Condition with the exclusion of a specific
date. It was noted the applicant has not been operating in compliance to the Site Plans as
originally submitted. The business has never ceased to operate.
Councilmember Baldwin inquired whether a reasonable time frame could be incorporated
into Condition No. 5 for the applicant to be inspected and approved.
Mr. Stump stated regarding Condition No. 5, the City Council possesses the option to
approve the Temporary Use Permit for six months by specifying an action date or advising
the applicant he is not operating in an outdoor fashion according to the standards provided
for in the Site Plans and that if the Temporary Use Permit were approved, there would be a
six month period to fully comply with the Code and Conditions of Approval for the
temporary operation.
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page ? of 3]
Mayor Ashiku proposed Council approve the Temporary Use Permit for six months to
operate the recycling business temporarily to include compliance with the project
Conditions allowing staff the opportunity to make the appropriate assessment relevant to
determining whether a permanent Use Permit is justified in the future as well as to allow
time to determine the fate of the existing building.
Councilmember Libby expressed concern that the applicant would be unable to meet the
required project conditions within 45 days.
M/S Libby/Smith approving Temporary Use Permit No. 01-34, that the 17 Conditions of
Approval be met within a 45 day time period to begin immediately, including the findings to
support the approval of the Use Permit as indicated in the Planning Commission Staff
report, and that staff will regularly inspect the site and ensure compliance of the 17
Conditions of Approval.
Mr. Reynolds stated he understands that all 17 Conditions of Approval must be met within
45 days and he would be able to construct the fence, implement the new recycling bins,
and clean the site during that time.
Mr. Stump noted noncompliance of the above-referenced conditions within the 45-day
period would constitute grounds for revocation and, therefore, the revocation process
would begin as outlined in the Ukiah Municipal Code.
Councilmember Larson commented on the motion and inquired whether approval of a
Temporary Use Permit for the outdoor establishment would preclude the existing Major
Use Permit.
Mr. Stump replied negatively and noted the existing Major Use Permit is still valid.
Councilmember Larson noted the Planning Commission possesses the authority, when
necessary, to proceed with revocation of a Major Use Permit and inquired whether
revocation proceedings would have any effect or bearing on the operation under the
Temporary Use Permit.
Mr. Stump replied negatively and noted once the six months has lapsed the Temporary
Use Permit is no longer valid.
There was a brief discussion relevant to a good neighbor policy and staff noted the City
does not have an official policy.
Councilmember Larson addressed the negative visual impacts the business has imposed
on the neighborhood, but noted the nature of the business provides an untidy appearance.
He stated the business provides a vital service to the community and its operation should
continue. Compliance with the Conditions of Approval is important with visual screening a
priority. He stated part of the problem associated with the business is the unwillingness of
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page 8 of 3!
the property owner to assist the tenant in making improvements to the existing structure
and other business related necessities. He suggested utilizing the 45-day period by
cleaning the area to meet the prioritized Conditions of Approval and to develop a plan
whereby a written commitment would be made by the property owner to redevelop the
property for the tenant or alternatively, create a plan assisting the tenant with relocating his
business. He recommended the Planning Commission or City Council review this project
in 45 days relevant to a progress report and development plan.
There was discussion relative to potential liability issues in conjunction with the existing
condemned building and it was determined the new fence, as referenced on the revised
Site Plan, would created a buffer between the business and the building. Although not
conditioned, the buffer exists on the Site Plan and, therefore, is part of the project. The City
Building Inspector requires a buffer between 20 and 25 feet be implemented.
Mayor Ashiku stated the buffer should be implemented immediately to avoid potential
safety hazards.
It was not known whether the subject building possesses electrical power and staff would
verify this issue.
Councilmember Baldwin commented on the importance of supporting private enterprises.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Larson, Smith,
Libby, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None.
9. NEW BUSINESS
9a. Discussion and Possible Adoption of a Mitigated Neclative Declaration for the
HulI-Piffero Subdivision and Use Permit Project
Planning Director Stump advised the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was
prepared for the Hull/Piffero five-parcel Subdivision and Use Permit project on a 40-acre
parcel in the western hillside area. The project involves the construction of a single-family
home on one of the parcels and a Use Permit for the legalization of unauthorized grading
and construction activities that have occurred on the property. The Public Hearing focuses
on the appropriateness of the Mitigated Negative Declaration; whether it adequately
identifies potential significant environmental effects and whether such effects can be
mitigated. The merits of the Subdivision and Use Permit would be noticed separately for a
future discretionary hearing. The City Council must discuss the proposed Mitigated
Negative Declaration and determine if it adequately identifies potentially significant adverse
environmental impacts and decide if the proposed mitigation program adequately
eliminated the impacts or reduces them to a point whereby no significant effects would
occur. If the Council is unable to make this finding based upon the Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration, comment letters, Response to Comments and other project related
documentations/records; it must require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR).
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page 9 of 3]
He briefly elaborated on the project background and stated an enforcement action was
taken on this project in 1998 relevant to unauthorized grading activity whereby the
appropriate requisite permits were applied for. He stated the project evolved to include a
subdivision with the intent to build a home on one of the lots. Staff reviewed the proposed
project and after the preparation of an Initial Study determined there would be potentially
significant environmental effects. Staff was unable, at that time, to identify sufficient
mitigation measures to pursue a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and therefore required the
preparation of an EIR. In response, the applicants revised the project most notably to
reduce the height of structures, to maintain a certain color palate for the exterior of the
buildings, and to develop/propose fire protection mitigation measures. They also submitted
additional technical information, a Visual Quality Analysis, and additional geotechnical/soil
information whereby staff reviewed the information and concluded there were mitigation
measures that staff could identify, which is the reason for the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was presented for public review and it was
sent to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to state and federal agencies, the
Department of Fish and Game, and the Department of Forestry. There were no comments
made in response from any agency except the Mendocino County Planning Department
during the required 30-day review period. He noted there were many articulate and
meaningful comments received from the public focusing on a wide range of potential
impacts that included water runoff/drainage, soil instability, water quality, vegetation
removal, growth inducement, traffic generation, as well as other related potential impacts.
Staff reviewed and responded to the comments relevant to the proposed Mitigated
Negative Declaration whereby staff concluded a Mitigated Negative Declaration still was
appropriate for the project. The Planning Commission reviewed the information and
conducted a lengthy public hearing regarding the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
on September 26, 2001, whereby the Commission concluded the Mitigated Negative
Declaration did not successfully evaluate all the impacts and that the accompanying
mitigated measures did not sufficiently address the impacts proposed. The Planning
Commission unanimously voted to recommend that the City Council require the
preparation of an EIR.
He reiterated the City Council must discuss and consider the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and determine whether it can be adopted for the project based upon its
independent judgment and the records/information submitted. If the Council determines
that the Mitigated Negative Declaration is not adequate, it must require the preparation of
an El R. He reported one of the main Planning Commission issues was the geology of the
site. There was testimony during the Planning Commission hearing from a registered
engineering geologist expressing concern regarding the adequacy of the Geotechnical
Studies, the potential for debris slides, and that other potential events on the property were
not satisfactorily addressed in the geotechnical information submitted. The applicants
submitted additional information addressing the above-referenced concerns to the City
Council.
Councilmember Baldwin inquired whether staff was challenging the Planning
Commission's unanimous decision.
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page 10 of 31
Mr. Stump replied staff believes the Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately identifies
the significant environmental effects potentially caused by the project and that the
mitigation measures successfully offset those impacts and, therefore, was supportive of the
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Councilmember Baldwin inquired regarding page 52 of the Initial Study whether staff
consulted with City Manager Horsley about the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Mr. Stump replied that he keeps the City Manager informed of the status of all projects,
and that she did not make any recommendation regarding the Mitigated Negative
Declaration or project merits.
Tom Brigham, Ukiah, applicant representative, addressed the written and oral
comments relevant to the project and stated a legal focus is necessary for this proceeding.
He stated the proceeding is concerned with approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration
and not the project merits. He reported project opponent comments and Planning
Commission discussion concentrated heavily on the project merits. He stated the project
opponents do not favor hillside development of any type. The subject property is zoned R-
1whereby residential, one-acre parcels could be approved and there is nothing in the
Hillside Zoning Ordinance to prohibit the project. However, approval or disapproval of the
project is not the subject of this particular hearing. He addressed other issues proposed by
the public opponents and the Planning Commission, which include claimed illegalities by
the applicants, matter of hillside studies and future hillside ordinances, and alleged
potential enforcement problems. He considered these to be non-issue items. He first
addressed the applicant illegalities and/or legalization of certain unauthorized activities and
stated this issue pertains to approval of a Use Permit, which is not the subject of this
hearing. The only portion of this issue to be reviewed by Council is whether the above-
referenced activities create environmental impacts. He stated the unauthorized activities,
the measures the applicants took to correct the activities, and staff's response to those
corrections should be discussed and clarified. The property was purchased in 1998 and
the applicants cleared vegetation, repaired culverts and placed shale on the road in an
effort to improve the existing road. At that time, it was the applicants' intention to
subdivide the 40-acre parcels into to two 20-acre parcels for each family, Hull and Piffero,
and construct two homes on each of the two 20-acre parcels. Vegetation was cleared to
the property in addition to the road improvements and this work should be distinguished
from the clearing activities from a neighboring property owner. Water sources had to be
established prior to approval for construction of the proposed homes. A water supply was
located and the well was drilled after securing a permit. It was connected to a temporary
water storage tank whereby staff halted the activities at that time. The Hillside Zoning
Ordinance provides that a permit must be secured for any construction or grading. He
questioned whether placement of a temporary storage tank on the property constitutes
construction and stated that grading encompasses the moving of 50 cubic yards or more of
earth. The applicants put in a telephone line whereby staff believed trenching activity had
occurred, but in actuality, the line was plowed into the road. Staff may not presently view
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page 11 of 31
this procedure as grading activity. He conceded the other activities associated with the
land improvements did result in the moving of more than 50 cubic yard of earth thus
requiring a permit. It was his understanding that removal of shrubs and clearing not
involving grading does not require a permit. He noted the activities that had the public
interested and/or upset, did not require a permit. A permit was necessary for the roadwork
improvements, however the applicants were not aware of this requirement.
He addressed the second non-issue to include the concept that should the project be
allowed to proceed it would establish precedence or that the project should not proceed
until the hillside study is completed, and/or until a future undefined Hillside Ordinance is
adopted. The problem with this approach is that the applicants applied for subdivision
approval under the existing law and therefore possesses the legal right to have their
application processed under the existing law and not a future law that may be retroactively
applied to their project. He further addressed the third non-issue concerning enforcement
and noted whether the mitigations could not occur because City staff could not enforce
them is a speculative argument. This hearing encompasses whether the Mitigated
Negative Declaration identifies all of the significant environmental effects that may occur
and whether they are either avoided or mitigated to the point where they are no longer
significant by the mitigation measures. The foundation for this determination can be found
in the CEQA guidelines, specifically outlined in section 15064, items F4 and F5. The
determination whether an El R is required is contingent upon whether there is substantial
evidence before the agency that the project may have a significant effect on the
environment and not on whether there is a public controversy over the issue. Evidence of
significant impacts dictates the preparation of an EIR. The guidelines provide that
argument, speculation, unsubstantiated narrative/opinion, evidence clearly inadequate or
erroneous or evidence not creditable shall not constitute substantial evidence to include
facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinions supported by
facts. He stated that at the Planning Commission public hearing, speaker Julie Bawcom
was not a licensed engineer and that her opinions, speculations, and/or conclusions are
"riddled with factual inaccuracies." He noted under the CEQA guideline her commentary
could not be considered as substantial evidence. Staff reviewed the standard areas of
possible environmental effects and specifically identified some of those potential effects.
Staff further noted some of these potential environmental effects could be eliminated or
reduced to insignificant levels by the mitigation measures. He noted there are some
differences between what staff and the public opponents have identified as potential
significant environmental effects. The issue is whether the potential significant
environment effects have been successfully mitigated. The applicants have submitted
professional reports encompassing substantial evidence on the project issues.
Mr. Brigham stated his clients would indemnify the City against any legal costs it may
incur relevant to legal liability for the attorney's fees of others in connection with a legal
challenge to an approved Mitigated Negative Declaration. He addressed the visual impact
issues noting Mr. Benke is a very qualified and credible geotechnical engineer.
Mr. Stump noted the minimum lot size for a R-1 Hillside Zoning District depends upon the
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page 12of31
slope of the ground and stated a 10,000 square foot lot would be acceptable provided the
ground is level. A larger lot is required as the ground becomes steeper.
Councilmember Larson inquired whether there are a specific number of parcel sizes that
could be obtained.
Mr. Stump replied that the parcel sizes vary.
Councilmember Larson inquired regarding the geotechnical report on pad development
and noted there was no reference to this issue by Attorney Brigham.
Mr. Brigham replied staff characterized this issue as minor pad development, but he had
no knowledge as to the extent of pad development.
Councilmember Baldwin inquired as to the nature of work relevant to the Community
Development Agency in Marin County.
Mr. Stump replied the aforementioned agency was contacted and stated the agency title is
misleading as it was actually the former Planning and Community Development
Department considered to be the Marin County Planning Department.
Councilmember Baldwin inquired whether the agency was ever employed to oppose a
development project.
Mr. Stump had no knowledge and stated Mr. Benke could probably answer this question.
Henry Benke, applicant's geotechnical engineer from Visual Impact Analysis, stated
his business specializes in environmental graphics whereby the applicants hired him to
prepare a visual analysis of the proposed project. He stated his firm has prepared data in
opposition to a project. He provided a computer generated 3-D visual quality analysis
overview from data produced from an Auto Cad software program. This program allowed
information subject to CEQA requirements to be evaluated and/or project information
utilizing digital imaging to calculate this information. The demonstration provided a variety
of views from various vantage points, taking into consideration the vicinity of the homes
relationship to surrounding vegetation in certain locations, the actual residential distribution
prototype for the site in terms of design/size/color, projected land visual images at build-
out, various terrain imaging, and other pertinent digital imaging necessary in identifying,
project, and drawing conclusion regarding significant visual impacts subject to CEQA
requirements according to the project plans. He addressed the distance considerations
and stated his software adequately incorporates this data and defines the scale
proportionately from the project plans.
Councilmember Baldwin questioned the software's ability to depict depth and size of
visual images.
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page 13 of 31
Mr. Benke stated visual images regarding depth and size are affected on the software by
elevation variances of the sites depicted for comparison purposes. Therefore, the actual
distance from the homes is not perceived as a straight lateral distance due to incline in
elevation. He stated the viewer is used to perceiving a horizon line as if it were a perfectly
flat surface.
Recessed: 10:00 p.m.
Reconvened: 10:18 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 10:18 p.m.
William French, Ukiah, questioned Attorney Brigham's assessment of the project and held
the Attorney responsible of possibly biasing the Council. He was not opposed to the
project, but favored the concept of implementing an EIR as in his opinion; many issues
have not been appropriately mitigated. He recommended an independent review be
implemented.
Mayor Ashiku stated audience comments should reflect the adequacies of the Mitigated
Negative Declaration.
Gerald Keiffer, Ukiah, favored the Hull/Piffero project and stated the applicants intend to
preserve the natural beauty of the area creating the least amount of impact and
recommended approval of the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration. He briefly
summarized some of the site improvements made by the applicants and noted the
proposed homes are designed to be Iow profile and not noticeable from the valley floor.
Laura Flogg, Ukiah, expressed her faith in the process of municipal government and
stated the Planning Commission did make a unanimous recommendation that an EIR
would be required whereby there should be full consideration.
David Longstreth, Ukiah, certified engineering geologist, stated he favored the concept of
grading on hillsides within regulatory guidelines. In his review of the geological and
geotechnical reports, the free flowing debris hazards analysis was inadequate. He utilized
technical terminology to substantiate his argument against the analysis regarding free
flowing debris. He supported implementing an independent firm and/or certified geologist
to appropriately access the "factor of safety" for grading on the site. He expressed
concerned that elevation of ground water levels in the swales along with increased water
pressure and material in those swales could create the potential for debris flow. A public
safety hazard develops when the potential for debris and/or mudslides exist.
Mayor Ashiku stated Mr. Longstreth's testimony was in opposition to the project expert
analysis and inquired whether there were actual identifiable issues proposed regarding the
project that could potentially be hazardous to development in the hillside.
Mr. Longstreth replied the consultant for the applicant proposed drainage into the swales
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page 14of31
that could be potentially dangerous as landscaping is altered to allow for the home pads.
He was concerned with the potential slide hazards associated with the development of on-
site sewage systems and associated leach fields. He recommended further analysis with
on-site sewage systems and accompanying percolation tests located near potential swales
ensuring appropriate mitigation measures would be implemented to prevent the possibility
of mud slides. He noted projects require a quantitative analysis and or standard developed
to act as a tool allowing regulators to make appropriate decisions. He referenced the
grading issue requiring a "factor of safety" figure for the site to avoid the potential for future
debris flow and/or mudslides.
Julie Bawcom, Ukiah, advised that she spoke at the Planning Commission hearing and
her testimony is specifically detailed in the September 26, 2001 minutes. She has a
Masters Degree in geology encompassing post graduate work in engineering geology and
is a registered geologist as well as a certified engineering geologist. She briefly outlined
her 15 years of professional experience relevant to debris flow and mud slides. She
reported licensed engineering geologists are qualified to evaluate geotechnical reports and
bedrock material that deal with septic systems. Her position relevant to the project was
neutral, but noted the project possess certain mudslide issues/concerns. She provided a
cursory review of the geotechnical reports and identified a potential public safety hazard
that, in her opinion, has not been appropriately addressed. She recommended an
independent review be implemented, as City staff does not encompass the expertise to
evaluate the geotechnical information, which is standard practice in other municipalities.
She was one of the authors on the Landslides and Engineering Geology in the Western
Hills in Central Mendocino County that included a Landslide Hazard Map. This study
encompassing a slope stability analysis was performed as background data for future site-
specific studies. She stated the project has not provided for a detailed slope stability
analysis. She drew attention to the potential for debris flow hazards that exist on the
hillside and slopes below and in her opinion, were not appropriately addressed. She noted
there are one main and several minor alluvium filled swales that descend from the home
sites. She stated some of the minor alluvium filled swales are more serious than the deeper
in-sized channels because they do not accumulate alluvium, as there is enough water to
wash it down. She advised there may not be a problem associated with the project, but the
reports do not appropriately address this issue and, therefore, recommended the initiation
of an on-site independent review to correspond with this particular issue.
Tom MonPere, Ukiah, stated during his long time residency on the west side of Ukiah, he
has observed the results of the western hill slides. It was his opinion after reviewing the
geotechnical report that the City does not have adequate information to address the debris
flow issue. He recommended the approval of a project EIR that would address potential
mudslide issues in the western hills.
David Nelson, Ukiah, stated it is obvious the proposed project would have an impact on
the western hills and, in his opinion; the project has not been sufficiently mitigated. He
stated the existing road presents an obvious visual impact in addition to the visual impacts
to be created by the hillside development. He drew attention to Mr. Benke's presentation
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page 15 of 31
and stated as a person drives up Perkins Street, it would be a large impact to view five
homes in the western hills. He noted the project would be the first subdivision in the hills
and expressed concern relevant to the potential visual cumulative effect should all the
parcels be subdivided and developed. He stated this important aspect has not been
appropriately mitigated whereby an EIR would examine other alternatives in terms of build-
out and the resulting visual impacts. He did not favor approving projects on a parcel-by-
parcel basis and that the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration does not address long-
term effects.
Igor Zbitnoff, Ukiah, stated the focused EIR recommended by the Planning Commission
would appropriately address the issues of light/noise/visual impacts, build-out potential,
land stability, and fire protection. He recommended proceeding with a focused EIR noting
the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration does not sufficiently address the issues
referenced above in an effort to preserve the delicacy and fragility of the western hills. He
noted a focused EIR would ensure an effective stewardship of the western hills and urged
appropriate action by the Council in this endeavor.
Scott Bassani, Ukiah, was supportive of the project and commended the applicants for
the care and maintenance of the western hills relevant to the proposed project.
Chamise Cubbison, Ukiah, expressed concern regarding the potential for mudslides and
substantiated her position with examples of such occurrences where similar developments
have taken place and noted there have been mudslides in the western hills. She was not
opposed to the project, but expressed concern that not enough information has been
formulated to allow the project to proceed without appropriate mitigation measures in place.
Terry Poplawski, Ukiah, noted the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration does not
adequately address the potential environmental effects the project may create, and,
therefore supported the concept of initiating an EIR to further review grading, fire
protection, and many other project issues/impacts.
Phyllis Curtis, Ukiah, stated subdivision of the west hills is inconsistent with the Ukiah
General Plan and supported her statement with Findings. She expressed concern
whether proceeding with the project would set precedence for future hillside development
in the City and valley in the event the County adopts the Ukiah Valley Wide Plan. She
referred to the County's Planning Department comments stating that allowance for
substantial exceptions should be carefully evaluated. She stated clustering, which is
encouraged by the Ukiah General Plan, should be considered as the single most important
mitigation measure in reducing impacts to a number of areas. She stated maintaining
adherence to mitigation measures after project approval and construction would be difficult
to enforce. She was concerned with the City's ability to effectively monitor the 41 existing
mitigation measures. She drew attention to the City's initial inability to effectively monitor
past unauthorized hillside activities causing land erosion and mud to slide into Gibson
Creek.
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page 16of31
John Hiller, Ukiah, supported the Hull/Piffero Mitigated Negative Declaration and stated
the applicants have taken the necessary measures ensuring the project would carefully
and appropriately be developed.
Joan Herman, Ukiah, did not favor the project noting the natural beauty of the hillside
would be disturbed by the development.
John McCowen, Ukiah, stated he has experience with visual impacts on the western hills
and noted the visual presentation tended to minimize the project primarily with regard to
vegetation removal and whether the visual display actually represented the degree of
visual impact a person would see on the hills from the valley floor. He expressed concern
relevant to the visual presentation that there was no consideration for driveways and
access cuts and the associated removal of vegetation. He stated the project would
represent a significant visual impact and will change the appearance of the western hills.
Jan Moore, Ukiah, commended Mr. Hull for giving her a tour of the area and expressed
concern relevant to the safety of the hillsides in terms of fire and mudslide potential and
noted the recommended focused EIR would address wildlife, hydrology, geotechnology,
water/drainage, air quality, and noise issues. She recommended a peer review as well as
additional project studies be implemented.
Gary Bassani, Ukiah, questioned whether other similar projects for hillside development
have been subjected to as many problems as the Hull/Piffero project. He addressed the
problems associated with landslides that occurred at the southern end of the county and
elaborated on the reasons for those problems. He stated development should not be a
problem in the western hills provided the appropriate engineering measures are applied to
the project.
Robert Werra, Ukiah, has a home in the west hills in a City approved older four home
minor subdivision and noted geology engineering experts were hired to access the
development prior to construction of his home. He stated no EIR was required for the
subdivision and the Planning Commission accepted the geologist reports. He briefly
addressed the above-referenced environmental concerns and noted his home has been in
existence for 30 years and there have been no problems associated with the site. He
stated the real problem confronting the project is not the fact the public does not have faith
in City decisions and implementing mitigated environmental documents, but that it does not
want development in the west hills.
Al Beltrami, Ukiah, stated, as an alternative approach, a corporation could be formulated
to purchase parcels for those people not desiring western hill development or to allow the
City to purchase the development rights. He noted City staff has had sufficient time to
review the project in detail and noted the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is the
answer to the perceived problems. He noted view shed, housing, and private property are
important elements to be considered during the decision making process.
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page 17of31
Ross Liberty, Ukiah, stated there is a correlation between disallowing subdivisions and an
increase in housing prices and rents elsewhere in the area, noting supply and demand
affect housing prices. Housing prices are high in this community and there exists a cause
and effect relationship between high local housing costs and an overly restrictive Planning
Commission.
Mayor Ashiku informed the audience they should focus on the environmental studies,
which is the focal point of the hearing.
Robert Clark, Ukiah, supported the merits of the project and recommended approval of
the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Carrie Brown, Ukiah, recommended care and appropriate review be exercised in terms of
the agricultural constituents associated with the project. She recognized the necessity for
affordable housing in this community, but at the same time consideration must be given to
preservation of valley land. There is not a lot of flat land for housing development
remaining and, therefore, hillside development is an appropriate approach.
Mark Edwards, Redwood Valley, stated he is a forest consultant and prepared a report
along with the assistance of a licensed biologist and botanist pertaining to the issue of
vegetation manipulation for fire suppression. The study concluded the proposed
subdivision is not likely to result in significant adverse impacts to wildlife or the biological
resources evaluated. He proposed that a combination of design standards be applied to
the proposed homes in terms of non-combustible and/or fire preventative services in
conjunction with materials, construction methods, water supply, appropriate access, and
other relevant issues. He also proposed manipulating the vegetation immediately
surrounding the home and lots to reduce the chance for vegetation to become flammable.
He stated a vegetative management plan could be implemented as a condition of the Use
Permit.
Nell Thompson, Ukiah, soils engineer and engineering geologist for the project,
spoke at the Planning Commission and his testimony is specifically outlined in the
September 26, 2001 minutes. He addressed the concept of peer review and stated an
alternate consulting firm reviewed his initial project presentation whereby the conclusions
were the same overall. A peer review has been accomplished for the project in this area.
Councilmember Larson inquired regarding the engineering report conducted by BACE
Geotechnical whether they recommended the project is connected to the City's sewer
system.
Mr. Thompson stated it was his understanding this was not the firm's conclusion and the
statement is a proposal from another source. He noted there is no information in the City
or County's grading code requiring a soils stability analysis versus a quantitative analysis in
terms of relative importance to one another. He prefers to collect data by visiting the site
and evaluating the soil, bedrock, and other associated issues prior to making a project
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page 18of31
recommendation. He stated the public should not be concerned about his studies, as it is
his responsibility to make the correct assessment.
Recessed: 10:00 p.m.
Reconvened: 10:18 p.m.
Attorney Brigham drew attention to a geotechnical map and noted only a limited portion of
the Hull/Piffero parcel actually exists in the Gibson Creek drainage area. The Nix project is
entirely within the Gibson Creek drainage area and a good portion of the road also exists in
the drainage area. This project has very little to do with Gibson Creek issues and/or
concerns and, therefore, public testimony was limited for this hearing. He addressed the
soils/geology matter referencing speakers Mr. Longstreth and Ms. Bawcom and elaborated
on their professional qualifications. He questioned the credentials of Ms. Bawcom making
a determination regarding the soils issues. He drew attention to Mr. Thompson's
assessment of Ms. Bawcom's concerns and noted her documentation contained errors and
he briefly elaborated on these misconceptions. He reaffirmed that opinions must be
supported by factual information and that arguments, speculations, and unsubstantiated
opinions are not sufficient evidence for purposes of determining whether there is the
possibility of a significant environmental impact. The problems associated with Mr.
Longstreth and Ms. Bawcom's testimonies are that they were of a speculative nature. He
stated regarding peer reviews that the applicants hired two sets of engineering firms to
evaluate the project issues, which, in his opinion, is substantial. There has been no
evidence presented in opposition to these studies.
Dave Nelson, Ukiah, summarized that the focus was to encourage the City Council to
seriously consider the unanimous decision of the Planning Commission for a focused EIR
whereby the issues not appropriately addressed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration
would be reviewed. He expressed concern relevant to implementing measures
appropriately addressing fire protection that have not been adequately evaluated in the
Negative Declaration.
William French, Ukiah, stated the hearing is not about segregating viewpoints between
applicants and opponents, but a gathering of concerned citizens ensuring that a decision
be made based upon the best possible evidence presented.
Dave Hull, Ukiah, applicant, addressed some the issues referenced at the hearing and
stated the applicants have worked extensively with the City Fire Department including
California Department of Forestry (CDF) and noted the mitigated measures are intended to
address projects not considered standard. He addressed the access issue and stated
there are approximately 10 different ways to exit the property in connection with the fire
safety issue. He stated there are fire trails demonstrated on the site map that can be
utilized for access purposes. He addressed the design elements set forth in the Codes,
Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R) and noted precautions have been implemented to
assist with fire deterrence. He advised fire hydrants would be present on site according to
City requirements. The applicants intend to pave the road beginning from Standley Street
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page 19of31
to the sites encompassing an 18-foot minimum. It was further noted the grade would not
exceed 20 percent in any area of the road.
He stated when the project was initiated whereby the applicants were contemplating two 20
acre parcels, there were no clear City guidelines and regulations relevant to the road and
associated improvements. The Hillside Ordinance does not provide for road guidelines
pursuant to the project and, therefore, the applicants worked with City staff to establish
appropriate road improvement guidelines. He addressed the cost associated with an 18-
foot versus a 20-foot paved road. The applicants initially anticipated they would not be
responsible for such improvements as curb, gutter, and sidewalk. It later became apparent
that maintaining and improving two 20-acre parcels would be too costly and the project was
modified to the 5-parcel Subdivision and Use Permit.
Council member Baldwin drew attention to page 35 of the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration, item No. 28 referencing the height of the structures in terms of the natural
grade, and inquired whether a person on a slight slope would be able to build a multistory
structure as the slopes ascends.
Mr. Hull referred the aforementioned query to staff, but stated, in his opinion, building
accommodations would begin from the location of the 20-foot measurement. He stated the
intent would probably be to measure the 20 feet from the lowest point of the grade in order
to make the appropriate building determination.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 10:40 p.m.
Mayor Ashiku inquired regarding the rationale for the 20-foot road standard.
Planning Director Stump replied the aforementioned road standard was designed for flat
land development. The Hillside Ordinance does not provide regulations for hillside road
standards. It was noted CDF standards for roads is an 18-foot minimum to coincide with
fire safety practices.
Interim Fire Chief Grebil reported the City applied the State Fire Safety Standards for the
project requiring a minimum of 18-feet and a surface roadway, as there are no specific
roadway standards in the Hillside Ordinance. He stated the Fire Department would be able
to provide adequate fire protection in the western hills based upon the proposed mitigation
measures. He referred to his initial documentation relevant to fire safety in the western
hills and stated the Fire Department has a 5-minute response time anywhere in the City.
The Fire Department would be unable to meet this response time for the western hills.
However, the applicants have successfully mitigated all the Fire Department's concerns
relevant to fire protection measures in the western hills and he listed some of the
prevention measures implemented that are included in his report. He stated with an 18-
foot paved roadway together with a grade not exceeding 20 percent, fire
equipment/vehicles would be able to travel the road. In his project review, the fire trails
and other access accommodations were not considered in the Fire Department's
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page 20
recommendations. The State Fire Safety Standard does not address any mitigations for the
6,000 foot roadway, but it implies that any roadway in excess of the maximum allowed
length will connect with another approved paved, all surface roadway for fire equipment
access purposes ultimately allowing response out-of-the area possible. The Standard
states that the intent of an approved roadway system shall be to provide for safe access of
emergency wildland fire equipment and civilian evacuation concurrently. This is the reason
why multiple roadways must be provided in the area.
Coucilmember Larson inquired regarding the Standard referenced-above and whether
only wildland fire equipment could safely be taken on the road.
Chief Grebil replied with the 20 percent grade, wildland fire equipment would safely be
able to access the roadway. The fire equipment used in the western hills would not be the
same equipment utilized for the City's fire protection. The limit for fire safety standards is
regulated to the build-up or the potential of the number of vehicles or people exiting that
length of roadway as well as the amount of emergency equipment going into the site.
He noted the Standards assume the longer the road, the more homes.
Mayor Ashiku inquired should a wildland fire occur would the fire protection measures on-
site allow for a sufficient defensible zone to protect personnel.
Chief Grebil replied in the event of a fire in the west hills, the City Fire Department would
immediately summon assistance from other fire fighting agencies within the area for a full
wildland response. The capabilities of a multi-agency response would be dependent upon
many factors and he expanded on those factors that could affect response time. He briefly
elaborated on the tactic proposed for protection of lower lying homes in the area.
Councilmember Baldwin inquired regarding the availability of water after a prolonged dry
season.
Mr. Hull referenced the existing well and noted the static pressure for the water supply was
tested this past year that amounted to approximately 250 feet pumping water in excess of
120 gallons per minute. The pumping ability encompasses a single-phase pump currently
pumping 25 gallons of water a minute to the top of the tank.
Councilmember Libby inquired regarding the well facility and the Planning Commission's
concern whether the private well would drain water off the City's supply.
Mr. Stump stated the Planning Commission expressed a concern that the well in extracting
water from its source, could potentially impact the City's water supply and this issue was
discussed with the Director of Public Utilities. It was determined the City's water supply is
derived primarily from the Russian River with little relationship between the City's water
supply and this project.
Councilmember Libby inquired whether it was standard procedure to provide for peer
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page 21of31
review of housing projects in terms of geotechnical studies.
Mr. Stump replied negatively, but noted this project is more complicated and encompasses
many technical issues.
Councilmember Baldwin questioned water rights issues and inquired whether wells do
not rely on Russian River water and that water comes from an aquifer fed from water from
the hills.
Mayor Ashiku stated the Hull/Piffero water belongs to them and hypothetically evaluated
the amount of water necessary to accommodate the projected five new homes on the site
stating the amount would be insignificant.
Councilmember Baldwin drew attention to page 35 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration
and inquired whether there could be any potential misinterpretation of the proposed one-
story building height based upon a slope or the building of a tiered structure whereby such
a structure could never be more than 20 feet above any part of the slope.
Mr. Stump stated building height would be determined on how the slope measurement is
calculated. The regulations would not allow a home to exceed the 20-foot limit at any point
and would be measured at an angle on the downside of the slope. The intent is to limit the
building height of the proposed homes whereby the City Council must decide whether the
one-story measurement meets the prototype of the single-story home set forth in the Visual
Quality Analysis, which is the focus of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for this issue. He
suggested a specific height limit such as 20 feet, be implemented should the Council
believe the one-story height limit may be exceeded.
There was discussion regarding the concept of "stepping back stories of homes" within the
terrain.
Councilmember Smith inquired regarding the methodology for calculating the 20-foot
height limit.
Mr. Stump reaffirmed the calculation would be based upon a parallel line to the slope
whereby a home could not exceed 20 feet at any given point on the slope.
Councilmember Smith inquired regarding the soils issue whether the applicants would be
required to submit soil engineering reports as part of the Use Permit process for future
homes.
Mr. Stump replied affirmatively. He reported the applicants have submitted geotechnical
soils studies on all the proposed home sites including very detailed work on the site
proposed for development as part of this project. He reported all home development would
be subject to the discretionary review process by the Planning Commission to include all of
the compliance issues discussed above as an ongoing function.
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page 22 of 31
Councilmember Larson inquired regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration section on
Growth Inducement and whether this portion was a mandate for an Initial Study.
Mr. Stump stated negatively, but noted Cumulative Impacts are mandated in a Mitigated
Negative Declaration.
City Attorney Rapport noted Growth Inducement is a possible adverse environmental
effect from a project and, therefore, would have to be considered and a determination
made that the project would not be growth inducing or that there are mitigations to prevent
it from being growth inducing. It was his understanding there were restrictions in the
proposed Tentative Map that would prohibit growth and that Growth Inducement pertained
to roadway improvements to provide access to the area. There are restrictions on the
Tentative Map prohibiting any development other than the five lots in the proposed
subdivision from having the right to use the access road to other property and this factor is
addressed in the mitigation measures. The concept of Cumulative Impacts includes the
consideration for present, past, and probable future projects. Probable future projects
means pertain to those projects already in the permit process or those foreseeable projects
factually understood to be in the permit process at some point in the future, and CEQA
requires such projects be reviewed. There has been no evidence presented that any
probable future projects exist for this particular project. Growth Inducement issue is more
relevant to an Cumulative Impact Analysis.
Councilmember Larson drew attention to pages 46 and 47 of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration referencing the deed restrictions limiting use of the road to the existing
residents and noted the following mitigation measure indicates that any action to modify
the deed restriction language must be reviewed and approved by the City Council.
Mr. Stump noted the aforementioned mitigation measure requirement of the City Council
was intended to be included in the Tentative Subdivision Map to modifythe deed restriction
condition.
Councilmember Larson questioned how the deed restriction could be considered
mitigation when this same mitigation measure could be rescinded by a future City Council.
City Attorney Rapport stated the intent of the condition was to prevent the property
owners from modifying the deed restriction measure whereby without City Council
approval.
Councilmember Larson noted mitigations shouldn't be formulated with loopholes allowing
it to be later modified and/or rescinded without further environmental review other than City
Council approval.
City Attorney Rapport stated the intent is to prevent any future subdivisions for other
property owners to utilize the existing roadway. He stated the above-referenced procedure
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page 23 of 3]
would not get around the Cumulative Impact issue. The Cumulative Impact concept very
often creates pressure for decision makers to make changes permitting future growth even
if it is not permitted under existing rules or regulations. He stated Councilmember Larson's
point was valid. Hypothetically, if a particular area is zoned in a way not allowing future
development but future improvements and/or infrastructures are proposed that would
permit additional development, then Growth Inducement Impacts must be considered and
pressure would be created on the decision making body to change the zoning laws to
permit future development.
Mayor Ashiku inquired regarding the methodology and/or effectiveness of qualitative
versus quantitative analysis pertinent to project experts in terms of securing factual
information for environmental review purposes.
City Attorney Rapport reported the guidelines provide that should there be disagreement
among experts whereby the expert opinion is based upon factual evidence and there is
conflict over whether an impact would be significant or with identification of the impact then
an EIR would be required. The expert testimony for this project does not appear to be
conflicting over what the impacts would be. However, some of the licensed engineers for
the applicants are stating that based upon the site work they have done and/or quantitative
analysis derived, there would be no geological impact for the project while other
credentialed experts subjectively reviewing the project stated they do not know whether
there would be adverse effects, so there is not really any disagreement.
Councilmember Baldwin inquired whether the Geotechnical Report formulated by Mr.
Thompson referring to the project, as a school site was a typographical error.
Mr. Stump replied affirmatively and stated staff's original concern was whether the report
accurately reflected the work performed on the property or whether data was mixed with
other data from other projects, which was not the case.
Councilmember Baldwin stated the noise issues on pages 32 and 33 of the Mitigated
Negative Declaration are inadequately addressed as in some respects the valley
neighborhoods are quieter than in the western hills. He stated there is a potential that the
noise from off-road vehicles in the hills would affect the neighborhood and stated new
noises are not addressed in the mitigation measures.
Mr. Stump replied that staff's analysis considered all noises typical with residential
development of this type. Staff concluded there would be noise and there exists the
tendency to hear noise emanating from the upper portions of the hills. The question is
whether this noise is significant or whether any established threshold referenced in the
Noise Ordinance/Ukiah Municipal Code would be violated. If staff determined there would
be no significant impacts and no violations to the Noise Ordinance, then the issue
becomes a subjective opinion similar to the Visual Quality Analysis and staff concluded
noise impacts to be insignificant.
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page 24 of 3]
Councilmember Baldwin inquired how the subjective issues such as noise and visual
impacts would be legally dealt with in court. He further inquired if the noise and visual
impacts are subjective where does the expert opinion come into effect or does the concept
of an expert opinion exist?
Mr. Stump replied the Initial Study included significant criteria for each topical issue to
establish thresholds to be utilized in evaluating the impacts.
City Attorney Rapport stated the courts recognize an articulated standard of significance
as staff referenced above.
Councilmember Baldwin noted a geological or engineering firm would not possess an
understanding of a precedence setting nature on land use decisions.
Mr, Stump replied affirmatively and noted the contribution provided by the project engineer
in terms of growth inducement was slope and other relative land feature evaluations prior
to deriving at a conclusion pertinent to growth potential. He noted experts have a tendency
to stick with their perspective specialties relative to evaluations outside of the engineering,
slope, and geology realm.
Councilmember Baldwin noted the project photographs demonstrate that the slopes
throughout the entire western hills that are part of the City were generally the same slopes
depicted and, therefore, application of concepts of Cumulative Impacts and Growth
Inducement indicate it is not too steep to build elsewhere. Secondly, if the roadway were
sealed off at the west end of the property, there is another road near Gibson Creek Canyon
that could be utilized for access to many of the other parcels.
Mr. Stump was not familiar with other access roads, but noted there is a roadway going up
Gibson Creek Canyon.
Councilmember Baldwin inquired whether staff considered the issue of precedence that
this project may have on future projects.
Mr. Stump replied that staff reviews each project on its individual merits since every site
has its own ramifications and uniqueness. He stated, for example, a future subdivision
may be ill conceived and geologically unstable and, therefore, denied. Therefore, this
particular project would not necessarily be setting precedence for future projects.
Councilmember Baldwin inquired whether it was required in the Negative Declaration for
the proposal to be consistent with the Ukiah General Plan.
Mr. Stump replied that Ukiah General Plan consistency is required by law and must be
established prior to approval. Before the City Council acts on the merits of the project, a
Finding must be established demonstrating Ukiah General Plan consistency.
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page 25 of 31
Councilmember Libby reiterated that an enormous amount of information has been
presented pertinent to this project and she commended staff, applicants, and the experts
for the collection and processing of this information. She referenced the Planning
Commission minutes of September 26, 2001, and noted testimony was made that the work
performed on the studies far exceeded what would be obtained in an EIR. She supported
this concept and encouraged Council to review the evidence and/or substantial facts prior
to making a decision. She recommended no EIR be required for the project as the
mitigated measures and the information supplied would be sufficient evidence.
Councilmember Larson also commended staff and the applicants for their efforts in
bringing forth a well-organized project in terms of information. He stated Council's job is to
ensure that the mitigations appropriately address the identified impacts. He addressed his
earlier concern whereby he questioned whether the mitigations accurately address the
possibility for revocation of the deed restrictions allowing additional access on the roadway.
He possessed serious concerns pertinent to fire protection especially since CDF did not
respond to the document. The issues of Growth Inducement and Cumulative Impacts have
not been adequately addressed and/or mitigated and stated the document, in terms of
Cumulative Impacts, refers primarily to the project at hand. He stated testimony has
suggested the project could be precedence setting for future projects. He stated the
County possesses land in this area zoned for 40-acre minimums and if the entire area is
rezoned by Use Permit to accommodate five-acre density, the County would be under
pressure to change its zoning. He stated the mitigation measures have not been
adequately addressed or appropriately analyzed regarding the potential that this project
could set precedence for future projects. He would like the opportunity to review the build-
out reports that would provide information about the project and the entire western hillside
in terms of an overall build-out scheme, not just the development demonstrated in the
Visual Impact Analysis, but a visual impact of the entire area to assist in the understanding
of the scope of expansion. He stated the mitigated measures do not adequately address
the above-referenced issue. He noted, however, the Mitigated Negative Declaration, is
similar to an EIR. He cited examples of projects whereby approved Mitigated Negative
Declarations failed to adequately address all the project issues. It is important to
understand that project alternatives are addressed in an EIR but not in Mitigated Negative
Declarations. He could not recommend approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration
without the appropriate mitigations for fire protection, the access issue, Growth Inducement
and Cumulative Impacts, and lack of project alternatives. He stated an EIR would
compliment the material already presented.
Councilmember Smith complimented staff and the applicants for their excellent project
presentation and stated he had some project concerns, but supported approval of the
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Councilmember Baldwin stated evaluation of project alternatives is important whereby a
backup plan is imperative. He noted project denial could potentially encompass a lawsuit.
He possessed project concerns and stated the Visual Impact Analysis was not creditable.
He recommended preparation of a focused EIR as the visual, noise, and fire safety
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page 26 of 3]
impacts, and hillside stability issues need to be further examined.
Mayor Ashiku stated no substantial evidence is present supporting a finding that there
was a dispute among experts relative to any significant impacts on the environment. He
supported approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Councilmember Baldwin asked City Attorney Rapport to comment on any potential
conflict of interest Mayor Ashiku may possess since he owns property in the western hills.
Discussion followed relevant to the location of Mayor Ashiku's home.
City Attorney Rapport commented he is not prepared to elaborate on the question
proposed, but stated based upon the distance from Mr. Ashiku's property to the subject
property, there is little likelihood that this project would have a financial impact on Mr.
Ashiku's property. He inquired as to what aspects of the project would be precedence
setting. He stated the project is allowed under the current zoning and the applicants are
subdividing the property in accordance with the provisions outlined in the Subdivision
Ordinance. However, an exception would have to be granted for the road because it does
not meet the 20-foot road width requirement. The project use is already permitted in
conjunction with the location. He inquired whether the reason for the project to be
potentially precedence setting was the result of the request for Subdivision Ordinance
exceptions.
Mr. Stump briefly elaborated on the conflict of interest issue. He noted there are several
exceptions to the Subdivision Ordinance that make this project unique and he identified
some of these exceptions. If the exceptions are granted, it may be that the next project
may not have exception requests.
Councilmember Larson referenced the precedence setting issue and stated the size of
the parcel being created allows for precedence setting.
City Attorney Rapport commented it was his understanding regarding the standards for
the Hillside Ordinance that the parcels are larger than they have to be to accommodate the
home proposed for construction.
Councilmember Larson noted the parcel size is smaller than the surrounding County
parcels.
City Attorney Rapport stated the project does not pertain to County zoning regulations.
There was a lengthy discussion relative to build-out and precedence setting issues in terms
of density acreage.
M/S Libby/Smith to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Hull/Piffero
Subdivision and Use Permit based upon the analysis, findings, and conclusions contained
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page 27 of 3]
in the Initial Study, and the project as mitigated will not degrade the quality of the local and
regional environment, the project would not result in short term impacts that would create a
disadvantage to the long term environmental goals, the project will not result in impacts
that are individually limited but cumulative considerable, and not result in environmental
impacts that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or
indirectly; carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Smith, Libby, and
Mayor Ashiku. NOES: Councilmembers Larson and Baldwin. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
Councilmember Baldwin emphasized the importance for project alternatives and noted
the project possesses conflicts that would later be exposed.
Attorney Rapport advised that the record should reflect three letters were submitted to
include two letters from the Thompson Consulting Engineers, dated October 15 and 16,
2001, and a letter from BACE Geotechnical, dated October 15, 2001.
Recessed: 11:47 p.m.
Reconvened: 11:50 p.m.
9. NEW BUSINESS
9c. Award of Bid to Masterson Communications, Inc. in the Amount of $78,561 for
the Installation of the Radio Communications Improvement Project, Al~proval
of Budget Amendment, and Report to Council Regarding Emer.qencv
Purchase of Services
M/S Smith/Libby awarding bid for the installation of the radio communications
improvement project to Masterson Communications, Inc. in the amount of $76,561,
approving amendment to the 2001/02 budget decreasing expenditures in account
698.2101.800.000 by $25,000, authorizing expenditures in account 698.2101.800.002
(Radio Communications Improvement Project-Fire) of $25,000, Increasing revenue in
account 698.0900.905.201 by $28,561, Authorizing a transfer from the General Fund
(account 100.283.698) to the Equipment Reserve Fund (account 698.281.100) of $16,561,
and Authorizing expenditures in account 698.2001.800.002 (Radio Communications
Improvement Project-Police) of $53,561, and Receive report regarding the emergency
purchase of services from Masterson Communications, Inc. in the amount of $5,723.43;
carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Larson, Smith, Libby,
Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None.
9. NEW BUSINESS
9d. Adoption of Resolutions Approving Applications for State of California
Department of Parks and Recreation Grants for Various Park Improvement
Projects
Councilmember Libby inquired as to the amount of money that the Skatepark Committee
needs to raise for construction of a Skatepark and how it could be guaranteed that the
Skatepark Committee would raise these funds.
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page 28 of 3!
Community Services Director DeKnoblough explained that it is unknown at this time
how much money the Skatepark Committee has raised for the project. He explained that
they don't have to raise $100,000 in cash only. It could be raised in contributions,
materials, and other ways to provide matching funds in value. They have indicated to him
that they have contributions and materials pledged for that value. One of the reasons why
staff is recommending the grant in this amount is to guarantee that the Committee has to
match the funds.
Councilmember Libby explained that she viewed skateboarders jumping off the sign and
on the benches in the Plaza at a recent skateboard event. Most of the participants at the
event were not wearing helmets. She expressed her concern that these types of actions
would carry over into a skatepark.
City Manager Horsley explained that the City requires waivers and that all participants
wear protective gear. The participants are told that they need to comply with these
regulations. If they are not, they will not be allowed to use City property. Staff will need to
supervise that event better.
Discussion followed concerning skateparks in other communities and difficulties associated
with safety compliance. It was noted by staff that parks can have signs posted and fenced,
but once the park is staffed, there is a potential for extreme liability because staff should be
supervising the operations. Staff will bring these issues to the Skatepark Committee at
their next meeting.
Councilmember Baldwin made a motion that the City take funds out of each of these
requests and use it for something else or an application for something else. He
recommended reducing the Skatepark project by $50,000, Anton Stadium project by
$150,000, Clay Street Property acquisition by $125,000, and the Ukiah Softball Complex
by $50,000, and raising the opportunity to apply for $375,000 for acquisition of land in the
Gibson Creek Canyon area. Motion failed for lack of second.
Mr. DeKnoblough clarified that there is a maximum of $500,000 per application and no
limit as to the number of applications the City can submit.
M/S Baldwin/Larson made a motion to also apply for $250,000 for acquisition of land in
Gibson Creek Canyon.
There was a brief discussion of the resolution format for submittal of applications.
Councilmember Smith preferred not to deal with Councilmember Baldwin's proposal at
this meeting and that Council be allowed more time to consider the matter.
Councilmember Libby requested additional information from Planning Director Stump
with regard to the amount of land the City owns on the western hills.
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page 29of31
Mr. DeKnoblough explained that November 1, 2001 is the deadline for these grants,
however, there are other grant opportunities that are available at various times throughout
the year.
Councilmember Baldwin withdrew his motion and was agreeable to revisiting the matter
at a later date.
Councilmember Larson inquired if Council is allowed to prioritize the projects.
Mr. Sangiacomo explained that they are each reviewed on their separate merits.
M/S Larson/Smith approving projects as proposed and Adopting Resolutions 2002-14
through 2002-19, authorizing applications to the RZH Urban Open Space and Recreation
Grant programs for six projects.
Councilmember Libby stated that she could not approve having a skatepark located in
back of the Sun House because it would create a large impact on the Sun House.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Larson, Smith,
Libby, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None.
12:05 p.m.: Adjourned to Closed Session.
12. CLOSED SESSION
a. C.C. §549567.6 - Conference with Labor Negotiator
Employee Negotiations: Fire Unit
Labor Negotiator: Candace Horsley
No action taken.
b. Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Liti.qation,
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Government Code
Section 54956.9 (1 case)
No action taken.
Reconvened: 1:03 a.m.
9. NEW BUSINESS
9e. Discussion of Cancellation of November 21,2001 City Council Meetinfl
M/S Smith/^shiku to cancel the November 21, 2001 City Council Meeting; carried by
unanimous consensus of Council.
10. COUNCIL REPORTS
None.
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page 30of31
11. CITY MANAGER/CITY CLERK/DIRECTOR REPORTS
None.
13. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the City Council meeting was adjourned at 1:05 a.m.
Marie Ulvila, City Clerk
Cathy/Elawadly, Trt[nscriptionist
Regular Meeting
October 17, 2001
Page 31of31